Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Reference desk problem and block

As some may remember, I have been working recently on the problem of the Wikipedia:Reference desk, which as for some time been misused by a few users as a place for general discussion rather than its intended purpose. My first approach was to discuss the use of the reference desk, and appropriate ways of regulating it; these discussions (with some users) were extensive, and resulted in me writing out a personal plan for removing highly inappropriate comments and discussion from the reference desk: User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals. Applying this procedure worked fine until last night, when I removed an entirely off-topic joke discussion. I informed DirkvdM (talk • contribs • count) that I had done this, and he took exception. I spent a long period of time explaning why my actions follow from the spirit of Wikipedia policy and the purpose of the reference desk (see User talk:DirkvdM#Reference desk removal), but he repeatedly reverted my edits even after I made it clear that (in my best judgement) his reversions were disruptive. I therefore warned him that he would be blocked if he continued to disrupt the ref desk. He subsequently restored the comments, so I blocked him for 12 hours to prevent further disruption.

Thus I have failed in my original plan to improve the reference desk through discussion; several other admins have tried before me, and run out of patience rather faster than I did. In my best judgement, drawing a line in the sand and saying "some comments can be, and will be, removed to keep the page on topic" was the only remaining approach. When DirkvdM became stubborn on this point, I couldn't see a better option than to block for disruption. However, I have blocked a generally good contributor for restoring that he believes was legitimate content, and my actions should be reviewed. I would appreciate any comments. Thanks, SCZenz 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (SCZenz (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves))

I think the idea of removing comments by another editor is generally a bad thing, but in the case of the reference desk I would support your actions as it is very easy to get sidetracked with irrelevant things. In order to keep the place in order and useful, the desk must be kept on the point. Each question and topic on the desk should stay within its boundaries else people will not think the desk is actually any use.

In this case, removing DirkvdM's irrelevant and off-topic comment was appropriate and his trying to force it back on, regardless of the purpose of the page was disruptive. It is a case of using your common sense to prevent the page losing focus. -Localzuk^(talk) 21:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I also concur with the removal and the block. SCZenz made an extraordinary effort to communicate with the user and explain exactly why it wasn't appropriate for the reference desk. As the first place many new Wikipedians go, it is important for it to maintain focus. Dirk claims that we are taking the fun out of Wikipedia, but there is no way irrelevent penis jokes on the reference desk make the encyclopedia better and he does not have an inalienble right to post them as his comments seem to indicate. Thank you SCZenz for tackling this tough area with patience and wisdom. pschemp | talk 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

LCs retorts

Surprise surprise! 8-( But Dirk saw it as relevant as he (and I) found ithe Q unclear.--Light current 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, how are the RDs supposed to make WP better? Anyone know?--Light current 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Things that should be removed would include death threats and racial slurs. Bad jokes, while they perhaps shouldn't be made in the first place, certainly do not rise to the level of something to be removed, and blocking a user over such an issue is absurd. StuRat 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree! 8-)--Light current 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCZ has written, and is operating by, his own guidelines on which he has failed to obtain consensus for acceptance. He is acting autocratically and is guilty of harrassment. SCZ makes up the rules as he goes along. Is that how WP works?--Light current 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He is using common sense and a interpretation of our existing policies in order to keep an important area of the encyclopedia on task and focussed. Also, the user was blocked for edit warring with an admin - ok, this block should have been done by a seperate admin and the issue discussed in more detail elsewhere first, but the block did what it was supposed to do - stopped the edit war.

Remember, wikipedia is not a discussion forum - jokes do not come within the purpose of the site. The reference desk is one of the first points of contact for many users of this site and as such should be kept focussed - if it is not, then the site may lose some credibility due to what is in essence silly banter.

I think this is an issue that needs further discussion, maybe on the talk page of SCZenz's proposed guideline page?-Localzuk^(talk) 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on! Thats not a proposed Guideline! Its not been presented as such. Its been presenteted as SCZs Law!. I proposed guidelines weeks ago! SCZ said my guidelines were uneccessary and common sense would do!. So why has he suddenly changed his mind?--Light current 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened is that I wrote out my common-sense conclusions for the benefit of people who wanted to know what I was doing and why. My page is nothing but an explanation of how existing Wikipedia policy (plus a bit of common sense) already covers appropriate use of the reference desk, and what to do about inappropriate use. -- SCZenz 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As I ve said so many times (but you were obviously not listening) Your common sense is NOT necessarily the same as other peoples. Get it yet? So you need to get consensus to ensure that a common sense of common sense is achielved!. Understand it yet?--Light current 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind WP:CIVIL, theres no reason to shout. semper fi — Moe 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bold text is emphasis. THIS is shouting 8-)--Light current 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Samir

Guys, it's okay to have fun on the reference desk, as it's okay (and recommended!) to have fun elsewhere on Wikipedia, but please keep the conversations close to the topic at hand. A lot of users turn to the reference desk for answers to legitimate questions; it undermines the role of the desk somewhat if they end up with an irrelevant commentary in an attempt to be funny. I wholeheartedly support the intent of SCZenz's actions -- Samir धर्म 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do feel bad that DirkvdM was blocked, though. He helped me immensely on the reference desk a couple of months ago, and I've noticed that he's given some exceptional RD answers to other questions -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad about it too. -- SCZenz 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the next time this comes up I might be tempted to file an arbitration request to settle this damn issue once and for all. Do you imagine a real reference library would staff its front desk with children (or child-minded adults) making potty jokes? Thatcher131 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I once encountered at a large and famous public library, a pair of reference desk librarians, middle aged ladies, who chortled to each other with off-color remarks about a serious info request. It was pretty disgusting and I have not been back. Edison 14:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a valid comparison. If Wikipedia was paying us, we might be willing to put up with a humorless and autocratic environment, but they are not. StuRat 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pay peanuts... Actually I think the RDs get a damn good deal from the RD editors. THe only payment we get is a few jokes (not many of them now)--Light current 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's the problem. What we see as a plea for simple decency you see as humorless and autocratic. Do you see a way to address this without handing it off to arbcom? Thatcher131 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the solution is to bring such issues up at the Ref Desk talk page, discuss them there, then come up with a consensus for a solution. This is the method which was working, with a few bumps here and there. But, since SCZenz didn't like how we were handling things, they chose to decide, without consensus, both what is appropriate and when an inappropriate comment rises to the level of requiring removal. I don't consider having any one person deciding such things to be appropriate, whether they are an Admin or not. StuRat 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. What do you mean by simple decency? Whose standards would you be using? Yours, mine or someone eleses?--Light current 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole consensus discussion is a red herring. I'm not in favour of removing content from the RD, but IMO it's come to this because people have been so stubborn about defending indefensible contributions. IT'S A WIKI. Every single page belongs to the WikiMedia Foundation, and we release every single character we type to the GFDL. This means articles, talk pages, userpages, and the RD. Users generally have dominion over our userpages out of courtesy, not because we own them. But anyone can edit them. The editing or removal of on-topic talk page contributions is frowned upon because it defeats the purpose of the article talk page, which is to achieve consensus on the content of the article. The RD is not a talk page. Our every contribution is not sacrosanct. We are working towards solutions to individual problems posed as questions by individual posters, and as such, off-topic contributions are subject to removal. They haven't been up to now, but now they are. It doesn't need a change in policy, and it doesn't need consensus. It's as simple as that. IT'S A WIKI. Anchoress 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Im very sorry to have to say this, and its not an attack, but I find Anchoresss comment totally neutral and unhelpful in every way! It does not advance the discussion 8-( Really sorry! No offence! 8-( --Light current 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is a talk page. Let's look at some of the differences and decide where the Ref Desk falls:

ARTICLE RULES
===================================================
Don't sign posts.
Make any changes you think improves the article.
Rigid format rules (ie, for "References" section).
Length is limited by deleting redundant info.

TALK PAGE
==================================================
Sign all posts.
Only add to the talk page, except for archiving 
 and removing abusive language.
Lax format rules.
Length is limited by archiving.

StuRat 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with arbitration for this; I think this can be handled at the admin level, which is what I've been trying to do. Unless other admins have concerns about my approach, I'm perfectly happy willing to continue removing inappropriate comments and (if necessary, and after due warning) blocking those who restore them. I don't think what I'm doing needs to be endorsed by ArbCom to be valid—but if other admins think having a statement from authority is preferable to my current approach, then I'll go along with that. -- SCZenz 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely support what you are doing, without arbcom endorsement. I might suggest an intermediate step of banning a problem user from the reference desk for a period of time, under threat of block, so they can edit elsewhere for a while. But if bans are the only way to get the point across that this is the community consensus (or at least admin consensus) then so be it. Thatcher131 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins deciding unilaterally to block people is not community consensus, and should only be used for severe abuse of the Ref Desk, not for telling a bad joke. StuRat 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The block was for the repeated and disruptive restoration of the irrelevant discussion, despite a clear warning. There was no consequence for making the joke except removal with a polite note—as indeed there should not be. -- SCZenz 05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a direct consequence of removing the comment, as no block would have occurred if you hadn't started the revert war then escalated to a block when you were unable to convince the user of your POV. StuRat 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCzenz 's actions were not unilateral as so far they have been supported by every admin who has commented on the page. Obviously then, there are people who agree with him and he isn't acting in a vacuum. I don't think arbcom is needed here either. Nor does it have to be an admin who removes inappropriate comments. "You're taking the fun out of Wikipedia" is an immature argument for leaving irrelevant penis jokes on some of our most public pages. pschemp | talk 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's unilateral in that it was decided before asking for the opinions of others. And, frankly, I bet Admins would support one another against the user community except for extremely blatant and obvious abuses. This isn't exactly surprising, as the question boils down to giving Admins more power and Users less power. As for anybody being able to remove a comment, that would allow the original user to restore the comment if they disagreed. However, when an admin removes your comment and you put it back, you get blocked, this is the issue. Your comment that SCZenz's actions are "supported by every admin who has commented on the page" also contains the hidden assumption that only the opinions of Admins matter, and all comments from the general user community (including regular Ref Desk contributors) can be ignored. StuRat 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his explanation page has been there a while and other people have looked at it and agreed with it. You didn't know that, but it was discussed before action was taken. Therefore the actions was not unilateral. pschemp | talk 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The proper place for the discussion was the Ref Desk talk page, where it was discussed, and I don't believe there was any consensus reached that SCZenz should start deleting any comments he didn't like. And, in any case, each individual deletion is still unilateral, unless that specific deletion has been agreed to based on a consensus. For example, we might well all agree that death threats should be removed, but an Admin removing a statement that "bin Laden may be killed soon" would still be unilateral, because we have not agreed that this was a violation of the "no death threats" policy. StuRat 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

All opinions are important, but I think we especially value those from people who contribute to the Ref Desk regularly. After all, you guys are the ones actually doing the work of answering the questions. But don't you think some of the less-than-relevant commentary could be toned down a bit, StuRat? It's one of the things that personally turns me off the reference desk also. I see a lot of medical questions that I could answer, but they often devolve into joke-cracking threads that I feel somewhat silly adding to. -- Samir धर्म 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that irrelevant silliness should be limited. However, this is not the same as saying we should start censoring the contributions of others, and most definitely not the same as saying we should start blocking regular contributors. This type of overreaction is more of a problem than the irrelevant silliness ever was. StuRat 08:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying is, if a user adds content to the reference desk that's bad for Wikipedia, I have no right to take any action? -- SCZenz 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not unless it's really horrendous, and it wasn't, in this case. Put it this way, which is better, to have that joke removed and Dirk banned, or to leave both alone ? StuRat 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering just this one incident, it would be better to leave the joke. However, your argument will apply every single time the reference desk is used inappropriately. In the big picture, it's better to draw a line somewhere and insist that the reference desk not be misused. Dirk's decision to disrupt the reference desk to make a point about me being a despot was his own... and the consequences were what I warned they would be. -- SCZenz 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"It takes two to tango". That is, it was your decision to remove the comment, and yours to block him for restoring the rather innocuous comment. These actions seemed to be more about your pride than improving Wikipedia. StuRat 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf61 comment

My I add a comment, as a non-admin but long standing Wikipedian and regular RD contributor ? SCZenz is acting on his honest belief that the RDs need to be regulated and cleaned up. He has put some thought into this and has written up the standards to which he thinks RD questions and answers should conform. He has started to enforce these standards by deleting responses, and sometimes whole threads. Unfortunately, he does not have time to patrol the RDs regularly, so his deletions have a sporadic and ad-hoc quality. His actions are also encouraging victimisation of certain RD contributors by others - see recent discussions on the RD talk page. If there is concensus that SCZenz is doing the right thing, then there should be no need for him to patrol the RDs on his own. Please help him set up a process to regulate the RDs properly by applying an agreed set of rules regularly, consistently and fairly. The current vigilante situation is very unsatisfactory. Gandalf61 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

Samir, note that if the deletion of inappropriate stuff becomes policy any medical questions would be removed, so any answer you gave would also be removed. Be carefull when judging something you haven't felt the full brunt of. For this reason who should decide ref desk policy should be determined by how active they are at the ref desk, not by whether they are an admin. DirkvdM 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the block is a minor issue (actually, I now notice the block has already ended). What's at stake here is the nature of the ref desk, and any discussions about that should take place at the talk page there. About SCZenz's behaviour, may an admin use his powers (in casu blocking me) in a discussion he is one of the original parties in? I thought that was not allowed. On my talk page I've split the issue in four subtopics: what should be allowed on the ref desk, whether that applies to me and LightCurrent, how should any misbehaviour (when that is defined) be dealt with and if SCZenz is allowed to decide that on his own (ignoring the fact that there is still a hefty discussion going on about this at the talk page).

Oh, and since that term was again used here, it was not a penis joke. It was an amusing misunderstanding followed by clarifying info. A joke is something you come up with and I didn't come up with it, it was something amusing that happened to me. But like I explained on my talk page, I wonder if SCZenz has a hidden agenda. He says he wants to remove off topic remarks. But he doesn't do that (consistently). In stead he seems to just remove stuff that doesnt' please him personally, in casu a subject that has to do with a reproductive organ. This is selective zero tolerance. Very dangerous. Rules should be applied systematically, not at someone's whim. And for that there should be rules in the first place. Let's first establish rules for the nature of the ref desk and how to deal with them. I'm rather tempted to start removing all off-topic remarks at the ref desk, to show how disruptive non-selective zero tolerance would be. But I won't be so childish (yet). :)

Btw, SCZenz, do you report all your deletions to all the people in the sub-thread? (And is that at all do-able?) If so, I'm surprised this is the first time you've deleted anything by me, considering I make loads of side-remarks and you claim to have been doing this for a long time already. (So you must have been doing it very selectively then.) DirkvdM 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and you don't always warn people that you removed their contributions. As would indeed be impossible, even with a bot. And that is rather a major issue here. DirkvdM 11:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding complaints that I'm selective... I'm one person doing my best. We're all volunteers here; articles with no references get improved when someone have time, hoax pages get deleted when people notice them, admins are promoted when bureaucrats get around to it. Doing the right thing is still the right thing, even if it can't be done consistently. I have been removing primarily the most egregious examples of off-topic remarks, not indeed in the hope of getting them all, but rather in the hope of illustrating by example what kinds of discussion is definitely outside the purpose of the reference desk. In the long term, I have no intention of being the official reference desk "censor." I'm trying to draw a line in the sand, in order to help bring things back under control. The reference desk is off course, and helping it come back is a matter of applying existing policies, not arguing about new ones. And the reason other people aren't joining me in doing this is, frankly, that I can handle it myself and they have other things to do.

Regarding my "hidden agenda"... Yes, the fact that it was a juvenile penis joke is an aggrivating factor in my view. Talk about all the sex organs you like if it answers a question, but if new users think they're going to randomly have crude jokes thrown at them when they ask something not related to sex, it will intimidate them and keep them from using the reference desk. That's not okay, and Wikipedia not being censored doesn't mean I have to pretend it is. We don't censor content... but we're not talking about content here, now are we? We're talking about a pointless joke.

Ok, that's it for me commenting in this section, unless something else goes wrong. A number of other administrators have reviewed my actions (more than have commented, almost certainly) and I have yet to receive any word from them that I'm taking the wrong approach... so for now, I'll keep at it. You can make pretty speeches here some more if you want, or ask for more general and organized feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment... but as that page says, it's not a step to take lightly. -- SCZenz 17:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Zoes input

As an admin who frequently posts on the Reference Desk, I think the deletions and the block were completely out of line. SCZenz does not own the RD, and it is not his/her responsbility to police it. The Reference Desk is, indeed, a fun place, where there are a lot of jokes, but it is also a serious place where lots of questions get answered. Dirk's comment was hardly over the line, and, in fact, was probably perfectly reasonable. I strongly oppose SCZenz's actions, and would suggest taking it to the RD's Talk pages before repeating them. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This surprises me. However, without administrative consensus, I will not continue as I have been. I've tried to clarify my actions and the reasons for them on your talk page. -- SCZenz 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#The tone of the Reference Desk. SCZenz and I have had a discussion on our Talk pages, and we are looking for further consensus. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, that you would be selective was a bit too specific, but the point I was making is that unless this is done consistently there is the risk of unfair selectiveness. To avoid this, it would have to be done by a larger group of people. And to avoid people getting too upset about it, it would have to be done by consensus and we're a long way from that. So far you haven't done too much deleting (you're nowhere near deleting all the of-topic remarks), and you've already got LightCurrent, StuRat and me, three of the most active people on the ref desk, on your neck. Step it up and the ref desk will become one big edit war zone. Don't step it up and you're being selective. The deletion at hand here was one that was much less off-topic than a whole lot of other stuff, so why did you delete this specific one? If you keep this up I will be tempted to start a revolt by applying your rules (your rules!) consistently.

You talk about getting the ref desk back on course, but we've both started working on it just over a year ago, and it was the same then as it is now, which is part of the reason I liked it so much.

And for the last time, it wasn't a juvenile penis joke. It wasn't a joke. And the other half was informative. But you have now confessed that that was the (extra) reason for deleting it. And that is what I mean by 'selective'.

As for the opinion of admins, like I said, it's the opinion of people active at the ref desk that counts, irrespective of whether they're admins. People need to know what they are talking about. DirkvdM 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The only people here who know about the ref desk are LightCurrent, StuRat, Anchoress, me, and to a lesser extent Gandalf 61, Zoe and you. And between the seven of us, there is not quite a consensus. Actually, most agree with me. DirkvdM 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying that people who don't edit the ref desk aren't fit to comment? You are bascially saying Samir and others don't know what they are talking about. If you are going to wield such accusations you may want to do so in the open. Personally I agree totally with SCZenz and just because you Stu and LightCurrent think irrelevent penis jokes are an appropriate thing does not make you correct. pschemp | talk 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't been paying attention. We all agree that certain Ref Desk content may be inappropriate. What we disagree with is that an individual Admin has the right to decide unilaterally which content that is, remove it, and block any user who happens to disagree. And yes, we do feel that people who actually contribute to a project should have more say on the rules for how that project is managed than those who never, or only rarely, contribute. This is because it's very easy to come up with strict rules for others, so long as those rules never apply to you. And, if you never contribute to the Ref Desk, then those rules don't apply to you. StuRat 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just like to say, in the spirit of standing up and being counted, that I don't have any problems with penis jokes (relevant or otherwise) on the RDs either. And also to point out the SCZenz's proposed criteria for deletion are far wider than just jokes - his criteria for deletion include "comments that are off-topic, opinion, or argumentative". Gandalf61 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

AAAAAARGH!! There was no penis joke! DirkvdM 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't turn into that sort of pissing contest. I regularly work the reference desk, and I happen to agree with the practice of trimming out the really off-topic potty humour. You're welcome to be funny (within reason) if you're also being helpful. Otherwise, do try to remember that the Ref Desk is one place where a lot of new people may get their first exposure to Wikipedia, and that filling it with in-jokes and off-colour, off-topic humour is not exactly putting our best foot (or best face) forward.

On a related note, I think it's a really bad idea to edit war just to ensure that a stupid joke stays on the page. How, and who, does that help? What's the point of making that effort, exactly? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If nobody does anything to stop this sort of unilateral action by individual Admins, then they will continue with this obnoxious behavior. StuRat 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How about if I say I agree with the action? It's no longer 'unilateral' – and how I hate to see that word dragged out every time someone makes a decision – now. Where does the edit warring over Dirk's foreskin (in answer to a fashion question, for goodness' sake!) fit in on your scale of 'obnoxious' behaviour? How does having that comment on the page make the Reference Desk more useful to anyone? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still unilateral in that he didn't ask anyone BEFORE deleting the comment and blocking the user. The most obnoxious part is the block, over what was a very minor issue, if even an issue at all. StuRat 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He did ask someone BEFORE he deleted it. You just didn't know about it. So no, it wasn't unilateral. pschemp | talk 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Really ? Who did he ask about the specific item before he deleted it ? Can you provide a link ? StuRat 06:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not every conversation about this has taken place on Wikipedia Stu. The is no link. 07:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Then there is no proof that any such conversation ever existed, is there ? Please sign your posts. StuRat 07:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I take strong exception to the suggestion that only those with substantial RD experience can comment on its purpose and direction. But to assuage that criticism, I'll weigh in. I have previously been a substantial contributor at the Science RD, not so much anymore. Besides all the in-jokes about bay-gulls and such, I have found myself turned off by the rather chauvinist tone, whose most extreme form was seen in the thread (previously discussed here) about how a man could force his girlfriend into a sex act she was not comfortable with. I would estimate that at least a third of the "medical" questions there concern male genitals. Let me be clear that I don't propose censoring the RD. I do propose that all RD contributors consider that people from a wide variety of backgrounds see it, and that they address topics with appropriate maturity. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's say this applied to you. We will say a new position is created, called Admin_Judge. They don't do anything but criticize the actions of Admins, delete and undo what Admins do, and threaten and/or block Admins. They make up their own rules for how Admins must behave, the Admins themselves no longer have any say. If they "discuss" things with Admins, it's only telling the Admins how it's going to be, they don't actually listen to anything an Admin says, no matter how thoroughly the actions of the Admin_Judges are shown to be bad for Wikipedia and a violation of policy. Is this something you would find pleasant ? Would you remain willing to work as an Admin ? StuRat 06:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thats a damn good idea Stu: an Admin behaviour review committee made up from non Admins only! Why not put it on the PumP?--Light current 06:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that I have been an editor for a long time, and an admin for a very short time. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you haven't yet been an Admin long enough to be corrupted by the power ? StuRat 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As for chauvinistic questions, we now have two feminists as Ref Desk regulars, one sexually liberal and one conservative, so that should provide balance there. I would suspect that most Ref Desk readers are young males, however, as surfing the web in general is mostly a young male thing. So, we would expect to get lots of questions relevant to young males, who would be uncomfortable asking them in an environment that wasn't anonymous. I think it's a good thing to be able to answer questions like "Is it unhealthy if a male doesn't ejaculate regularly". Note that this question might have been asked by a girl, who is being pressured by her b/f into sex using this argument. I have suggested a separate Sexuality Ref Desk, however, to shield the squeamish from such questions and answers. StuRat 06:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree this question is appropriate for the RD, which is why I stated "Let me be clear that I don't propose censoring the RD." Rather, I asked that this type of question be approached in a mature fashion. And very often, they are handled appropriately already. Unfortunately, there are also occasions in which this does not seem to be the case. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think it's possible to get 100% compliance with any rule, however. This doesn't mean that we should start deleting comments and blocking users for those few "violations", however, as some Admins want to do. StuRat 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem of which would be that one doesn't know what might get deleted unless it's done consistently according to a clear set of rules about which some sort of consensus has been reached. One central problem is that it is difficult to keep track of what is being deleted. The histories of the ref desks are way too long to dig through. If some people start to delete stuff it might seem to others that that is normal behaviour. Including others who don't know or understand the rules (if any). And that will (not 'may' but 'will') result in people deleting stuff they don't like. Coming up with a way to keep tabs on deletions is something that should be done first. We need that at the ref desk anyway, because people probably do it already, considering how much vandalism there is on Wikipedia. Encouraging them by giving the wrong example is a very bad idea. DirkvdM 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder how one could technically track deletions, though. Perhaps any edit where the result is, say more than 100 bytes shorter than the starting length ? That wouldn't be perfect, but better than no check, I suppose. A "D" could appear in front of such edits in the history, where the "N" for new or "m" for minor edit goes now. We could also allow editors to self identify deletions as they do for minor edits. I wouldn't expect them to do so consistently, though, so the size change check would also be needed. StuRat 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Justanother's input

I missed the bulk of this discussion but as a regular on the subject board I want to make my feelings known.

Most importantly: While I appreciate SCZenz' desire to improve wikipedia and his efforts to do so, I strongly oppose arbitrary censorship. I, personally, am more than willing to put up with a *possibly irrelevant* penis joke (though it actually did have some relevance) in order to protect my own right to make comments as I see fit (fit as being relevant to the discussion at hand although perhaps not popular with some wikipedians).

Other than that, I think that many, if not most, of the contributors are experienced wikipedians and are perfectly capable of policing the desk and dealing with disruptive influences. But it important to remember that one reason many of us like to hang out there is the jokes and banter. Only a part of the reason to be sure but part nonetheless. The intellectual stimulation and, often the tangents, have value to us. If they don't then we can ignore them.

Also, I think that article talk page rules are not analoguous and do not apply. The purpose of article talk pages is to develop an article that complies with wikipedia policy; it is important that they honor those policies. The purpose of the reference desk is to either answer a question or steer the questioner toward the answer. The postings there, especially on the misc. desk, will often consist of original research and may not cite their sources. That is entirely appropriate. The Reference Desks are their own beasts and perhaps need additional policy developed. If such policy needs developing it must be developed through the normal review process.

--Justanother 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen's proposal

I note that User:DirkvdM is down to ascribing a "hidden agenda" to SCZenz, and User:StuRat to assuring us that the views of admins are of no account, since admins "would support one another against the user community" anyway. (I don't think he can read ANI much.) Nevertheless I want to register my opinion that this is a matter suitable for handling at this board, and not the kind of thing Thatcher or SCZenz have any need to involve ArbCom in. And I support SCZenz's actions. It goes without saying that the "user community" involved must feel free to request arbitration if they see handling via ANI as inherently unjust. If everything has been said—and having just read the entire thread, I don't see how it could possibly have not been—is it perhaps time for somebody to put one of those snazzy colored frames and stop-talking headings on the thread? Bishonen | talk 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Geogre's view

On the strange wrestling over talk vs. article pages, the reference desk is a project page. Project pages are like AN, AN/I, AfD, RFA, etc., so that explains the mystery of how they can require signatures, allow some wobbling toward chat, and yet be subject to the rules of staying on topic. Ultimately, we're back to the problem of Internet discussion in general: it takes two people to go off topic. If no one answers, applauds, or condemns the silly jokes and chat, if no one tries to answer the troll questions, then it all stops. When, however, two or three people have the same interest in chat and/or play, then their habits can overwhelm the original purpose, and that's when it becomes appropriate for the other folks to show up and 1) urge, 2) cajole, 3) enforce topicality.

The RD pages have always been prone to "christians are stupid i think dont you" questions and "fags is going to hell" questions, as well as "I am taking a trivia test in a bar and I need to know who invented World War II." These questions invite smart aleck responses or adolescent banter. For the most part, the participants have an internal sense of when they're going off the beam, and therefore trolling questions tend to get no answers. However, because everyone is always new at Wikipedia, eventually those questions will find their own level, attract offended and amused and bored folks.

I agree with the rest of the site showing up to ask RD to stay on topic, but I think it's bad that we've gotten to the point where it becomes adversarial. Generally, RD has stopped chasing the bouncing balls without adversity when a gentle reminder comes in. Like chatter, belligerance takes two sides and bad timing. I think the intentions of David and SC are both pure. The way forward is for more folks to go to RD and keep an eye on when we start frolicking in the meadow and gently reminding each other that we need to stay on task. If it's fifty voices instead of a campaign, the chances of offense are lower. Geogre 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Another late comment

My view is that there is a need to keep the Reference Desk from going off-topic and discussing irrelevant stuff. There should be a set of agreed guidelines put up for review to attain consensus, and then the opprobrium of those that don't like this won't fall on one user. If this feels too much like instruction creep, make it a general set of guidelines covering any 'desk' or 'noticeboard' (eg, WP:AN, WP:HD, WP:RD). I also think that any admins and users regularly involved at the RD should talk to each other to get changes in the culture of 'jokes' and such like stuff. But those admin regulars at the RD should not get involved in blocking to 'control' the RD. Instead, they should post a notice elsewhere (WP:ANI?), asking an uninvolved admin to judge when a block may be required. Carcharoth 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for additional help

Just want to echo the comments of those who've asked for additional experienced editors to help out at the RD. There's a bit of an ongoing clash there, with people arguing that it's more important to not have censorship than it is to keep the reference desk useful. A couple blocks have been given for people making junvenile sex jokes there, and these blocks have drawn considerable criticism from some reference desk regulars. . Let's all remember that the reference desk needs to be extra friendly to new editors and the general public. More help is appreciated. Friday (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, why are you posting here? We are discussing things quite nicely on Talk:Reference Desk. Do you feel you are losing the argument?--Light current 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that some unfortunate things are happening there. Some good things are happening there too, and I want to swing the balance toward the good. Friday (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We're already discusing a consensus to ban sex jokes. As for there being a clash, we are managing to build a consensus for what is and what is not allowed, quite quickly. I would say half of the issues have now been decided. At this rate, we should be done in under a week. And everyone wants to keep the Ref Desk useful, that's not an issue at all. StuRat 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, that's the first time I've seen anything close to:

"it's more important to not have censorship than it is to keep the reference desk useful"

I must say it looks a bit like you're framing a debate topic out of a discussion. Everyone involved in the discussion wants to keep the RD useful. The question is HOW to make it MORE useful. Once again I must say I'm disappointed, this new twist is polarizing. -THB 10:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Please don't let the talk over there spill over to here. If Friday wants experienced users, WP:ANI is not the right place to ask. I suggest the Village Pump. Carcharoth 10:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand- I only posted it here because it's somewhat related to the existing thread. Friday (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Community block for Supreme Cmdr

Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs) has been blocked five times for revert-warring on Derek Smart. The last block was for ten days, ending 25 November; today Supreme Cmdr is revert-warring on Talk:Derek Smart again. In addition, he seems to be unable to remain civil and avoid personal attacks as any random sample of his contributions will prove. --Ideogram 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Supreme Cmdr is Derek Smart's screenname/forum name, and that this is likely him (if the contributions are pro-derek). Derek smart is also well known, perhaps even notorious in the press, for his incivility and personal attacks against people on his forums; wikipedia shouldn't be a stretch. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I must support a community block for him. I blocked him about a month back for similar behavior and it seems he has no intention of changing. Cowman109^Talk 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A thought, what about a month or longer ban from Derek Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) related articles? (→Netscott) 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be the only page the user edits, so a community ban from only the page would have the same effect. Cowman109^Talk 21:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you were to do that, you'd have to ban him as well from articles about the games he created (Battlecruiser series, et al), because he'd likely take his aggression out there. That's assuming he even obeyed the ban: Smart isn't known for doing that. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A good idea. I support banning him from all Derek Smart related articles. --InShaneee 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think such a ban would be a good faith gesture rather than an outright Wiki wide ban. I suspect that such an article based banning may not matter in the long run though. (→Netscott) 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Little note, Derek Smart sues anyone and everyone who disagrees with him in any way. So if he gets blocked, and it really is him, he'll probably throw around some legal threats somewhere. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't seem to be any objection to the article ban. Would anyone like to inform him? I'm already quite involved in the situation so it would be best if I didn't myself, of course. Cowman109^Talk 05:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --InShaneee 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, you should list specifically the articles from which he's banned. By my accounting, that's Derek Smart, Battlecruiser 3000AD, Universal Combat as well as any redirects (e.g. 3000AD, Universal Combat Special Edition). Also, whether it apply to the associated talk pages. This just to avoid the inevitable "Well, you weren't specific"... - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this straight. I get banned based on a consensus by the very same people who got me banned those past times? Not to mention that this was done in a secretive manner and none of the prominent editors of the Derek Smart were even aware of it, let alone get a chance to offer their opinions? Yet another example of what is so very - very - wrong with Wiki. You folks on a power trip think that Wiki is where you can get to display your power over someone. And to those of you who stupidly keep saying that I'm Derek Smart, you should be so lucky to think that he even gives a damn about what a bunch of nobodys are writing on a Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well thats Wiki for you. Its the virtual version of a Kangaroo court where if enough dissenters get together and gang up on someone, they can inevitably reach a consensus. I for one do NOT support this ban as it is highly dubious and unwarranted. WarHawkSP 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Supreme_Cmdr has just done a revert over on the Derek Smart article. Ehheh 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You can do whatever you like, there is no consensus for the ban and I will simply not honor it. Here, let me quote from WP:BAN for those of you who think you can just get together and ban someone.

Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The choice was either a site-wide block or an article ban. The article ban was chosen as the less-restrictive of the two. If you reject it, your forcing the choice or option A.

This is actually how it's done. ANI is hardly a secret board, it's the usual place for reporting disruptive editors. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr has been blocked for another 2 weeks for blatantly violating this article ban. I'm beginning to lose my patience with him, as it is clear he will not acknowledge that he is not to edit the articles relating to Derek Smart any further. Perhaps an indefinite block should be considered once more? Cowman109^Talk 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I respectively note, this 'consensus' was not established by a Request for Comment and in fact is very different from the legitimate consensus established by his last RfC. Addhoc 11:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

True, perhaps more time should be spent on this discussion, but I think it's clear there is already enough evidence that Supreme Cmdr won't stop this year-long edit warring, so even an indefinite block would be appropriate at this time. More people are welcome to comment, but so far the only exception to those agreeing is a user who is currently being looked at for being a potential meatpuppet of Supreme Cmdr. Cowman109^Talk 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This behavior fits 100% with the well documented behavior of Derek Smart on his own forums, and on the newsgroups. Do a google search for Derek Smart Flame War, it's all over. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's a little fishy how at the same time, user WarHawkSP pops up, with edits only to Derek Smart, the user page acknowledges it's a sockpuppet, and it takes the side of Supreme_Cmdr.....⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking from a third party view, If he is the creator of said media, why block him? Couldn't he provide you with the most accurate information seeing as he's the one who made it and all?GrandMasterGalvatron 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He could, but he would also have to provide sources as we need verifiable information. Either way, his editing habits are unproductive and disruptive. Cowman109^Talk 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WarHawkSP (talk · contribs)

I add this subsection now because WarHawkSP (talk · contribs) is exhibiting the same behavior as SupremeCmdr, however checkuser shows no link between the two users. Per the previous ArbCom ruling at Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Sockpuppets (and_related_principles)For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. I would like third parties to examine the behavior of WarHawkSP, as in my opinion his behavior is exactly the same that got SupremeCmdr blocked. Note his block log is shorter as he lost his previous account, Warhawk, who was already blocked for being a suspected sockpuppet. So, I'd like to hear what other people think about the possibility of an article ban on User:WarHawkSP as they appear to be a single purpose account whose edits only pertain to Derek Smart. Cowman109^Talk 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks, harassment, baiting and pestering by user:Oden

User Oden (talk · contribs) has been recently involved exclusive in a controversial activity of challenging selected by him users attacking their images. I put aside for now the issue of the interpretation of the WP:FU policy as good people obviously disagree in good faith on the policy interpretation as well as the policy itself. However, even if one chooses to take upon himself such a sensitive task as implementing a policy for the good of Wikipedia, such task can only be taken with utmost sensitivity to other editors. With a couple of other editors joining what many perceived as a disruptive crusade in whose process the worst attitudes were displayed, several editors opened a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali against one of such crusaders. Notably, the RfC is not about the policy or implementing an unpopular policy but about the unacceptable attitude and abusive Harassment.

Shortly after, user:Oden posted to the RfC this disgusting attack directed at all the involved editors bringing all sorts of unrelated issues that had no relation to what the RfC was about thus substituting tackling the issue with attacking the opponents. And hour or so ago Admin:Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who was not involved in the dispute in any way gave Oden a (rather soft IMO) warning reminding of WP:NPA and WP:Harassment policies. Reaction of user:Oden was this barrage of irregular stuff.

When I commented on his response as being lacking the substance, Oden responded by a series of entries [1][2][3] where he baits Khoikhoi and brings up another barrage of irrelevant stuff (see also WP:DFTT#Pestering).

Third party input is requested. --Irpen 07:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

In a RfC the topic of discussion is the editor who is subject to the RfC, but it is also relevant and sometimes even necessary to discuss the past contributions of the other editors contributing to the RfC.

• WP:NPA states: "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."

• WP:STALK states: "This does not include [..] reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."

• Finally, WP:RFC states: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".

However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Wikipedia are provided in order to discuss improvements in an article (which might be why User:Khoikhoi reacted so strongly as to actually issue a warning).

Final note: User:Irpen's comment on my talk page (at 6:29 UTC) came after I left my first response and second response on User:Khoikhoi's talk page (4:29 UTC and 6:04 UTC). I must be very talented indeed to be able to see into the future!

User:Khoikhoi has as of yet not responded. I will leave a message on his talk page urging him to comment here. --Oden 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This "response" illustrates the user well on top of the original diffs above. Please check his "comments" at the RfC linked above and match them with his response (along with this protracted baiting of Khoikhoi who rightfully warned the user). It is easy to tell between trolling and proper discussions. --Irpen 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi (who is an admin/sysop) has as of yet not responded. From my first response at 4:29 UTC until now he has made almost 40 edits, so apparently he's online. I have stated on his talk page that his failure to respond stands in sharp contrast to the serious tone in his warning where he threatened me with "blocks with the length being increased each time" (diff). His first signal was that he was to busy to respond (diff), his second that he was too lazy (diff). --Oden 13:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Oden has asked me to provide a comment here. When I saw Oden mention my name in his list of monsters and vandalizers I was quite insulted. I agree with User:Irpen and User:khoikhoi that User:Oden's comments were highly inappropiate. Dionyseus 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I really can't see that Odin has done anything out of line here. He mentioned that we'd all been blocked before, and that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Not a particularly helpful comment, but not a "disgusting attack" either. Note that I was one of the editors mentioned by Odin in his so-called "disgusting attack", and I just can't find any way to be offended. This is really a tempest in a teacup. I guess Odin should doublecheck his comments in such a delicate situation to make sure he won't offend the thin-skinned. But really, Irpen's comments above seem at least as provocative as Odin's. I think all involved should take a deep breath, assume good faith, and get over it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asked to comment, but I shall. Oden has been contributing to the RfC noted above by Irpen, however his contributions haven't been especially helpful. While most editors involved in the discussion have been obviously frustrated with each other and the debate has been quite heated at times, Oden's comments haven't really been about the RfC at hand so much as about policy. For example, he posted a lengthy screed on the RfC talk page about how the RfC has turned into a policy debate, however pretty much the only comments he's made that aren't an attempt to "call out" Irpen have been repeated posts about policy. I don't know if it's intentional or not but he isn't really doing much except to stoke the flames. TheQuandry 03:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I find his comments on RfC to be offensive and incivil, bordering on trolling (comparing block logs, yeah that gives a true measure... <_<). It violated quite a few basic policies and should imho be dealt with accordingly. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:Grafikm_fr's comment:

• WP:NPA (policy) states: "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."

• WP:STALK (guideline) states: "This does not include [..] reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."

• Finally, WP:RFC states: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".

--Oden 07:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there seems to be some misconception (User:Grafikm_fr, User:Irpen and User:Sebbeng) that an RfC can only bring scrutiny on the editor subject to the RfC. However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Wikipedia are provided in order to discuss improvements the articles.

On a more general note: the entire process of a Request for Comment regarding a user could be regarded as a violation of WP:NPA, WP:STALK, and also quite provocative. The fact that all editors can be subject to scrutiny only serves to ensure fairness in the process.

--Oden 07:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This so called "response" in which Oden merely pastes verbatim his earlier post is a perfect example of this user's trollish behavior, noted in the initial observation. Sadly, the user attitudes that prompted this complaint does not change. --Irpen 05:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Oden thinks this is acceptable. Wikipedia policy or not, it's painfully clear that some of his comments are down right rude and unnecessary. Nitpicking at the wording of guidelines and policy doesn't change that. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line: all editors participating in a RfC are subject to the same level of scrutiny (c.f. a level playing field). --Oden 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Diffs illustrate that Oden is unable to concentrate on content and constantly comes up with unnecessary, inflammatory ad hominems, which may be classified as harrassment of his opponents. This is no good. If his behavioural problems are well entrenched, they should be dicussed not here, but on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Oden. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The content of a RfC is all of the editors involved. If I interpret User:Ghirlandajo correctly it is OK to bring into question the contributions of a editor subject to a RfC, but not to discuss the other editors who are participating? --Oden 11:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you've got it right. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Update. Within two hours after I posted the above comment, Oden started mechanically tagging all the fairuse images uploaded by me within last two years with Template:RFU. I regard this as harrassing by way of revenge for my comment above. I see that he specifically targets those images that were uploaded by his opponents. While we should continue to eliminate unfree images, the selective and ad hominem approach practiced by Oden is totally unacceptable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note:

• I also tagged one image which was licensed as PD, but which apparently was a copyrighted image, and which User:Ghirlandajo amended (diff 1 diff 2).
• I also removed a fair use image from User:Ghirlandajo's user namespace (diff). Criterion 9 of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states that "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." --Oden 15:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oden, I endorse these edits. Please don't make it personal, though. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since User:Ghirlandajo is aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding the use of images, I will leave it up to the user to review his upload log. Note: another editor (User:Bogdangiusca) has also tagged several images with {{rfu}}. This editors actions are outside of the scope of this discussion. --Oden 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-consensus page moves

Administrator intervention is requested to stop a few users who are engaging in non-consensus page moves of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of television episode articles. There has been a dispute at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) for a few weeks now. The page is marked as disputed[4], attempts at discussion have been ongoing [5][6][7][8], and the issue is now moving on to mediation. However, a few users, evidently frustrated with the slowness of the process, are declaring premature "consensus" and engaging in large quantities of page moves [9][10][11][12][13][14] [15]. I understand that anything that is moved can eventually be moved back, but we're talking a couple thousand pages here, plus redirects, plus many of these pages are at names which have already been the result of elaborate consensus-building discussions by various WikiProjects, so I think it would be better if we had a complete freeze on these kinds of naming changes for now. The situation has been exacerbated by extreme uncivility and uncooperative behavior: "respond to this crap" [16][17], "bad faith delay tactics" [18] "proposing a poll is uncivil and disruptive" [19][20]. Can I please get a neutral admin to pop in to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) and simply say, "Stop with the moves, take it to WP:DR, don't move anything else until it's been worked out"? --Elonka 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Several admins have commented on the situation, but each time Elonka has deemed them "non neutral" because they disagreed with her. -- Ned Scott 09:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the poll were re-run and found in Elonka's favor, it would still require exceptions to be established at various places - either a Wikiproject or at an individual page. In fact, it would just require WP:RM to be run for pages which don't meet the current guideline - which is already advisable. The page moves would still be appropriate for ones that have not established exceptions - which is most all of them. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As a note, both Ned Scott and Wknight94 are active parties in this dispute, so don't really count as neutral opinions.

For a recent example of how this group of editors is steamrollering through various sections of Wikipedia, I point to Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987) episodes#Disambiguation, where an earlier naming convention has been attacked, with multiple controversial page moves being pushed through without discussion. The "normal" TMNT editors had earlier this year already gone through several iterations of article naming, finally deciding on a consistent system in February 2006[21]. Then, a couple days ago, as overflow from the dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), an editor from the dispute, in a violation of WP:POINT, jumped in to the TMNT category and started moving articles around, giving only about 24 hours notice that they were going to start [22], and then when no objections immediately surfaced, they proceeded. When the situation was noticed and objections were raised, the talk page has turned into a battleground, as other editors from the NC discussion have poured in. And the pages can't be moved back, because they're editing the redirects to "lock" them[23]. Please, this group of editors is working its way through multiple sections of Wikipedia, making a kangaroo court consensus, and moving many hundreds of articles. We need for these moves to stop, so that normal WP:DR procedures can be followed. --Elonka 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And again we have all tried to explain to Elonka that there is no problem. There was no previous consensus, just some guy went and named a bunch of articles that were a little out of line with WP:NC-TV. No big deal. We moved them, there are redirects all in place, no double redirects, and no rational reason whatsoever to use an article titling method that doesn't fit with WP:NC-TV and WP:D. In all honestly, the only issue here is the users who are making it an issue. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's sentence, The "normal" TMNT editors had earlier this year already gone through several iterations of article naming, finally deciding on a consistent system in February 2006 boils down to one editor who misplaced one note stating his sole preference. No evidence of either "TMNT editors" or "several iterations" has been given by Elonka. Just one guy with one iteration all by himself 9 months ago. This is the type of misrepresentation we've been dealing with for a month at WP:NC-TV. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, us normal TMNT editors did agree upon a naming convention that would dilineate the different series so that you could tell which series you were dealing with immediately. I for one agree with Elonka and I do not like the change to the TMNT pages, especially since we went through a process to get where we were until recently.

Inner City Blues 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka is asking for someone to say "take it to WP:DR" — however, dispute resolution is underway. An RfM has been filed, but is currently stalled after the RfM page itself was locked because of an edit war largely perpetrated by Elonka. (Incidentally, I believe that the RfM dispute is settled, and if a neutral party would like to unprotect the RfM page it would be greatly appreciated — the admins hoping to participate in the mediation have been asked not to unlock the page ourselves.)

What Elonka calls a "kangaroo court consensus" is the result of extensive discussion at WT:TV-NC. Elonka feels that due to some irregularities in an earlier straw poll, no consensus has been reached on the guideline; she is calling for a second poll. However, subsequent to that poll a supermajority of participating editors expressed support for the existing guideline, and the discussion following the poll showed a strong supermajority supporting the principle "disambiguate only when necessary". Most editors on the page consider this a consensus, but Elonka vocally disputes this.

Incidentally, at least five admins have examined and/or participated in the discussion at WT:TV-NC, and all five have agreed that a consensus exists for the current guideline. For the record these five admins are myself, Chuq[24], Steve Block[25], Radiant![26] and wknight94[27](along with many other comments on the subject). Any other participation in the discussion is, of course, welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is all users need to calm down, take two steps back and take a deep breath, all this moving helps nothing; Especially if mediation is to be successful, I advise that it stops until consensus can be achieved. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually "all this moving" is just the result of following a policy, making the naming of wikipedia pages more consistent and in line with WP:D, WP:NAME and WP:TV-NAME. On the other hand, I don't know what insisting that consensus doesn't exist when it clearly does, insisting that an active guideline should not be followed, and trying to change a guideline without consensus via revert warring helps. It's just disruptive. And it should be noted, the guideline is no longer marked as "disputed" (it never should have been in the first place as there wasn't consensus for that addition) and it looks like this issue is not going to mediation. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This thread is now being continued in the below section Requesting block for non-consensus page moves, where I would point out that ^demon (talk · contribs) has posted for MedCom, confirming that these moves do not have consensus, and that engaging in further moves is endangering a mediation.[28] --Elonka 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Elonka have finally found something we can agree on. I also think that both the current RM's should be speedily closed...and all pages moved per the clear consensus on each. As WP:RM says, "Page moves usually take place after five days, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged. Generally speaking, page move requests which have already reached consensus are processed quicker than those which have not." --Milo H Minderbinder 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am the editor who did the initial page moves at TMNT 1987, which seems to have set off this thread. I went on an unplanned wikibreak after those moves and have just returned to find all this; I apologize for the delay in response.

I made the moves at TMNT 1987 in the following context:

• The use of unnecessary disambiguation was pointed out by tiZom three months previously, and he made a suggestion at that point that they be moved;
• No one voiced any opinions in those three months, indicating to me that there were no strong feelings one way or the other;
• A study of the talk page history revealed no reasons had been stated for the pages to be named using a non-standard naming convention;
• A further study of the issue revealed no apparent consensus either for or against using a non-standard naming convention for this series; indeed, no consensus-building discussion had ever been started on the issue, let alone completed.

Taking all this into consideration, and feeling like much of my wikienergy lately had been devoted only to talk pages, I took the opportunity to be bold and help improve Wikipedia in this small way.

I was not acting as a "representative from TV:NC," but as a Wikipedia editor. Had another editor, perhaps tiZom, made those page moves, would the present escalation have occurred? If my participation in the discussions at TV:NC precludes me from freely editing and attempting to improve Wikipedia, then how may I officially remove myself from that discussion?

I would like to point out that if any editors feel that the TMNT 1987 episodes should have their own specialized naming convention, why not present the argument at the TMNT 1987 page? If a consensus-building discussion resolves that a non-standard naming convention should be followed, I will be more than happy to go through and replace the suffixes myself. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ban evasion and vandalism by Eowbotm

Note: This incident was automatically archived without resolution. I am reposting exactly as it appears in the archives. It's a pretty straightforward case and I would appreciate any feedback/remedies you guys can offer.

I thought about taking this to WP:SSP, but decided to try posting here first. Blocked user Eowbotm (talk · contribs) appears to be evading his block with the use of accounts Eowbotm1 (talk · contribs), Eowbotm2 (talk · contribs), Eowbotm3 (talk · contribs), and Eowbotm4 (talk · contribs). All of these accounts have committed vandalism:

Vandalism, POV, and other reverted shenanigans (a lot of which is very subtle)

• Eowbotm1 [29][30][31]
• Eowbotm2 [32][33]
• Eowbotm3 [34][35]
• Eowbotm4 [36](I just now re-added this, is properly cited and should not have been removed) [37][38][39][40]

Evidence incidcating that they're the same accounts (besides the names)

• And an edit indicating that Eowbotm3 is Eowbotm2. [41]
• And edits by Eowbotm3 and Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm, suggesting a link. [42] [43]
• An edit by Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm4, in case more evidence is needed. [44]

I've also found that this user cleared vandalism warnings off his talk pages for Eowbotm1 and Eowbotm4. And just did so again with Eowbotm1 (a day later).

Can we get these sockpuppets of a blocked user who has consistently vandalized on his socks blocked as well? And perhaps an IP ban or something to keep him from doing this again? Thanks in advance. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded by me, as one of his victims Mgoodyear 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:SSP? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't socks of indefinitely banned users just be banned by an admin though? WP:SSP takes 10 days. =/ —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can at least say that WP:SSP isn't necessary for vandalism-only accounts, and if those aren't sockpuppets, they're impersonators, which also violates Wikipedia policy(not sure which, however).--Vercalos 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked all. People may want to review Eowbotm1 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), the other three are unequivocal vandalism-only socks. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you very much JzG. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-Block Socks

You've won the battle, but you havent won the war...get down on your knees and take what's coming to you...eowbotmwashere 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And another sock of Eowbotm's gets banned. ^^ —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

58.170.255.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is highly likely to be Eowbotm (talk · contribs). Edits to the Feminism article are consistent with Eowbotm's editing style ("get back in the kitchen" comments). Compare an edit made by his blocked sock Fortunefaded (talk · contribs) [45] with the IP 8.170.255.90 [46]. Would it be possible to get this IP blocked for a more lengthy period of time? —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Lantoka, that ip is more likely to be just another vandal than eowbotm. You can read the main commment on the page for the ip.69.19.14.39 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The above IP was blocked by Malo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) because it was used to edit on Notapuppetofeowbotm21 (talk · contribs), a sock of Eowbotm. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Man, this guy looks intense...I just tagged maybe 7 more obvious sock puppets(user:notapuppetofeowbotm2, i.e.) What can we do about it?RetrialByFire 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Eowbotm for a complete list. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Light current

Light current (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) :There's been some disagreement over at the reference desk- see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Disrupting_the_reference_desk_to_make_a_point. My personal opinion here is that Light current is either completely clueless or is intentionally trolling, and I've given him a stern finger-wag. However, my supply of AGF is probably running out with this guy so I wonder if anyone else has opinions. Friday (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a situation before at one of the content policies that appeared to involve trolling from Light current. The warning was a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Good luck. See his block log. A warning was proper though. Considering the numerous ones he's had in the past, I wouldn't mess about if he continues however. pschemp | talk 04:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current doesn't really strike me as bad, but he sometimes acts in a juvenile manner. Dragons flight 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. He either does not have, or does not use, good judgement about what to say. At a certain point, however, even if we assume the best of intentions, something has to be done. -- SCZenz 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know I have responded to all current criticisms and taken corrective action (including deletions). If there are any other outstanding issues, please let me know. 8-)--Light current 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current, be aware that it is common for people to be banned from places they disrupt. I hope you have decided to stop the nonsense. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to all the issues raised. If you raise a specific issue that has not already been dealt with I will respond.--Light current 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, you asked for opinions, so here is mine. I don't see how Light current is being disruptive. You unilaterally deleted a non-offensive question about HRT from the Science RD; Light current re-instated the question; and then Light current and StuRat discussed the issue with you on StuRat's talk page. For you to say that Light current is "completely clueless or is intentionally trolling" is unjustified, and very close to a personal attack. Gandalf61 17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Friday is biased in this matter, and should recuse himself from any actions, as he indicated he would do: "But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it" [47]. That was a good idea, it's too bad he didn't do as he said, and leave this matter to other, calmer heads. StuRat 02:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you check his contributions? Particular gems include making a masturbation joke in response to a RD question. He's been quite unresponsive to complaints on his talk page. Well, unresponsive is not the right word- he responds, as a chattering child might respond. But thus far he's failed to modify his behavior. Friday (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with Light current's contributions. Do you have a link for the masturbation joke ? If you are thinking of the "popping your collar" remark, I found that quite funny in context, but I don't believe it was one of Light current's answers. Gandalf61 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

How do you know it was related to masturbation? THat interpretation is purely in your mind!--Light current 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head. Here's another recent off-topic sexual remark that someone complained about here. See also the numerous complaints on his talk page about his RD activities. He seems to honestly believe in his right to use the RD as a chat board. I'm not opposed to a certain amount of that, but here's a user who's been getting and ignoring complaints for some time. He's exhausted my patience, but I don't know if he's exhausted the entire community's patience yet. Note that mostly his remarks aren't that bad in isolation- you have to look at the overall pattern of disruptive behavior to see the problem here. He seems to enjoy being a pest- if there are little or no useful contributions to offset this, the answer looks obvious to me. But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it. Friday (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He has not been "ignoring complaints", he has discused them, and, where appropriate (and given the opportunity to do so), he has reverted his edits. StuRat 03:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So you can't remember what you meant by the "masturbation joke". Is it possible you are conflating the activities of several RD users, and attributing them all to Light current ? As for the "photography" example, Light current's remark was challenged on the RD talk page, and Light current says he would have amended it, but we will never know if he would have, because you didn't give him a chance - you deleted his response 7 minutes after it was raised on the talk page. That does begin to look like stalking behaviour to me. You say that Light current irritates you - my opinion is that this irritation has led to you no longer being objective about his behaviour. Gandalf61 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember it fine, and the diff is here. Why are you objecting to me quickly deleting irrelevant (and possibly, slightly offensive) content? Doing it slower doesn't mean it gets done better. Yes, I've been reviewing his contributions- so have others. This is so we can remove the more juvenile and off-topic remarks he makes, since he's demonstrated no judgment of his own. I guess one man's "stalking" is another's "damage control". However I intent to continue to remove rude, irrelevant, and/or unhelpful comments from pages as I see fit. This is neither a playground, a chat board, nor a forum for free speech. Friday (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have posted to Light current's talk page before, mostly over the same sort of problems. See archived threads here and here for examples. One comment in particular was very illuminating: "When you have as many edits as I have, esp on Rd, then you can tell me what to do. Until then, I advise you to keep your counsel. 8-)" (28 October 2006) [48] - despite the smiley, this either displays the wrong attitude, or a worrying lack of judgement over the right time and place to make jokes. This lack of judgment is evident at the Reference Desk as well. There also seems to be a pattern of behaviour along the lines of pushing the boundaries and defying authority up to a certain point, and then claiming innocence, and saying that he has "responded to all queries". Overall, the attitude and behaviour is often (but not always) juvenile and immature. Ultimately, I would say stern warnings (when needed) from uninvolved parties may be the only way to get the message through, along with some mentoring. Of course, the behaviour may improve over time as the user gains experience in life and Wikipedia. And it would be unfair to single out Light current. There are others that exhibit the same sort of behaviour. Possibly showing these sort of users other areas of Wikipedia they could contribute to would work well, as then they really will encounter people who will tell them exactly what they think of silly behaviour. Carcharoth 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree that there are other problem editors with the same sort of behavior. LC seems to be buddies with some of them. But, we have to start somewhere. Agree that warnings are reasonable but they have thus far been ineffective. Whether the "innocent child" routine is genuine or not I don't particularly care- the disruption is the same either way. He also made some reference to his edit count to me, as though he believes this justifies his behavior. Anyway, he's characterized my telling him his behavior needs to change as "stalking", which I guess translates into "leave me alone and let me do what I want." A block might help him understand that his behavior really is a problem, but it's hard to point to a single edit that clearly warrants such action. Friday (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What about an WP:RFC for user conduct? If enough people agree with what they think the problem is, the message might get through. Carcharoth 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth: User_talk:Light_current#RFC. He says he understands that many people think his editing is frequently inappropriate. Time will tell I suppose. Friday (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reason with him about a month ago (archived at User talk:Light current/archive7#comment at RD/science with a related thread starting at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 13#Joking on RD with no apparent improvement on his part. This is where the "When you have as many edits as I have, esp on Rd, then you can tell me what to do. Until then, I advise you to keep your counsel." quote came from. When it became clear to him that I'm an admin he backed off (somewhat), but has been pushing the edge ever since. I fear RFC may be the only recourse. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for 1 week. See my explanation at User_talk:Light_current#Enough. As always, I invite others to review and adjust as they see fit. Friday (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears harsh at first glance, but I understand the logic. When a user clearly alludes to masturbation and then tries to convince people that it's all in their own heads, that's trolling. LC often seems bent on arguing that nobody can prove what he's talking about, and that the judgement and common sense of others may be faulty, so there's nothing anybody can do; I've talked to him before about the fallacies of this approach, but I guess the lesson didn't sink in. Unfortunately, I'm not sure a long block will make him behave better—but I also have no idea what else to do. -- SCZenz 02:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not convinced it will help either, but it will make the trolling go away temporarily. Or, at any rate it'll confine it to his own page where he can talk to himself all day long as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for the feedback, glad I wasn't completely unreasonable here. Friday (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but a week seems a little harsh to me. Light current has shown that he can talk the talk (ie. he says he understands what is wrong and will try better in the future), but I would say judge his actions during a probationary period. Unblock or reduce the block length, and make clear that disruptive behaviour during the probationary period of a week will result in the block being reimposed. ie. Make clearer to him what sort of behaviour he needs to avoid, and then watch for a week to see that he does avoid that sort of behaviour. Again, mentoring is really what is needed ere, with someone to politely tap the shoulder and say "ahem, do you really think that is suitable?" Carcharoth 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, both nonsexual jokes and the serious discussion of sexual topics, such as masturbation, are allowed on the Ref Desk, but there do appear to be significant objections to sexual jokes. That's fine, but the editor should then be asked to remove the post and given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Instead, Friday removed it himself, depriving User:light current of the opportunity to do so, then used this post later as a justification for blocking this editor for a week. Note that User:light current did not restore the comment, and shows every sign of being reasonable in this matter. Furthermore, Friday's actions regarding the Ref Desk have been needlessly rude, as he himself admits: [49] and disruptive recently, including his suggestion that the Ref Desk be deleted entirely. StuRat 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good point, it's not nearly as serious as if you had asked him and he had refused- friday did it himself and then blamed him. LC posted it in the first place of course but he should have a chance.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Froth (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

As an addendum to all this, I am serious that users who use Wikipedia as a chat room or discussion place, should be encouraged to take that behaviour to genuine discussion forums. Lord knows there are enough IRC chatrooms and bulletin boards out there, and Usenet as well. Carcharoth 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support block. I like User:Light current and I think he enjoys editing here. But he has to realize that his reference desk behaviour is crossing that murky line from making funny comments to being disruptive. If he shows a willingness to tone down his RD commentary on his talk page, I'd be in favour of unblocking -- Samir धर्म 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support block. This guy has been trolling, and the block will reduce disruption. Hopefully it will only be needed once. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm a non-admin, but I support the block. Comments like this are not acceptable, especially in light of given question. Were this isolated, it would not be a problem, but he was warned, and continues to lawyer around with things like "you can't prove I meant that". I'm also worried by comments like "I've responded to any specific issues", which seem to be his way of saying, "I'm only going to respond to past questions, and not necessarily fix my behavior in the future." Friday had every right to remove offensive comments on sight; we don't just let ugly comments sit on the board, just so a user has the chance to go back and remove them later to prove his genuineness. Patstuart^talk|edits 06:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I support. This guy is disruptive, and incivil. Viewing his comments on AN/I should tell you that in an instant. I probably won't remember to recheck this so if you have a comment on my comment, leave a message on my user talk. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose this block. User:Friday has admitted he is biased in this matter, and the "punishment" here is way out of line with the "crime": "But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it" [50]. StuRat 09:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am a non-admin, and I oppose this block. Light current's reaction to criticism of his RD posts has been persistent but polite. I have seen no evidence that he has broken WP guidelines or policy. He has not been disruptive. Friday has over-reacted, and has allowed his feelings of irritation to override his judgement. He has abused his admin powers to pursue a personal disagreement with Light current. He has escalated from his initial AN/I post to a week long block in less than 24 hours. If Friday thought a block was necessary, he should have proposed this course of action, given Light current a chance to defend himself, obtained concensus on the term of the block and asked an uninvolved admin to enact it. Gandalf61 09:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Gandalf61. StuRat 11:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is that it's OK for a user to post out-of-context comments about masturbation, camera voyeurism, and other inappropriate subjects, and then, when confronted, not to be penitent, but to lawyer, refuse to admit fault, to argue, and to obfuscate ("you don't know that's what I meant"). I'm sorry, posting nonsense like that, then pretending you did nothing wrong, after repeatedly being asked to stop is totally unacceptable. I'm sorry, he should know better than that. And, I know you're frustrated with Friday, but the fact is, that is an ongoing problem; this is far from the first time this user has been a problem in such areas. Patstuart^talk|edits 10:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• An Admin should be neutral, but User:Friday appears to "have it in for" User:light current, resulting in his imposing a week long block for what is, at best, a minor problem. It appears as though User:Friday was looking for any excuse to impose a block. User:light current has been willing to remove any of his posts which are found to be inappropriate, if given the chance. User:Friday, however, has not given him that chance. StuRat 11:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In what areas? The ref desk? I don't recall having ever seen you there.

• The ref desk is going to die this way. A one week block?! I sometimes wonder what LC is talking about, but I don't find him disruptive at all. I still don't get what he is being blocked for. It's all about one single remark that he himself agreed to remove (had he been given a chance) and when Friday is asked for another example he restates the same one. Other examples given are from his own talk page. His own talk page! Is that a reason for a block? A one week block? Much more disruptive is factually wrong information, because that looks like a useful answer. That is not the case here. This is about a silly remark. If this sort of deletionist behaviour continues at the ref desk and those who protest it are blocked (in stead of the other way around) the ref desk will become dull, many useful editors will leave (there are too few already as it is) and the ref desk will die. I have already noticed this happening, as I predicted it would. And it's going to get worse. This censorship has to stop. No need to block me. I've done that myself. After thousands of edits over the last year I have decided to stop contributing to the ref desk. And this is probably my last contribution to this page too. It's all too childish for me to waste time on. If people get blocked for a week for something like this, I'm out of here. To those who say 'good riddance' (there will be those): I didn't get two of my three barnstars for my work at the ref desk for nothing. DirkvdM 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are going to block yourself? From this it looks like SCZenz blocked you, not yourself. This is not censorship. The reference desk needs to be kept on topic and focused. The more 'playful' and 'stream of consciousness' it becomes, the less useful it is. As I've said above, there are plenty of other places to joke around at, but WP:RD is not one of them. FWIW, I too think the 1-week ban is too harsh, and I also think Friday needs to provide a clearer reason, and Friday should have left it to an uninvolved admin to impose a block, if needed. Carcharoth 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• That block has ended. He is saying he will not participate in the Ref Desk in the future, even though allowed to do so, because of his disgust at the level of hostility aimed at certain Ref Desk contributors from certain Admins, such as User:Friday and User:SCZenz. StuRat 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. You beat me to it once again. Btw, this is a nice example of how some people don't understand certain types of humour. Which is no reason to delete it. One note to what you said: I don't care if it's admins who do it. Any deletions (by others) at the ref desk are baaaaaad because there are about a thousand edtis per day there, which makes it impossible to keep track of deletions. If that issue is somehow resolved, notify me. I might return. DirkvdM 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose one week block: Support 12/24-hour block: I did not see any warnings on User talk:Light current so I was going to oppose any block pending adequate warning, but then I discovered that LC has prematurely archived the warning and lots of relevant discussion on this topic with this edit. I find that disingenuous and it speaks to the need for administrative disincentive for inappropriate behavior (dare I say disruptive? don't mean to dis anyone). I have myself found some of LC's post to the forum frivilous and I personally have decided to ignore any questions posted by him. That is based on what I saw as "crying wolf", i.e. asking questions that he really had no desire to have answered, just for fun. I hinted at such in this edit. I considered that LC was disrespectful to the fact that I had gone to the effort of giving him a legitimate answer to what I thought was a legitimate question. As I myself just consider LC overly playful I did not see fit to warn him otherwise. That Friday sees his behaviour as more serious is a matter for those two to sort out but to the degree that LC ignored the warning then he can have the block but one week is WAY excessive; 12 or 24 hours is better. --Justanother 13:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: SCZenz even removed (not 'archived') a warning template I placed on his talk page. When I asked other admins about this, the answer was that one can do whatever one likes at ones own talk page. Even though this was a bit more than just 'disingeneous'. DirkvdM 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that calling SCZenz' attempts to improve the desk according to his own understanding of purpose and policy; calling those efforts "vandalism" is baiting and he was justified to remove it. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I also think that admins that "don't like the reference desk" should give it a wide berth. I am not judging anyone there, I am simply making a comment. I further hope that LightCurrent (and others) can come to understand that the banter and off-topic junk on the Desks is an enjoyable aside to the real work of answering questions and is never to be started or encouraged as an end-in-itself. I hope that LC gets something out of all this effort and remains on the Desk. --Justanother 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose one week block. I feel very strongly about this, as an RD regular. I think sometimes LC is over the top, but he's shown suitable contrition in response to the recent discussions. I regularly do RC patrol and report vandals. I see persistent, malicious blankers and offensive posters receive blocks much shorter than 1 week. And they are non penitent. Shorten this please. --Dweller 14:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Even if one accepted that Light current needed blocking, a one-week block is inappropriately harsh. Yesterday a spammer who created two articles spamming a website, who deleted spam tags from them, recreated the delteed articles twice after admin deletion, listed the article on the req for page protection page to try to protect it from *me* and the deleting admins, forged my signature, and then lied about it, requested a review of the block, got one, blanked the user page and requested another one, got the same--a week's blocking.

Furthermore, even if one accepted that Light current needed blocking, the action for which he was blocked was under active & general discussion and it was premature to do so prior to some conclusion of that discussion, especially in the absence of clear, uncontradicted and unambiguous guidelines about the behavior for which he's been blocked.

So I would appeal to Friday to rethink the week block and lift it, undoing the self-action, and parole Light current to time served. -THB 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Opposeblock as clearly excessive. This is an unwarranted abuse of admin powers by user:Friday, who has previously proposed eliminating the reference desk: "I'm probably going against years of established practice here, but I fail to see how the reference desk adds encyclopedic value. It's a time-waster- why don't we just ditch the whole thing? Friday (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)" It is very hard to assume good faith when an admin proposes eliminating the reference desk then applies grossly excessive penalties to frequent contributors. Edison 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, Friday should recuse himself from all matters related the Ref Desk, as his extreme bias against the Ref Desk negatively affects his judgment in such matters. StuRat 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a few remarks and I'll probably bow out of this. As for warnings, there were months of warnings prior to this from different people. Light current has been blocked for trolling before. This was blatantly obvious trolling yet he kept up his "innocent and clueless" routine. He's just looking for a reaction out of people- check out his attempts to engage in conversation after the block, acting like he doesn't know what he did wrong. I did start the discussion here well before blocking, and so far there seems to be admin consensus for the block. So, I'm not personally inclined to change it, however my standard offer still stands: if any admin disagrees with this and wants to change it, I invite them to do so. I don't "own" my blocks any more than we own our edits. I realize a week seems harsh here, but he was very obviously trolling and this has been an ongoing problem, apparently for quite a long while. I acknowledge this is a tricky situation- hardly any of Light current's edits, taking in isolation, seem remotely blockable. This is why I sought input from others before and after the block. Also, please- let's not let this turn into a perceived "admins versus reference desk" fight- I blocked one particular editor- discussion of other editors who are also problems are not relevant to this situation. If anyone cares to notice, after some initial disgust at the sorry state of the reference desk and me questioning whether it adds any value to the project, I've decided it IS valuable, so I've jumped in and started trying to help answer questions. I thank all the people who do useful work at the reference desk, or in any other part of the project. Friday (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You say let's not let this turn into a perceived "admins versus reference desk" fight, after having said "there seems to be admin consensus for the block", thus implying that you ignore the opinions and consensus of non-Admins, and in particular Ref Desk contributors. Can't you see how ignoring the opinions of non-Admins causes just the type of problem you claim you want to avoid ? If you want everyone to work together, then you need to respect the opinions of everyone, not just Admins. StuRat 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention! I'm going rogue and starting a wheel war!

Er, by which I mean that I'm lifting the block on Light current. Per THB, I'm paroling him. I don't think that the block was undeserved, but I do think that LC has acknowledged ([51]) that some of his comments were inappropriate for the forum in which he made them and that his judgement has not been up to snuff on occasion.

I think that leaving the block in place will shed more heat than light, as the mounting evidence here would suggest. LC is often a useful and productive contributor to the Ref Desk, and – providing he can restrain his occasional impulse towards off-colour humour and borderline newbie-biting – it would be a shame to lose that. I fear that we may have rushed into a block just when LC was starting to 'get' that the weight of opinion did not support his behaviour. I think it appropriate to give him a shot at reform. Note that I do not use the word 'parole' lightly, and I do expect that LC will make every reasonable effort to temper his remarks. His block will be restored (by me or by someone else) if he doesn't avail himself of this opportunity.

Note also that I expect other parties (both to this specific incident and those involved in the broader Ref Desk discussions) to refrain from sniping, kicking LC or others while down, taunting, gloating, oh-so-'clever' remarks, or anything else that might be taken as a lapse in civility. I'll be all over any sort of 'I-told-you-so', namecalling, 'You-don't-have-a-right-to-talk-about-Ref-Desk-because-you're-not-there-as-much-as-I-am-so-sod-off', or other petty ugliness like stink on cheese. We're at the Reference Desk. We're supposed to be there to help our fellow human beings, and we're doing it because we're nice, friendly, helpful people. Is everyone clear on that? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, thank you for opening the door to lift his block. It would have been better had Friday done it, but Friday did leave the door unlocked and let it be known that it was unlocked, so that's a good thing. -THB 15:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse block on general principle. This seemed like a reasonable judgement call by the admin, and it isn't a horribly extended or indefinite block, so we shouldn't be second-guessing it. - Crockspot 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• It is hard to assume good faith when Friday applies an exceptionally long bloc for a minor offense on the part of a frequent contributor to Reference desk after Friday has said "I'm very serious. I stay away from the reference desk but have dropped in a few times lately due to reports of problems there. I was rather shocked at what I saw. I suppose we must let each editor contribute in their own way, but I've not seen a bigger time-waster here than the RD. This is an encyclopedia- the goals of the project go no further. When I buy a copy of Brittanica, I've bought an encyclopedia. I don't expect that this includes a guy who will come to my house, hold my hand, and read it to me. Is it reasonable to expect a reference desk? Not in my opinion. We're an encyclopedia, not a forum, and not a place to get other people to do your research for you. Friday (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)" Edison 16:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Please note that my request to be utterly civil and courteous and to try to put this behind us wasn't actually solely for the pleasure of hearing myself type. It would be appreciated if you stopped quoting that remark on talk pages and noticeboards in an attempt to push Friday out of this discussion. If you look upward about six comments, you'll see that Friday has reconsidered his opinion on the Ref Desk, and is actually endeavouring to be a helpful participant there. In the same comment, he also explains that the block was not for a single incident, but for a pattern of behaviour — which we all hope and expect has now been remediated – from an editor who has received many warnings about his conduct. I will also note that Friday has expressed support for my approach to handling this block, and that he seems to be a pretty reasonable guy. I expect that he would have done exactly what I did had I sent him a polite message—I was just impatient at the bickering here. It is not appropriate to kick Light current while he's down, nor is it appropriate to try to lynch Friday while he's being reasonable and accomodating. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that if an admin is only starting to understand a project as radically unique as the RD, maybe he shouldn't be allowed to assert his admin powers there. Which I don't necessarily agree with by the way --froth^{T C} 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can I assert my opinion into this one? I don't know if it's valuable here, but it looks like there's a long history of Light Current managing to find a way to get blocked, then unblocked. And the one time he wasn't unblocked was by Pschemp, and he's still bitter about that. In other words, perhaps we need to make it clear that infinite patience doesn't exist, and constantly walking the oline between appropriate and inappropriate, then acting like "poor persecuted me" when he called on it, won't be tolerated forever. That being said, he is a long-time contributer. I dunno: it's "yes, we love you at Wikipedia, no, you can't make masturbation and porn jokes out of context at ref desk after being warned for it." Patstuart^talk|edits 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confident that enough people have seen this pattern of behavior to ensure that it won't be allowed to continue unchecked. (can't keep my big mouth shut, sorry). Friday (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we so soft on a user who continues in a pattern of pushing the line? LC's actions appear childish and are frustrating when they happen again and again. i see this block as a cumulative effect of LC's own actions. Friday was right to block in such a situation, although, possibly a week was too long, but I do not know enough of this users background to judge. Regardless of the length of block, if these actions continue then the blocks should become progressively more severe. LC's claims of innocense, given the masturbation link posted by Friday above, are laughable. Go to usenet for toilet humour. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose block. Friday has a clear conflict of interest- see their back-and-forth in the latest archive of the RD talk. Other than that I would have said that he deserved it anyway (after due process, not this one day AN/I fiasco) but lately he really has been quite good about responding to criticisms and having an open mind about his behavior. Also, I'd like to say that I appreciate that friday is starting to understand the point of the RD. Admittedly it seems overblown and unnecessary at first glance but there really is a huge demand for it and light current is overall a positive contributor. I'd hate to lose him over this --froth^{T C} 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well just to round off this discussion, I would like to say that all this apparent waste of time has indeed shown something:

We all make mistakes, some more than others. He who never made a mistake, never made anything. Let us not judge too harshly, lest we be judged in the same manner. Peace on all! 8-)--Light current 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd like to thank all my supporters for defending me and pleading for me. And I will try not to hold it agianst anyone who supported my blocking. I think we ahave all leaneda little from this unpleasant episode. 8-)--Light current 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming in late to this, but I have to say that I oppose the block. I do think Light current is too flippant on the RD, and it would not hurt for him to be mentored, but I'm trying awfully hard to wonder why so many admins are suddenly hopping into the RD and tsktsking when they aren't regular participants. The RD has been running fine for months now, there is nothing wrong with the way those of us who do frequent do things there. We need to quit warring over this, guys. Try talking first, blocking second. I would support an RfC on Light Current. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current, rather than giving somewhat veiled threats to those who opposed you, is it possible you could just admit wrong-doing, say you're sorry, and promise to stop in the future? Amazingly, you seem unable to do this. Already on your talk page, talking about the censorship on RD (having masturbation comments removed, what awful tyranny). Two ounces of penitence goes a long way. This is the kind of half-hearted backdoor response that's gotten you blocked 7 times. Patstuart^talk|edits 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how his opinion on censorship, listed on his own talk page, can be grounds for a complaint here. StuRat 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to his above comment. i only came back and added the thing about censorship later when I found it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I am a completely neutral party here, having never even been to the RD. However, I just want to chime in and note that, after reading this report and the one above about the block of DirkvdM, it seems to me that a number of users view the RD as a fiefdom and a lot of the debate here has been about "people who frequent" the RD and letting them do things their way, and criticisms of users who "don't usually hang around" at RD but nonetheless voiced opinions in these matters, as though they had no right to do so. Seems a little skewed to me.--Dmz5 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Since Light current was unblocked, I noticed a set of edits to You have two cows such as this one where the edit summaries made it sound like he was removing jokes. (Light current is currently upset at WT:RD that people have been criticising joke answers to articles.) However he was removing content from an article about a set of jokes. The removal was reverted, so that's not an issue. But, I really have to wonder about WP:POINT here. I'm not doing anything about this myself, due to the complete uproar caused by my recent block on Light current, and my own questioning of my remaining supply of AGF. However I bring this here in case others have opinions on this. Friday (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits at You have two cows have nothing at all to do with my recent blocking. i dont know why Friday is continuing to persecute and stalk me in this manner.--Light current 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I note with regret that Light current has opted to try to push the envelope of WP:POINT (and also made at least one attack on Friday) since I unblocked him as a gesture of good faith. I have restored the remaining six days of his original block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Breaching of my privacy

User:-jkb- repeatedly breaches my privacy by revealing of my real name: [52], [53]. I warned him many times: [54] and User talk:-jkb-. I ask for his blocking. -- Zacheus 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... Is there any particular reason you disguised your edits as "fixing a link" or some such? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at [55] you find that before my fix it pointed to nowhere. -- Zacheus 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You created an account that was the same as your real name and someone has realized that the same person operates both accounts? It seems you let the cat out of the bag, not -jkb- Shell ^babelfish 15:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I exercised m:Right to Vanish. Revealing of my real name after I dropped it is breaching my privacy. -- Zacheus 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See pls here. As i do not have so much time as some sock puppets (I have to go on with the Czech Wikisource which is my primary goal, not this), I am preparing a brief report on the user V.Z. and his sockpuppets, but it will take some time. In the mean time: he (all his accounts) has no right to vanish, as he did not left Wikipedie, in the contrary, he is attacking other users again. Thx, -jkb- 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to Vanish is used for bad chosen accounts, not for people only. I wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia, but not under my real name which you use only to harass me, although I asked you to stop it. Many times, but to no avail. -- Zacheus 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

jkb, as Zacheus says, the right to vanish is used for poorly chosen accounts (amongst other things). Do not post personally identifiable information on the site - regardless of how right you think you are - it can lead to blocks. Zacheus, this sort of thing should be reported to WP:OVERSIGHT.

Shell, does the right to vanish not apply here? Regardless of the user's actions, they have a right not to have their personal information posted on the site.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I did not know that. -- Zacheus 07:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

When the personal information is relevant as an earlier account name of said person, that's questionable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Right to Vanish applies only is you wish to leave the project. Otherwise, contributions under your old username may indeed be relevant and worth referencing. --InShaneee 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Consulting the Right to Vanish page, "[t]he Wikipedia projects will delete personal contributors at their request, provided it is not needed for administrative purposes." If this person has abandoned his previous account, then he cannot be accused of sockpuppetry, and thus, there is no administrative reason to include his personal information (including the previous account), if Zacheus is a person notable to merit an encyclopedia article, then this situation is also moot. It is up to -jkb- to either make a case for sockpuppetry involving that previous account with his personal name, or that the person merits an encyclopedia article. Until such time as he is making this case, there is no real need to include that username in any talk page, or article. --Puellanivis 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep cool. @ Localzik: poorly coosen name - this is a joke, I guess. The user was an admin-bureaucrat on the czech wikipedia for two years, so I do not think he is that poor to judge what name he choose. And the accounts are notable, as there are dozens of attacks on meta pages, here and on czech wikipedia. The user announced, he wants to stay here ([56]), so I must assume, he will harrase here again as he did after some other annoucements of leaving. And ad Puellanivis: I it is noit up to me. I already showed where this user manipulated the community. The user mus show, that he will not. See e.g. his lies about my - as he says - deleted pages on the Czech wiki (here and some 5 next ones). Thx and follow this sock puppet better, it is your domain not mine, I have to do in mine. PLEASE. -jkb- 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If I understand your poor English correctly you claim that I cannot choose a login name poorly, since I was a long-term bureaucrat. Thank you for your appreciation but I really chosen the bad login name. Before you came to wiki I had no problems. But after you came I am in a deep trouble since you stalk me and ignore my supplications to stop it.

How can merely the accounts be notable?

I did not make any attacs here or at Meta. Please, stop lying about me and be civil. You accused me being a known vandal and this practice is especially incivil. I never heard a word of excuse for your behaviour so far. Now it's time to do that.

I did not harass anybody, especially not you. That's why I cannot continue to harass. So please, stop make such a silly accusations or I have to RfC of your behaviour.

I did not manipulate anybody. If somebody disagree with you, it does not mean he or she was manipulated.

I must not show nothing, here is not the Communist régime. I will resume to edit the articles if you stop breaching of my privacy.

You deleted your pages: "17:26, 27. 1. 2006 -jkb- (Diskuse | příspěvky) maže "Wikipedista:-jkb-" (smazat)" Who is the liar then?

Zacheus is not a sock puppet, since now it is my primary account. I left the account V. Z. altogether since I assume otherwise you would endlessly repeat its former name.

-- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. @-jkb-: your position appears well justified, I will not argue with that. Personal attacks are inappropriate, and expressing that he has done personal attacks before, and continues to do so under a new name is appropriate, even if that previous name is his full name. As an admin-bureaucrat, I certainly think it clear that he should have had sufficient knowledge to judge the quality of his name before he chose it. @Zacheus: Sorry, but it looks like the cat is out of the bag, you should have known what you were doing picking your real name to begin with. Envoking a pseudonym in order to evade people whom you have harassed, and continue to harass after envoking a right to vanish can easily be claimed as sock puppetry. Your Right to Vanish only applies if you lay low, drawing attention to yourself after changing your name and then claiming a violation of privacy due to the mentioning of your previous name is readily apparent as your fault, and I don't see any reason for giving you any remedy at all. --Puellanivis 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You were misinformed by -jkb-. You are the second victim of his behaviour as Mike Rosoft has apologized to me for believing him: "I would like to apologize for my suspicion. - Mike Rosoft 09:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)". I will no longer ask for an apology by victims -jkb-'s behaviour since this would create an endless list. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How was your current account first connected to your old account? If you are the one that said that account was you, then you waived your right to vanish. If he found out through some off-site means, then you might have a case against him, it would depend on the exact circumstances. --Tango 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was done on Meta by Datrio. I asked for his desysopping because there was no reason for checking me. I did not commit any wikicrime by either my old account, or by my new account. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the impression one part of the situation isn't properly understood by some people here. The identity between the two accounts as such is not at issue. This user did two things in order to gain anonymity: (1) he gave up his old account and started up a new one, Zacheus (talk · contribs); (2) in parallel, he had his old real-name account renamed to an anonymous abbreviation V. Z. (talk · contribs). All he seems to be asking now is that when people have to refer to this old account, they use its current, anonymous handle rather than the old real-name one. This request seems reasonable, as it doesn't prevent anybody of talking about the old account and its contributions. Also, Wikipedia:Harassment explicitly says that proliferation of real-name information should be avoided also in cases "of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives". Since under the current circumstances there's no factual need for anybody to refer to the old account under its old handle, I don't see why we shouldn't follow his request. Unless a refusal to do so were merely in retaliation for whatever disruptive he did earlier, but that really ought not to be the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly explained. Thank you. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Appropriately stated, and I have to agree that someone should be enabled to leave an account behind and start a new one without being claimed as a sockpuppet. But using a cloak of newly aquired anonymity to evade detection and continue harassment, should not be considered appropriate. But again, how was it determined that the two accounts were related? If Zacheus owned his previous contributions, then unfortunately, he has owned them, and those where his signature remained as his full name. There is a lot of difficulty dealing with this matter, as it's a big grey area where it has to be determined where the allowance of personal information that has already been released is appropriate or not. But if Zacheus owned his previous posts, then he linked himself to his old account, which had contained his full name, whether the account was changed to an anonymous initials or not.

This is why the Right to Vanish can be so tricky, because you have to literally vanish completely, or you will end up exposing yourself. I have the same problem in real life after a legal name change, I continue to be confronted with my old name all over my company, because the computer systems are insistant on maintaining a recorad of my previous name, which then shows up everywhere. While I entirely empathize with Zacheus and his inability to shed his previous identity, that contained his real name, I cannot see how blocking someone outright for exposing the previous name is justified. I can only imagine that counselling be sought for the person using the full name, and try and reach an agreement that he would refer afterwards to use only their initials, in order to protect the other person's personal name. After having an admin relate that such a disclosure is not necessary for administrative purposes, then continued pushing of his real name would warrant a block. But without notifying -jkb- that such action is inappropriate, it seems unjustified to block him, since he is dealing with prevously disclosed public information. --Puellanivis 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem of -jkb-'s behaviour lies in the fact that he uses now and intends to use in the future my real name, although the account with this name no longer exists. I have no problem that he used it in the past, but since he does not wish to stop this harassment I see no other solution than to block him. In my view if he wishes to refer to my now abandoned account he should refer by its present name, which is "V. Z."

I personally notified to -jkb- that his behaviour is inappropriate and bannable. But, if you think he should warned by the community as well, I see no problem with that. I don't ask his blocking if he stops his harassment by revealing my real name. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Future Perfect has this one correct, and I find -jkb-'s actions to be borderline harassment. Since all the contribs by User:Vxxxx Zxxxx have been reattributed to User:V. Z., there is no administrative or technical reason to keep the old name around. Pointing out that User:Zacheus formerly operated User:V. Z. is appropriate, and if a case can be made that V. Z./Zacheus has edited disruptively, then go ahead and make it. But there is no reason to refer to the individual's real name at this point and it begins to become harassment. Thatcher131 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just went deeply through the various pages of discussion on -jkb- and Zacheus's talk pages. There is a lot going on there, and it would seem that this was an argument on the cs: wikipedia, which has now spilled into en:, both sides claiming that the other is in the wrong, both having disclosed each other's personal information, and both claiming that it's not their job to do the admin's work of tracking down sockpuppets, etc. They both say that the history is well established in the cs: wikispace, and while I don't argue that it is, there is no reason to expect English wikipedians to be able to access that information easily. I see below someone is asking for a translation of Zacheus's user page, and I think that is appropriate. Having a trustworthy cs: sysop looped in for a neutral point of view that can follow issues on the cs: side of things may be a good idea. But over all, it looks like this is one big mess of a feud, and we don't have the capacity to easily enforce any issues here on en: unless it's in English. --Puellanivis 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, Zacheus released the personal information himself and after changing accounts linked himself to the old account. Because of that, we have no obligation to try and keep his personal information hidden. However, it would be nice to do so simply as an act of kindness, as it doesn't do any harm to use initials when referring to the old account. If -jkb- has a good reason to use the full name, he is entitled to, however it appears he's actually doing so simply to annoy Zacheus (I'm not going to even try and decide if Zacheus deserves it or not, I don't really care), which is not allowed under WP:HARASS. So, to summarise, there is no privacy violation here, but there might well be some harassment going on (possibly both ways). --Tango 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective at checkuser, where this first came up last week, Zacheus was never trying to hide the fact that the renamed account User:V. Z. used to be his real name and belongs to him. For example, he has used the Zacheus account to change his old signatures. Since his actions are obvious to even a cursory check of his contribs [57] [58], I think the main point here is to keep his real name off of google searches and so forth. In that context, I can't see any reason to continue using his real name except to keep the drama going. Thatcher131 23:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While he has never tried to hide the rename, he seems to have a practical misunderstanding of the ability to perform a Right to Vanish. I agree that avoiding his full name would be on good standing to avoid this whole issue, but Zacheus has made repeated edits to archived public information. After a sysop or someone corrects his edit, he then decries them as violating his Right to Vanish (after returning the archived information to the original state.) Zacheus would have us perform a massive system wide %s/User Name/U. N./g on every page, and remove his mistake of using his full real name in the first place. Rather than detract prying eyes from his relation to V. Z., he has made a concerted effort to bring those prying eyes to the issue, and would like to see the entire RtV policy rewritten to be a requirement, rather than a best-effort. The RtV policy page on metapedia says in fact itself that no one can really guarentee the RtV exists at all, it's simply asking for a best-effort from people to follow it. As such, people should avoid using the previous name in new content, and Zacheus should avoid damaging archived pages. Both should stop harassing each other, and just let the issue die. As such Zacheus has very few edits that are anything but a campaign against -jkd- and -jkd- has vew edits that are anything but a compaign against the other. If either insists on continuing this behavior, either should be banned temporarily, whether they are underlyingly justified or not. Neither is working towards a solution. --Puellanivis 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As Thatcher131 put it I have no problem now if somebody says Zacheus = V. Z., because Datrio has breached my privacy by revealing this fact and this can be no longer hidden. But I do have the problem if somebody says V. Z. is Vxxx Zxxx, since the account Vxxx Zxxx no longer exists and has no edits. Saying V. Z. is Vxxx Zxxx is thus the plain harassment.

I edited the archived pages because they pointed to nowhere and they used my old handle name. RtV says that people should correct broken links. And I did not harass -jkb-, but only very civilly asked him to stop using my real name. That's all.

I admit that the account Zacheus is one-purpose only, because after my experience with -jkb- I expected his behaviour. I use another account for ordinary work and I don't intend to provide it since it would target of another harassment. If you banned the account Zacheus (for what reason?) it would prevent me to use this another account legally. Thank you.

I really do wish the solution, but I don't know what else I should do. I asked him. To no avail. That's why I asked for his blocking. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about your interpretation of Right to Vanish. I think if he wants to change archives (merely to change his name Vxxxx Zxxxx to V. Z., that is fine. Of course, it leaves a trail a mile wide to his current name, but it would have the effect of making his name difficult to find on a casual google search. I helped him change the checkuser case archive with his name on it, and I don't particular care if he changes other archives, as long as he is only doing the name change. He should not be changing pages in other user's space, but I would also prefer that jkb not use his full name. He was kicked off the cs Wikipedia under his full name, but he has not done anything here to hide from or avoid so there is no reason to use his full name here.

On your other point I agree wholeheartedly. I have obtained a partial translation of his user page and he is replying, in Czech, to other users on cs with whom he can no longer converse since he is banned there. If Zacheus wants his right to vanish to be respected, he should stop importing drama from cs. Thatcher131 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to protect his privacy, but is there any reason we don't simply ban this troll as well? Zacheus clearly has no intention to contribute anything useful to the encyclopedia. Since his banning from cs, he's continued to troll here and on Meta, continuing uncivil language, wasting our time, and done nothing useful. And we already know he's a troll (banned by the cs arbcom). Any objections to blocking him? Dmcdevit·t 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add I have a personal problem with Dmcdevit·t, because I have criticised him off-wiki. His speedy intention to ban me may be affected by this reason.

Dmcdevit·t frequently accuses me being a troll, but did he have any proofs for that? I ask him for WP:CIV and to WP:AGF. I was always civil; if you don't wish to waste your time with problems of others, resing as a sysop. It is not a duty to be one. If 700 mainspace edits is not useful, what would you consider as useful? And please, if you refer to decision of two my enemies as decision of the ArbCom, consider as well that I was the bureaucrat for two years. It is too short period for you? -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm wishy-washy on it. On the one hand, if he stopped using his user page to carry on the drama from cs, I'd be willing to leave him alone to see if he will become a good contributor. His prior account V. Z. (talk · contribs) has over 700 mainspace edits, which is not a lot, but not chicken feed either. On the other hand, part of his arb case involved rather serious allegations of privacy violations on his part, and he hasn't done anything since he arrived here except carry on the cs drama. I certainly wouldn't stick my neck out to unban him if someone else banned him. Thatcher131 04:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My response here: User talk:-jkb-, -jkb- 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take any decision of Czech ArbCom with a reservation as you would take any decision of Communist court. They routinely blocked my attorneys, they routinely blocked even me. They months did nothing and then suddenly gave a verdict. The accusation was so poorly written that I was not able to defend myself. I could continue very long time about actions of this exemplary kangaroo court, but I don't any reason since no one from here wishes to end reign of terror on cs:. Last but not least: the verdict was anonymous. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin plays detective...what next?

Ever want to sleuth down one of the long term vandals? Well a couple of people think I've succeeded. My summaries of the matter are at User_talk:Durova#Editor_X_.2F_Joan_of_Arc andTalk:Joan_of_Arc#Return_of_Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse.23Joan_of_Arc_vandal.3F, which I daresay make interesting reading especially if you put on a pair of dark sunglasses and play The Pink Panther theme. If my evidence holds up to scrutiny, this guy has been disrupting Wikipedia's Catholicism, homosexuality, and crossdressing articles for 26 months without getting caught (December 8 will be his anniversary).

Trouble is, because he's been so slippery, I probably can't get a checkuser on this sock drawer. Doc Tropics suggested an RfC. I'd like to find out whether I'm right and if I'm on the mark I'd like to seek a community ban. So all of you Sherlock Holmes types, come on over and bring your magnifying glass. This one might boggle your eyes. Durova^Charge! 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That took a while to read! You have amassed a bevy of suggestive evidence; statistically, Editor X could have won the lottery before being two people from the same town with the same in-depth knowledge and yet rather bizarre theories, unless of course, he has converts. In either case, the behavior is incredibly disruptive not just because of the behavior itself, but the subtly with which it undermines the article. The editor has already been almost completely unresponsive to discussion and attempts to reform their behavior including being dishonest when cornered - since it doesn't appear meaningful contact can be made, I'd support the idea of a community ban. Shell ^babelfish 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[ec] Blimey. That was a patient and thorough piece of work! I suspect that support for a ban based on this will be pretty much unanimous, but one could always take it to ArbCom in case of doubt. Gold star, either way. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can try and help you get a checkuser through but if he's on AOL it won't do any good. If you assemble a list of accounts with recent edits (<1 month) and a brief statement, go ahead and file it. I expect once more people read this they will support a ban without technical confirmation (which can only go back a few weeks in any case). Thatcher131 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've invited one of these accounts to agree to a checkuser. How exactly does the AOL wrinkle crease this seam - would they be limited to confirming whether or not this person hails from Reston, Virginia? That could be enough in light of the other evidence. I'm not the least bit averse to naming him at AOL's abuse department and requesting they revoke his service. That would take considerably less effort than I've already spent undoing his damage. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If he's using AOL then I'm not sure how you can even be sure of his geographic location, since I think all US AOL addresses show up as Reston VA. Unless this editor made a specific slip-up which I am reluctant to discuss publically, the only thing checkuser could reveal is that each of the suspected accounts has edited from AOL. Since thousands of editors use AOL, this would not provide any confirmation that the accounts were operated by the same person. A check may still be productive if this person was careless in a certain way, or he may be using multiple ISPs where it would be easier to track him. Thatcher131 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see. To the best of my knowledge he's been a loyal AOL customer. They host his website - and as extraordinary as this is for an AOL homepage, of the 3 million-odd Google returns for a "Joan of Arc" search he's consistently numero uno. So regardless of his actual residence location I'm pretty sure AOL's abuse department could pinpoint him and I don't think he wants his service interrupted. What worries me more is his disruption on other topics, which appears to have been continuous - the homosexuality pages especially. I'm getting set to roll up my sleeves and dig into that evidence now that people take this matter seriously - he's clever but not too clever. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing checkuser can do then is, for any user name he has used in the last month or so, give you the IP address as of the time of its edits. This would probably not be released to you but could be forwarded to AOL's abuse department, so they could attempt to determine if the wikipedia vandal is the same person whose web site they host. I don't know what it would take to convince AOL to take action, though. Thatcher131 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova: All AOL users show up from Reston, Virginia. But the most important thing to keep in mind is that the IP address for AOL users is never linked to a specific account but instead is based on the page (URL) being viewed or edited -- see Wikipedia's information on this. It's very odd but that's how AOL IPs work for reasons known only to their engineers.

The upshot is that an IP check won't do any good and neither will reporting a set of IPs to AOL. They're likely to just ignore you because you won't be reporting a single and discrete user given that all users are on the same range of IPs. You will instead be telling them that some of the many millions of AOL subscribers happen to get those IPs while editing certain articles, which is not going to come as a surprise to them.

You can never be sure whether an AOL vandal is one person or a whole host of users who end up editing under the same IPs. Other websites such as BBs have the same problem. EReference 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the dissection of AOL's innards. Since I actually do have this vandal's real-life name, would AOL's abuse department take notice? Durova^Charge! 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, aren't you assuming that the IPs are linked to that real name? They wouldn't necessarily be linked to a given individual, or even a single individual. And since anyone can claim to be anyone else on here, a name is not proof of identity. AOL cannot suspend someone's paid account based merely on an allegation. This comes up repeatedly on many websites since there's no way to tell who anyone really is on the internet. EReference 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova, with all due respect for your detective work, I'm a tad uncomfortable with you referring to the guy as a "vandal" and "long-term abuser". Did he ever get blocked? He's not currently banned under any of his accounts, is he? From your description I take it that his main accounts were used subsequently, not in parallel for blatant illegitimate sockpuppetry, or were they? I mean, I have no doubt he may be a disruptive POV-pusher, but has he done anything actually "illegal" in Wikipedia terms besides POV-pushing? And what would we expect his ISP to do about that, at this stage? Let's ban him if he's as disruptive as you say, and then we'll see - any new reincarnations of his will probably be easy enough to spot, once people are alerted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know he's flown underneath nearly every radar except mine. In his earliest months Fire Star tried to offer him some guidance. He was still trying to behave like a regular Wikipedian back then. One quick answer about sockpuppetry is User_talk:Durova/Archive_5#Wikistalking (with several instances of blanking vandalism thrown in). User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc demonstrates that he violates WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:VANITY, WP:RS, WP:OWN, and WP:POINT. Possibly WP:COI also. The damage he caused at Joan of Arc has been incredibly pervasive and subtle - not just garden variety POV pushing but degrading footnotes, inserting inaccurate statements into previously cited material, and fraudulent citations. He even vanity published and faked the appearance of a legitimate scholarly journal in order to bypass site standards and cite himself. Note that the author name on the pseudojournal is the same as the name he self-identified on the original account, and that the IP inserted it while coyly avoiding use of the author's name at Wikipedia. Due to the high profile of the Joan of Arc article I acutally had to dig through several thousand edits to undo the harm that he caused - expending weeks of my time. If you need more evidence than I've already supplied at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc then say so and I'll dig up other examples and more diffs. The peculiar POV he pushes and the amount of scholarly background it reflects identify him as unique - how likely is it that two different people would strain the evidence to draw identical conclusions about a 1929 scholarly work available only in French? And describe their views with the same syntactical structure and leap into edit wars? I know how serious this allegation is and I wouldn't raise it unless I had researched this with extreme care. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I remember looking at the constributions of Center-for-Medieval-Studies (talk · contribs) after he edited some pages on the Dukes of Burgundy. He was accused at the time of being identical AWilliamson (talk · contribs) (see diff of him removing those from his talk page). IMO, this falls under the "users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies" portion of the blocking policy, WP:OR in particular. Faking up a vanity journal to insert your point of view is absolutely the sort of behavior for which you should be run out of Wikipedia on a rail — it's a direct attack on our credibility. I haven't been involved in any disputes with Center-for-Medieval-Studies, and haven't been involved in the Joan of Arc article, so I feel I qualify as an uninvolved endorser of a ban. Choess 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got to give a nod to Switisweti. During my first weeks as an editor he clued me in to some of this activity. That guy had an awful time because he'd been trying to watch Williamson for a year but lacked the academic expertise to challenge him in detail. Plus there was another disruptive editor at the article who pursued an entirely different agenda. Switi and I wound up holding conversations at my user talk page in German in order to dodge them (I didn't realize that was un-Wikipedian at the time). Switi finally quit the project a year ago and I can't say I blame him, but I hope he rejoins us someday. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also support a ban.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova has done an exceptional job of gathering and presenting evidence which, if accurate (and it appears to be), would certainly warrant a community ban for long-term systematic abuse. I had thought that ANI might not be able to respond to such a convoluted case, but between D's excellent summary, and the dedication of the editors who have posted here, I realize that I underestimated Wikipedians in general. Sometimes I'm actually quite happy to be wrong : ) Doc Tropics 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also support a community ban (disclaimer: I've been involved in a dispute with the editor in question). I'd be more comfortable if there were technical confirmation, but for the reasons explained above it seems unlikely that WP:RFCU will do any good--another reason to dislike AOL. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross posting the following from my user talk page: if any doubt remains, have a look at some diffs from Voln's talk page. This says "Archiving" in the edit note and an exceptionally small archive was created. The types of complaints and the topics covered bear an eerie similarity to AWilliamson, particularly The Bible and homosexuality and Homosexuality and Christianity; talk page blanking and misleading edit summaries are also trademark Williamson tactics.[59] He also performed a similar blanking that included the removal of a final block warning while marking the edit as minor.[60] Durova^Charge! 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the evidence you have collected is damning. I also have no problem in supporting a community ban.--Aldux 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Burn at the stake - erm, I mean I would also support banning this disruptive and time-consuming user. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So far this is unanimous. Think the responses are enough to call a consensus? Much as I'd like to do the honors myself, since I am an involved editor it would be more appropriate for someone else to perform the ban. Then we could set up the suspected sockpuppets category. Who's got an itchy indef block finger today? Durova^Charge! 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Support permaban. Sneaky hoaxers are scrouge of Wikipedia. Still I fear that somebody would have to monitor the related articles and block the puppets. Alex Bakharev 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A check of some of the allegations turns up the following.

• The most serious allegations revolved around the claim that the editor (or someone suspected of being the editor) was using a fanciful academic publication ("Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing" within the "Joan of Arc Primary Sources Series") and a fanciful nonprofit organization ("Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies") to dishonestly include his own original research in Wikipedia. But a quick search finds the following entry at a government site which lists this organization as a registered nonprofit in good standing: search result
• And a search at Google Books finds the allegedly "bogus" book in print: http://books.google.com/books?ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Academy+%22Joan+of+Arc+Studies%22&as_brr=0
• A search at Google Scholar finds the "Joan of Arc Primary Sources Series" although only one item is currently indexed. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Joan+of+Arc%22+%22Primary+Sources+Series%22

The most serious allegations are therefore clearly mistaken and some of the other allegations were based on an erroneous understanding of the manner in which AOL IPs are assigned. The rest were I believe mostly or entirely related to allegations of POV-pushing or suspected sockpuppetry, which are more subjective. If people want to vote for a ban anyway then that's the decision. EReference 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

501c3 tax status is fairly easy to get and doesn't amount to validation of the content; I daresay some of these people were acting in good faith. I traded e-mails with Virginia Frohlick some years ago and she seemed very friendly, although she was much too quick to give credence to my assertions. She is, however, an amateur enthusiast who maintains a website[www.stjoan-center.com/] and the only Google Scholars entry for her is another publication from the same organization.[61] Likewise, the only Google Scholars return for Robert Wirth that does not appear to be incidental - there seems to be a medical doctor by the same name - is one of this organization's publications[62] (although this drew my interest briefly) For Margaret Walsh, the other claimed reviewer, there is a Margaret Walsh who is a professor of American economic and social history.[63] [64] [65] [66] [67] Some of these names also turn up random returns in the hard sciences, dentistry, and medicine so I doubt these are the same person. It's been three months since I wrote the original summary and it doesn't particularly surprise me that this group has produced a hard copy edition of Williamson's study, but I see no reason to conclude that this nonprofit is anything other than the pet project of four people who have no formal expertise in their field. I could create a 501c3 organization with three friends, throw up a website, and print out a few copies of my pet theories - but that wouldn't make me an encyclopedic source. I'll post more on Williamson himself in a few moments. Durova^Charge! 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For starters, here's Allen Williamson's Google Scholar result - you decide if he looks like a real historian.[68] On his original user page he claims to be a historian who specializes in Joan of Arc and her portion of the Hundred Years' War[69] and claims to be a historian in talk page posts[70] [71] [72] and at mediation[73] but, to my knowledge, never identified his academic qualifications or affiliations. At User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies the first question the talk page receives is from Adam Bishop to ask which Center for Medieval Studies this is. The question went unanswered and the account blanked similar questions from other editors without reply.[74] The account blanks other criticism without response[75] including a suspected sockpuppet template[76] and finally blanks all remaining material and redirects to both the user page and the talk page to a new account User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies.[77] [78] on 10 May 2006, one month after User:AWilliamson got blanked and redirected to User:AWilliamson..[79] [80] Assuming the anonymous AOL account is the same editor, here's a post where he manufactures a fraudulent citation and admits in the edit note that he chose the source because he thought I hadn't read it.[81] Well I had read that source and he thoroughly misrepresented it. There can't be room for good faith in this instance because I had objected to the relevant passage the previous day and transcribed a quotation coauthored by the same historian in a later publication that vigorously denied any such claim.[82] If other editors are curious about the subject details I'll go into those matters at my talk page - but to summarize this doesn't strike me as someone who's out of his depth but as someone whose every move is tainted by the need to advance his own peculiar opinions by any means necessary and who plays just as fast and loose with his sources as he does with Wikipedia's policies - so much so that I doubt he could pass peer review at any journal he didn't control. To be candid, I hold only a bachelor's degree in history from Columbia University (my graduate studies were in another field) and my interest in Joan of Arc is an amateur one (although serious enough that I have traveled France to follow her campaigns). Yet I know the standard reference works and I can recognize when someone cherry picks data and distorts information in bizarre ways. Challenge me for more evidence if you aren't convinced: this case is so complex that I've held back to conserve space. I welcome scrutiny because I want to know whether I'm right and I think I have enough facts to satisfy reasonable doubt. Durova^Charge! 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to respond to all the topics you've raised, most of which are rather obscure. I'll post a reply later today or tomorrow. EReference 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This "book" by Allen Williamson is a great example of self-published scholarship. It's available in two flavors, print and pdf. On Amazon, the "book" costs a whopping $5.00, which means it's probably a bound print-off of the pdf. The title page lists not only the editor, but the names of two peer reviewers. In legitimate scholarship, peer reviewers are not given credit for the work--there's a reason they call it "double blind". This work definitely fails WP:RS, but if anyone has any doubts, Amazon still has 2 copies in stock--order now, and it will be delivered before Christmas! --Akhilleus (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I might as well add that the diff I showed for the IP's misuse of sources contained two fraudulent citations. His reference to Henry V's will is another bizarre distortion. What's insidious is how the reader has to know this material as well as the perpetrator to even challenge it. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have more time now. I guess I might as well cover several items in the same message since they're all interrelated.

Yesterday Akhilleus alleged that a certain book by this organization is not valid because the peer reviewers are listed. I don't think that's justified since this type of disclosure has in fact become more common in recent years for a number of academic publications. For example see the following guidelines here (see point 5 specifically) for an academic publication which lists the peer reviewers and accepting editors who recommended each article (only reviewers who rejected the work remain anonymous under their method).

The low price is not too unusual for smaller books, especially at Amazon.

Durova has brought up a number of subjects, mostly dealing with old debates and issues which are hard to follow. Some deal with the organization which you dispute.

For starters, let's look up the organization's website. On one page it lists at least fifteen members in two categories without listing whatever others there may be aside from these "recent" ones. You had said the total was only four people. Googling the listed names finds that Stephen Richey authored at least one published book on Joan of Arc. François Janvier is evidently an official at the CAOA in the Department of the Meuse, France. François Thouvenin seems to be a translator with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Others could be Googled if I had time. The website also lists a publisher's ISBN prefix, which is definitely not cheap to buy. It lists an Employer Identification Number, a SAN, several ISSNs (which might take months to obtain from the Library of Congress) and a list of current or upcoming publications which include subjects such as military records, government docs, a "transcription of BNF fr 4488 ff 463-476" and a bunch of other stuff. This clearly extends beyond four people with one pdf file, I think. Remember that this ultimately comes back to the allegation that a dishonest editor had created or invented a bogus org so he could insert his own stuff into the article. A bit of searching indicates that this is wrong.

Your objections to the people themselves have been of two types. One was based on a search for their names at Google Scholar, which is likely to be unreliable for several reasons. It looks like you initially didn't find the organization's publications there either although at least some of them do show up if you use certain keywords. It's also the case that Google Scholar is hardly exhaustive. The other argument was based on the assumption that certain anonymous IPs or accounts here are disguises for one of the members (which would be hard to prove). You assume that certain edits by these anons were deliberately made in bad faith and therefore undermine the person's credibility as a historian. In one case this was because (if I understand correctly) you believe he misrepresented an author's position with regard to specific pieces of evidence. After looking over the links to the old edits you provided it looks to me like the two of you were arguing about rather different issues (an author's mention of a document versus an author's view of a theory related to that document) and therefore misunderstanding each other. Here's why I think that. Looking at the first link you provided, we see him adding citations for two books which quote or mention some historical documents he was using to back up one of his own theories. Now, his edit comment specifically says he's citing a book by Pernoud because Pernoud "mentions this document" (he doesn't say Pernoud supports it) which his text lower down specifies is a letter from "the University of Paris.. to John of Luxembourg" which was among several documents which he said supported his theory that "Charles or his faction" attempted to save Joan of Arc. The other link you provided leads to your rebuttal which you based on a quote from one of Pernoud's other books in which Pernoud casts doubt on this theory and questions the reliability of the "Morosini" records... but it seems that neither of those two issues were the point. He wasn't saying Pernoud's book supported his theory but rather that this book by Pernoud "mentions" the University of Paris letter. This is "original research" on the anon's part but not dishonesty. You state that these rather ambiguous matters would undermine a specific real person's scholarly credentials ... which would not be the case even assuming that he was genuinely the anon in the first place.

You also objected to a comment the anon made about Henry V's will in the same link. As far as I can see this refers to footnote 3 in that text in which he argues (I'm summarizing here) that the decision to keep Joan of Arc as a prisoner rather than letting her be "allowed ransom" was similar to previous cases in which important prisoners were also retained in this way. He gives as an example the case of Henry V retaining "the duke of Orléans" according to a statement given in Henry's will. You didn't say why you object to this, but I'll do my best to try to figure it out. Is it inaccurate to say that the duke of Orleans was retained as a prisoner by Henry V ? Or as with the other disputed Pernoud citation are you objecting to the reference to Pernoud because perhaps Pernoud may have disagreed with this theory as was the case with the other one? Since this reference to Pernoud's book occurs in the middle of the sentence right after the mention of Henry V's will but before any mention of the theory which compares the two cases, he doesn't seem to be attributing the theory itself to Pernoud but only the claim that Henry V's will ordered the duke of Orleans to be kept a prisoner. But I'm grasping at straws here to guess the specific objection since I don't think you stated the problem. At least not in your last note. EReference 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite the practice of the Digital Medievalist, it is not common to disclose peer reviewers in most academic publications. Nor is it common for an association to publish original material that's authored by one member of the association and "peer reviewed" by two of the other members. This is a self-publishing house that isn't following standard academic rules. That's not surprising, because its members/contributors aren't academics--Chris Snidow and Catherine Hénon are musicians and tour guides (or perhaps I should say pilgrims?); Kevin Hendryx is, according to his webpage, "an editor, is a freelance writer by night, and ... loves Tolkien, the Beatles, and Joan of Arc..."; and Bob Perler apparently enjoyed the 2004 pilgrimage guided by Snidow and Henon. I'm sure that all of these people have a strong and sincere interest in Joan, but they don't have the credentials we expect from people who are running a research institute or academic press. At the risk of publicizing too much personal information (even though it's accesible through brief searching on the web), I'll note that the organization is headquartered at the residence of one of the members of the "academy", which is another indication that this isn't an academic organization.

By the way, ISBNs are not cheap, but they're not astronomical, either; a person could get a few contributors together to cover the cost, apply for 501c3 status, and voila, you have an "academy" that issues publications and a journal. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The four people I listed were the four named in connection with this particular publication. As I stated before, some of them may have acted in good faith. My original summary was written three months ago, at which time the organization had no other members, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to get something more serious off the ground. An author who self-publishes may have partners and a larger goal of building a real publishing firm.

My earlier post traces a history of unethical behavior by Williamson and his probable sockpuppets in which he consistently attempts to put himself forward as more authoritative than he actually is. To address the two specific instances of misused citations:

• Henry V's will To explain why this is worse than garden variety OR requires background knowledge, a good deal of which I can demonstrate through the same book that Williamson cites. Henry V died seven years before Joan of Arc entered public life.(168, 266) That will did forbid any ransom of Charles I de Valois, Duke of Orléans but did not in any way extend that prohibition into some general rule against ransoming prisoners.(193) Ransoms were one of the principal ways of profiting at war and the English accepted other war ransoms for French prisoners.(172, 190) The duke of Orléans was a special case because at the time of Henry V's death this duke was second in line to inherit the throne of France according to the Valois claim. This duke's son would later become king of France when the older line died out.(196) Henry V claimed legal right to inherit the French crown and had solidified his claim through marriage and treaty,(3) so his prohibition against this particular ransom had everything to do with dynastic succession and nothing to do with Joan of Arc: Henry V wanted to bequeath rulership of France to his infant son. Furthermore - even if by some stretch of the imagination this will did apply to her - Williamson claims this document held legal force in Burgundy, which it didn't. The English alliance with Philip III, Duke of Burgundy was not even a very cordial one.(170)
• Attempts to ransom Joan of Arc As my other diff demonstrates, there weren't any such attempts. Far from what Williamson tries to represent about Charles VII's actions, "cowardly abandonment" is the standard interpretation of his behavior while she was a prisoner.(167) Williamson's citation of a delegation from the University of Paris is completely misleading: Paris was not under control of the French king at this time and its university was solidly pro-English. The University of Paris endorsed the charges against Joan of Arc during her trial and many of her judges had some prior connection to that university.(125-126, 207-217) The delegation from the University of Paris that Williamson mentions is not any action on behalf of the French king - to make that implication in this context is absurd - and Morosini's rumor mill was unreliable: in August of the same year Morosini thought that Joan of Arc had escaped.(99)

To summarize, Williamson has been laying traps for the uninformed. This is someone who knows exactly what he's doing and who sets out to fool people. One of his own edit summaries admits that he selected citations because he believed they were out of my depth. Before I joined the project he had successfully disrupted one of Wikipedia's core biographies for a year because - I think I can use a strong term without exaggeration - his other crankery actually was beyond the depth of previous editors. He constructs sophisticated exercises in contextomy while giving them a veneer of plausibility and the above two examples are by no means the only offenses. The good faith assumptions of editors such as EReference account for much of why I waited so long to raise this matter: as absurd as Williamson's claims really are, Wikipedia has at most a handful of editors who know this material in sufficient depth to challenge it on its own terms. So I had to build my own reputation for editing, investigations, and integrity before my charge could be taken seriously. If Wikipedia were a university I would have referred him for formal academic discipline in November 2005. While this assault on Wikipedia's credibility is significant, my real concern is for the students who relied upon us while his edits stood. At best, those students' time was wasted. More likely their grades suffered. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see there's another round of allegations here to sift through and try to analyze. I would ask both of you to please read through the whole thing before thinking of replying. Maybe we can finally bring at least this one part of the matter to a close.

Akhilleus' post was first. I have to say that I've been confused by your statements here. I'm curious whether you also reject other publications which disclose peer reviewers? Remember that your original accusation held that this was an unethical practice, not merely that it was uncommon. Clearly some journals use that method (uncommon as it is) without being accused of an ethics violation, do they not?

You have now added the related allegation that this publication should be taken to task for using peer reviewers who belong to the same association. I may be mistaken, but doesn't (for instance) the Journal of the American Medical Association include articles in which both the author(s) and peer reviewers belong to the American Medical Association? My understanding is that they do, without being considered suspect. I think that's also the case with many small, narrowly focused organizations, isn't it? Your statement on this matter repeated the view that this is an "uncommon" practice, which is debatable but again it isn't the issue.

You objected to some of the members, for example by describing Chris Snidow as a musician and tour guide. It doesn't take much searching to find that Chris Snidow has a published book on Joan of Arc which was given the endorsement of a person who is a familiar name from one of Durova's links, Marie-Veronique Clin. Now, in Durova's link Marie-Veronique Clin was described as the co-author of a book which Durova was using as a source. Clin therefore would apparently be someone whose endorsement of Snidow's book would be significant, I would assume? Your characterization of Chris Snidow clearly is unfair I think. If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging.

With all due respect, what I've been seeing here frankly seems to be a case in which arguments continually shift ground whenever one assumption is shown to be mistaken after closer examination. There has also been a great deal of speculation which assumes the very worst about all of the people connected with this organization without any verifiable evidence to substantiate that assumption. I'll assume you are acting in good faith but it's becoming more difficult to maintain that view when you repeatedly refuse to do likewise for the increasingly larger and larger circle of people you're trying to discredit.

Next is Durova's post, which sought to explain a few previous allegations.

You addressed the issue of the organization's membership. You said that when you had written the first allegation three months ago the org had no one except the four members who are listed in one of their pdf files. Their site mentions other members being brought in far earlier than that, such as Stephen Richey who came in more than a year ago. The rest of your comments consisted of speculation about their motives. You assume they are acting in bad faith (or worse) based mainly it seems on the following issues concerning the anon. I'll now look at those.

You first addressed the anon's handling of Henry V's will and the Duke of Orleans. You said the anon claimed that Henry's will held "legal force in Burgundy", therefore he was claiming that it directly affected Joan of Arc's circumstances. In the link you provided he never said anything like this. What he did say was the following. He said important prisoners were sometimes retained and he gave the case of the Duke of Orleans as one example which was rather similar to Joan of Arc's case. He never said that one case provided the legal basis for the other. It seems his point was that Joan of Arc was important enough that her enemies didn't want to allow her to obtain her freedom either. In your recent note you seemingly argued against this by saying that the Duke of Orleans was a "special case" who was retained only because he was so important, which makes it sound as if you're implying that Joan of Arc wasn't important enough to be retained like this Duke was. Didn't she have a significant effect on the war, much more than the relatively obscure Duke of Orleans in fact? Whatever their relative importance was, I can't find any statements from the anon saying what you thought he said. It's common in internet debates for misunderstandings to arise, and I think that's what happened in this case. Unless you feel he was dishonest for saying that Joan of Arc was likely considered too important to be allowed her freedom, I guess I don't understand why you charge him with dishonesty.

You then addressed the anon's handling of Charles VII's actions. You said (in summary) that the anon's citation of a letter from the University of Paris cannot be accepted as valid evidence of Charles VII's actions because this University was pro-English rather than pro-French and therefore could not have been acting on Charles VII's behalf. In the link you provided the anon never claimed this University was acting on Charles VII's behalf but rather that the University's letter mentions actions taken by Charles VII's government. The latter is not the same thing as the former. A letter can describe actions undertaken by an enemy ruler even though the letter's authors do not support him. I guess I don't understand how you're reading something different into this passage.

You then again charged him with dishonesty which you said was sufficient to undermine his credentials and credibility, which is a little hard to fathom. I'm sure you know that in order to make an allegation of this type against a real person by name you would need very substantial proof and there is no proof here. He clearly doesn't seem to be saying what you attribute to him, and it's an anonymous editor saying it.

You criticized me (and unnamed others) for our "good faith assumptions" about the anon and this organization but with all due respect I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see these allegations as anything other than a series of misunderstandings at best. We all tend to jump to conclusions in heated internet debates. Sometimes it's best to step back a bit.

A ban based on charges of sockpuppetry against whoever is behind the accounts might be justifiable, but all these other allegations against quite a sizable group of named individuals and their organization are frankly rather disturbing. If I had unlimited time and patience I could continue sifting through more of this type of thing, but since all the previous allegations have turned out quite clearly to be mistaken I would suggest it would be better to drop this portion of the matter. This has long since gone beyond a productive stage, especially since a siteban could be pursued by other means. EReference 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

EReference, you raise a lot of points, most of which I won't respond to. However, you're slightly misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that disclosing peer reviewers was "unethical", I said that what the publication did--not only disclosing peer reviewers, but using "peer reviewers" who are members of the organization, is not typical academic practice and wouldn't be done in legitimate scholarship. There's two reasons: first, the publication seems to be giving them credit as co-authors, but more importantly, these "peer reviewers" are not independent of the publisher. If you want to use the AMA as an analogy, what the "academy" is doing is like the editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association writing an article and submitting it to two members of the editorial board for "peer review". If that article were published, you'd have no confidence that an independent assessment of the article's quality had been performed. Similarly, we shouldn't have any confidence that Virginia Frohlick and Margaret Walsh performed an impartial assessment of this publication, since they are members of the association that published the book--this is elementary conflict-of-interest stuff.

Whether or not other publications disclose the names of peer reviewers is less important than the fact that Frohlick and Walsh are not independent peer reviewers. However, I note that the Digital Medievalist is not a historical journal, but a journal about the use of technology in studying history--its practice isn't directly relevant to how peer review is used in historical scholarship. It's more relevant to look at journals like the American Historical Review or the Journal of Medieval History, neither of which, I believe, disclose the names of referees. The Journal of the American Medical Association does disclose peer reviewers, but doesn't associate them with particular articles.

A more important issue than peer review is that none of the members of the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies have the credentials we expect in a historical academy (association). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that even one of these members/contributors has an advanced degree in history or a related field, or a position at a college or university. We have seen evidence that they're amateur historians and devotees of Joan--this is fine, but the format of their publications is clearly designed to make readers think that they're getting the same kind of product they'd get from a university press, and that, I think, is misleading at best.

Chris Snidow's book is no evidence that this is a legitimate academic organization. Rather the opposite--the book is a print-on-demand work which you can order from iUniverse.com. This is self-publishing, which fails WP:RS. Snidow's book hardly gives me any confidence that the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies is a reputable academic publisher, academy, or (association).

You wrote: "If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging." I don't understand what you're implying. Could you spell it out, please? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

further out of wikipedia contact

Ok, I reported on this once before [83]. If you want to read the completed consensus on it, it's here: [84] (last diff I found on the topic). Well, the guy is back and still sending me emails to join social/dating/contact networks by email. I'm getting sick of this. Can something be done about this? I've told him twice to stop.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really see this as a matter for action on Wikipedia. Morwen - Talk 10:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to see how it isn't. The person in question is using the Wikipedia email function to spam. Swat, have you tried simply listing the person's email address in a spam filter? JoshuaZ 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not my reading of the note, particularly the previous report. It seems they have obtained this person's address, and are spamming them privately or are feeding their email address into dating sites as an "invite your friend" type feature. Morwen - Talk 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is a very interesting case. May I ask how often you are getting these emails? In your previous post you said 3 in a month, which doesn't sound like much. Also consider that the offender might not even be aware of what he's doing: sometimes social-network sites have people upload the address book from their email client, which can include everyone they've ever sent mail to. You might be one of hundreds or even thousands, who knows. It's also (sadly) possible that the user may have been the victim of a virus or trojan which harvested your address and is now being used for spam. Obviously it's upsetting you if you're posting here about it, so I'm trying to think of a good solution. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I got another one today, this one asks me for my birthday. The one yesterday asked me for my address. I've gotten 5 in the past month or so. And no, he's not been infected with a trojan because he's adding in a personalized message "Hello this is mohammed salim khan from dherai swat, pakistan", which fits in with he user pages. Morwen: I think it is a wikipedia problem, because he is using the email function on wikipedia to gain my response and then using it for unwanted personal contact. That's a huge potential loophole for phishers/scammers, to email editors here with a seemingly valid question, and then use the responding addresses and spam them. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, he's already got your email address, right? So if we ban him, and stop him from using the email facility, and indeed remove your email from the site, then he's still got your email address and can continue to spam you? I don't mean to seem unsympathetic here, but what sort of action do you expect us to take? If I am misunderstanding the situation, and you never replied to one, he doesn't have your address and is still sending these things through the wikipedia's "e-mail" function, then we may be able to do something. Morwen - Talk 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what action you're supposed to take. That's why I brought it up here, to get some sort of ideas. I can eventually get the spam filters to recognize his name and they'll block it out, but what's to stop him from doing it again through a different account? It's a policy issue that needs to be addressed because it's a potentially dangerous loophole. So I'm bringing it up here, because it's an incident, and it's something that requires administrator attention. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want us to warn someone, block someone, delete something or protect something? If so, this is the right place for it. If not, then it needs to go to developers or possibly the community at large for discussion on what we want to ask the developers to do. Morwen - Talk 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Morwen, I'm here because I don't know what the policy is regarding out of wikipedia harrassment. I think that an official warning at the minimum is in order, though it's up to the administrators which user it would go to, because he has something like 8 user accounts (which I've posted about here before). If there's a way to disable the Special:emailuser function for his accounts, that's actually the best way. However, I'm asking here what the policy is. This is an incident. It requires administrator attention. Hence, here. (Note, I think it should go to the developers as well, but that doesn't preclude action here). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think SWATJester has a valid point here; if people are phishing via Wikipedia email, in any form, then we have a problem. Just because we don't have a policy yet doesn't mean that we should pretend that it's not a problem if it happens. I don't know what the right answer is; it could range from "be careful who you respond to WP email from" as a user warning, to blocking or banning any WP account found to be doing this, with quite a range in between. But it's worth starting a policy discussion about. This is probably not the right place, but figuring out where the right place is, and asking if there's an informal consensus for doing something on a preliminary basis, are reasonable here. Georgewilliamherbert 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User: BooyakaDell, sock of user:JB196?

User:JB196 was banned in September for edit warring over tags and creating conflicts on numerous pages that have to do with professional wrestling. He continued to vandalized pages as an anonymous user to the point that some articles had to be semi-protected several times over. User:BooyakaDell registered in Mid-November, and has virtually the same modus operandi, editwarring over tags and adding PROD's to wrestling articles he thinks are not notable (not a valid reason for PROD'ing on several articles). Due to length of time between original user being banned, and this possible sockpuppet account being created, checkuser was not an option, although there is still a suspected sockpuppet account page. Any suggestions? Thanks! SirFozzie 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with this, and thanks for adding the incident, Fozzie! If my view is worth anything, I believe that this is definitely User:JB196. For those who are interested, I put a note about this in W:RFI (I think that's the right acronym!) as well under section 4 (registered users). Curse of Fenric 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments on my talk page (am Adopter of BooyakaDell - WP:ADOPT) - User talk:Lethaniol. For the record I don't think that dealing with the Sockpuppet case is the way to go - as a Checkuser has proved not workable - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JB196. Cheers Lethaniol 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I must note that BooyakaDell signs posts the same way as JB196 did, with no space between the full stop and the signature (i.e. This.–– Lid^(Talk) 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)) which along with the MO seems to be more evidence of sockpuppetry. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is growing. Thanks for that observation, lid. I consider the checkuser situation to be irrelevant. If BooyakaDell is behaving in the same way as JB196, he should be treated the same way - sockpuppet or otherwise. Curse of Fenric 05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

After having his claims of non-notability soundly dismissed on Glamour Boy Shane and Thunder(wrestler), BooyayaDell has start adding as many other tags as possible, in the same way JB196 used to do [85] 81.155.178.248 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Moby Dick

• Moby_Dick (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick (clarification)
• Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick
• commons:Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick

I'd like to have a second opinion on this. Is the recent edit of Moby Dick a violation of the arbcom remedies (also mind the clarification)? This was his first edit since November 13 2006.

On November 12-13 he was same time active on commons and he wasn't uploading images. Instead his focus seemed to be me. Aside from that he wasn't active at all since august neither here on en.wiki or on commons.wiki.

--Cat out 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well? --Cat out 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would constitute "harassing or stalking" you unless he continues with more posts. One post of "makes for interesting reading!" doesn't seem to be either harrassment or stalking. Anyone else want to comment? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment would be right to any new/old user without the arbcom remedies Moby has. Besides that was his first edit for roughly a month. He is stalking me unless he had accidentally stumbled on my talk page. --Cat out 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He might also, reasonably, have read this page. His comment is right below your link (which included his name). How is it "stalking" to respond to a post naming him? Particularly since, as you say, "that was his first edit for roughly a month"? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:50, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Still advocating moby dick huh? Have a read of WP:TROLL essay. You have been blocked for this behavior on commons indefinitely for it [86].

--Cat out 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out the above omitted possibility is "advocacy"? And such "advocacy" is a blockable offense? According to this, the block is "For making threats against Cool Cat and others," but nobody's specified, let alone cited, "what threats?", only announced that this repeated question is being ignored, so the false and defamatory charge has been left up going on three weeks now, with no right of rebuttal. How strange. Yet two of the people endorsing this action are running for Stewards; what a lovely prospect for dispute resolutions all over the Wikis. And to think this current furore started with you repeatedly blanking Moby's user page, then trying to get him blocked for asking you to stop. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:56, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).

What are the odds of a person who is completely inactive to be checking the RfAr page. Theoraticaly it is possible of course. He could be watching my talk page as well. These are all plasuable ways to 'stalk' a person. Regardless, its something he is prohibited from doing. He is merely tricking the system as he had been doing for months (nearly two years if you count Davenbelle).

--Cat out 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"What are the odds of a person who is completely inactive to be checking the RfAr page" ? It seems like a reasonable precaution for someone who's seen new accusations made against him in an attempt to block him (for complaining when his user page was repeatedly blanked, as noted and linked above). – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 22:41, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Well if you guys are so in love with moby dicks contribution, I am out of here. --Cat out 09:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think users are in love w/ MD. They've just given their views after checking the edits. MD's edit on your talk page is a comment to your medical emergency (rfar #2). Just forget about the issue unless he deliberately harrass you. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He has a record of deliberately harassing me. That is his entire contribution with the exception of very few minor edits. That very link explains the arbitration hearing. He is practically taunting me... I can legally link to any arbitration hearing of my choice at my convinance. Check both his commons and en.wiki contribution and you will see a preoccupation with me.

Let me ask this in a different way, if you were under the remedies moby dick is under, would you be doing what moby is doing?

--Cat out 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He surely has a record and the ArbCom enforcement of ban on harassment was a result of that same record. However, his edit on your talk page is not a de facto harrassement. He's just commented on something related to his case. You were discussing the Starfleet Security issue and made and you made an analogy between what was happening in the article and MD's case. Note that MD hasn't been involved neither in editing the article nor in the AfD. So the question is why did you have to refer to his case while discussing another issue. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The person I was talking to (hustnoc) was feeling harassed so I asked him to review my past arbcom case about harassment so he can compare his and that case. Obviously he isn't 'stalked' if you compare it to my case... Discussion was not even about moby dick and his nick is only visible if someone looks at the source. --Cat out 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So his simply looking at your talk page wouldn't give away that you were discussing his case. So much for the idea that he was stalking you. But either searching on the string "arbitration/Moby_Dick" (here restricted to user-talk-space to shorten the list) or looking at the RfAr link page would show him that page. You've just cleared him. Thanks. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 22:28, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Unilateral action by Cool Cat's loyal supporter Bastique

Now, without saying a word here, Bastique has blocked Moby Dick citing as "harrassment of Cool Cat":

1. the above cited remark (but note the above consensus, Moby was responding to his own name being brought up); and
2. Moby's participation in RFC:Elaragirl – endorsing the summary of Elaragirl – Moby's "Well said, Elaragirl" remark, among 12 other endorsements... (Bastique does not cite Moby's no-comment endorsement of Doug Bell's summary, or Moby's "ya, rfc wo merit" endorsement of Swatjester's summary); and
3. Moby's supportive post to the user talk page of Elaragirl, who was being accused by Cool Cat.

Note that where Bastique did log this block, he did not even bother to sign it, Khoikhoi had to add the ID tag an hour later.

This is the same Bastique who nominated Cool Cat for Commons admin [87], and has since then defended him from repeated complaints of admin abuse – CC restoring his own postings deleted for policy violations, or CC repeatedly blanking and even protecting his target's user page – as merely "errors of judgment" [88] [89]... while cautioning or even threatening to block those who bring up these complaints [same cites], so complaining of admin abuse is clearly a much more severe offense than the admin abuse itself.

This is the same Bastique – the same paragon of fairness, of impartiality, of avoiding any conflict of interest, of recusing himself as admin from disputes in which he has personal loyalties – who is now a leading candidate for Steward.

Think what we all have to look forward to, in Wiki-wide standards of dispute resolution. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:31, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

You know... Trolling me is one thing, people hate me anyways... But trolling Bastique... --Cat out 07:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked at how Commons admins behave. Bastique, what the hell? People with valid concerns about Cool Cat are being blocked out of Commons, and can't do anything about it now. This.. is wrong. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Two trolls! Oh, that is twice the fun! --Cat out 08:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, whatever beefs yall have with the Commons, take it there or privately, not hash it out in here where most admins have little to no control at what happens at the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you've missed the detail that the same cluster of Commons admins who've shown such mutual support and solidarity there are now doing so here on Wikipedia, such as one summarily blocking another's critic (without a hearing or opportunity for defense), rather than properly recusing himself from admin actions in disputes where his personal loyalties are involved. That's unbefitting conduct. It's admin abuse.

Besides, how can anyone "take it to Commons" if they're blocked there (on false accusations, without a hearing or opportunity for defense) and their protests in talkspace are simply ignored? As you know. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:09, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

How many images have you uploaded to commons? What has your entire contribution been? Well? --Cat out 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Bastique has altered Moby's endorsement to delete evidentiary links Moby was offering to Elaragirl's summary list – in effect, Bastique destroyed evidence that the RfC participants might otherwise have seen. So another effect of his blocking Moby was to keep Moby from restoring the links or drawing attention to the deletion. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:09, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

FYI, Moby Dick had been blocked per an arbcom ruling, which Bastique reported at the right place. User:Bryan Tong Minh 18:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting block for non-consensus page moves

I am requesting that Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) be blocked for engaging in hundreds of non-consensus page moves. There has been no attempt to go through WP:RM, and requests on Yaksha's talkpage to cease the moves have been to no avail[90][91]. Edit summaries claim that the moves are in accordance with WP:TV-NC; however that guideline is clearly in dispute, as is evidenced by Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), which Yaksha has supposedly "agreed" to [92], but such agreement has not seemed to stop continued bad faith actions. Immediate admin intervention is requested, to prevent further disruption of hundreds more pages. --Elonka 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with blocking anyone or stopping any page moves. Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs) is another admin who has been involved in the discussion at WT:NC-TV and has also supported page moves. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Josiah Rowe and Wknight94 are actively involved in the dispute, as can be seen at the Mediation page, and as such are not in any position to be making decisions about blocks. Further, as admins, both of you should be speaking up to stop non-consensus moves, rather than encouraging unilateral action by what is clearly a secondary user account. --Elonka 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Non-consensus moves" is a blatant mischaracterization that you've repeatedly made with no evidence to support it. Actively involved or not, I can make a recommendation. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, could you spicify which policy was violated by Yaksha? It is not the first time that we see you forum shopping for blocks on this page, therefore each of your complaints should be scrutinized more than carefully. If you dispute Yaksha's actions, why don't you pursue standart dispute resolution procedures? This page is not part of the DR process, you know. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:RM, controversial moves need to be formally requested and debated. There has been no such attempt for the articles that Yaksha is moving -- not even so much as a courtesy note at the series page. As for WP:DR, both MedCom and MedCab are in-process, but Yaksha is proceeding with the moves anyway. I would also point out that the series page had a clear notice at the top of the page showing how episodes were to be named, which, though it had been there for many months, Yaksha removed without any attempt at discussion. [93]. This is clearly a disruptive user who is acting without consensus, and needs to be stopped. --Elonka 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have seen how much damage such unilateral moves can do, I strongly support Elonka - if the users ignores warnings and discussions, and disrupts wiki with moves, blocks are in order.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I must strongly support Elonkas position, there has been a lot of patience towards these unilateral moves and a lot of requests for them to stop. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I support these moves and strongly oppose any block. WP:RM says that moves may be simply moved by an editor if they are not controversial - I don't consider them controversial, since the moves follow WP:D, WP:NAME and consensus agreement at WP:TV-NAME I feel they do have consensus support. In the cases where a RM was used, there have been comments asking why it was needed. I consider one or two editors making a blanket declaration that a potential move of any TV article would be controversial to be a disruptive attempt to slow consensus action by making it as cumbersome as possible. On a similar RM that is going on now, MatthewFenton even went so far as to suggest that each page move should have a seperate RM with a separate discussion (even though there's currently a clear consensus to pass the move). I find it incredibly bad faith on Elonka's part to complain about unilateral page moves and then within minutes, start doing edits and page moves on those very same pages (with a "per ANI" edit summary, even though no admin here has given her permission to move pages back). And neither medcom nor medcab are in progress - medcom was attempted but multiple users, including myself, declined because of Elonka's continued evidence of bad faith. Elonka tried starting a medcab case, but I doubt it will go anywhere either for the same reasons. I don't see potential mediation as a reason to ignore wikipedia guidelines (particularly when, in the absence of WP:TV-NAME, the moves are still supported by WP:D and WP:NAME), if anything I see Elonka's "attempts" at mediation as an excuse to try to get a de-facto "injunction" and try and stop consensus moves. As were her attempts to unilaterally declare WP:TV-NAME "in dispute", even revert warring in an attempt to ad a "disputed" tag. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As a demonstration of good faith, at least two formal requested moves have taken place with in this dispute. One is still in progress, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Proposed moves for episodes of The Wire, the other was Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Episode title RfC 3#Requested move. We continue to establish a consensus over and over again. -- Ned Scott 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement from the MedCom

These page moves have been made unilaterally and without established consensus from all parties involved. This is disruptive to a potential mediation case. However, I cannot endorse a block or lack thereof due to our committee's commitment to remaining neutral in disputes. I do beg Yaksha to please cease her actions until consensus has been reached, and allow the pages to be moved back to where they were for the time being.

On behalf of the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For further reference, please see #Non-consensus page moves. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Demon, might I ask you to clarify your statement? It is being interpreted by Elonka as an official decree that there is no consensus for WP:TV-NAME. It looks to me like you're just saying there's no consensus for this particular group of moves. Please clarify, as Elonka is already using your comments as ammo elsewhere. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Five parties have disagreed to the mediation request. It's no longer a potential case, it's a case awaiting official rejection. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The page moves are not unilateral. Many editors have been helping with page moves since the start of the month. The mediation suddenly popping up shouldn't be an extra excuse for Elonka to complain about them. The moves do have consensus - this much is obvious from the results of the one Request Move entry which i did file (here is the Request Move entry which i filed, after Lost editors insisted there was consensus to not move the articles. We ended at 15 support vs. 3 oppose, and the RM closed with a "all moved"). They also directly follow naming conventions, not only WP:TV-NC (not the convention itself was never under debate, just the issue of whether and how to allow exceptions) but also WP:D. --`/aksha 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've filed in a Request Moves for one TMNT03 episode, where the move was reverted by Elonka. The RM can be found here. Guess this would be a good time to see exactly how far Elonka's claim of my page moves being "against consensus" and "unilateral". --`/aksha 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the request of WP:MEDCOM above, I recommend that this and any further RMs which are submitted by parties to this dispute -- no matter who submits them -- be speedily closed. --Elonka 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? but since when did the MedCom have that kind of authority? You ask for me to be blocked, on the basis that i'm not going through Request Moves to make page moves. So i put one of the moves which you reverted through Request Moves, and you ask for it to be closed?

Exactly what are you trying to do? You complain about my page moves being non-consensus. When all the Request Moves filed so far show the moves to be very much pro-consensus. So you decide it's not good for your case and instead demand us close off the Request Moves?

So moving without Request MOves means you threaten to block me, and moving with Request Moves means you ask for speedy closes? Exactly how are we supposed to get anything moved?

Or is your entire tactic to simply delay the moving until we all get bored and decide to leave?

Seriously, all the Request Moves show clear consensus for moves. Just deal with it and stop trying to stir up problems that don't exist. --`/aksha 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, most of the users participating in this ANI thread so far (including myself, Wknight94, Ned Scott, Milo H Minderbinder, and Yaksha (`/aksha) are actively involved in the dispute, leaving the only outside opinions so far to be those of Ghirla, Piotrus, and ^demon. Additional neutral admin opinions would be appreciated. --Elonka 03:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

MAJOR CLARIFICATION

Once again, I am NOT endorsing the pages be one way or the other, NOR do I request that the moves go through a particular medium. However, I am notifying here in addition to at WP:RFM that the mediation has been rejected. I do not see mediation as being successful through our medium. I leave you with this: I suggest everyone involved stop what they're doing, calm down, then try to figure it out again. Massive page moving (whether with consensus or not) is not going to solve this debate.

On the behalf of the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me just drop a clarification in here: A mediator may issue a request to a party in mediation to cease a certain behavior for the good of the mediation; it is not, however, an enforceable directive outside the mediation. Mediators do not have the power to order parties to do or not do certain things; mediations are always voluntary. What a mediator can do, and what this has forced ^demon to do, is close the mediation as a failure, if the parties are not willing to refrain from conduct that harms the mediation. So, to be clear: ^demon was within policy to make the request to cease, and he is within policy to close the mediation. Failure to abide by the mediator's request is not enforceable outside the mediation (Note to everyone involved: If you're trying to get anyone blocked based on this, stop, it isn't going to happen.); it is, however, cause for the mediation to be closed as failed. If the parties are still interested in settling the issue, they'll need to seek an RfC or arbitration.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk), Chairman of the Mediation Committee 02:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:KPbIC

I really don't know where to begin on this one, but I just want to keep in mind that this conflict is nowhere new, yet it has for a while remained dormant...until today. Anyway in the past there has been many incidents when this user, has repeatedly stalked on my edits and in some cases it came to pure trolling... like these three edits on Kryvyi Rih Metrotram [94], [95], [96], [97], [98] before the article was protected. On demand I can provide at least thirty examples where he stalked on my edits like that, and as this one shows, he did it (and at times continues to) by using a dynamic IP to avoid blockage...it really reached its peak moment on Maladzyechna this example is a showcase of just how ridiculous this user can be. Originally it was about getting rid of a title that was inputed by a user who was not aware of wiki policies and functions. I moved it back to the translit version Maladzechna [99]. Like any stalker would do so, he went straight at it and reverted. That begun a four month dispute where I went on all possible attempts, including WP:CYR that was (and now is) to be a guideline for article titles...And I got the most stubborn resistance one has ever seen (relevant link). Even after you had Belarusian users with professional linguistic knowledge supporting, and when it eventually came to a point where no one would challenge on which title the article should rest, he went on link resisting the change... In the end we did move the page...and the word Maladzechna became Maladyechna... That's right four months of his stubborn resistance just to add a y... Does one laugh or cry about this?

Now then October/November he is absent on wikipedia. But, recentely he has returned, and really I just do not like knowing that every single edit of mine, particulary on sensitive articles is bound to get reverted by him w/o any consensus or discussion... Really its annoyance more than anything... However there is a WP:STALK policy which clearly dictates that such behaivour is unacceptable, regardless of what form my edits happen to be. So I decided let it be sooner than later, and managed to set a trap for him. If one can go to my contribs [100], then all edits between 14:36, 6 December 2006 and 14:38, 6 December 2006 were made deliberately to check his response...and what do you know? Check contributions for him between 19:04, 6 December 2006 and 14:38, 6 December 2006... all reverts. Oddly enough, I did actually have an excuse for the page moves which I put on his talk page here, and reverted him again, just to put one final test... And as I am submitting this contribs for 23:4x of the 6th December, same articles. Was it right or wrong for me to test him, you judge, even I get blocked for this, might be slightly extreme, but I won't challege it provided that I have the assurance that upon returning KPbIC will not be stalking me... --Kuban Cossack 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At some point Kuban kazak wrote: "You once accused me of Russification, well on one side you are correct" [101]. This is the core of the conflict. Kuban kazak is a Russian user who devotes significant amount of his activity on Russification of Ukrainian history (as well as the other territories, which were taken by Russian Empire). The user recently moved 4 articles on Kharkiv Metro stations from Ukrainian spelling to Russian spelling. A part of the problem is that the metro stations do not really have a well established English name. But it should be noted that the people of Ukraine have chosen to have the only official language (as stated in Constitution of Ukraine), which is Ukrainian, not Russian. The Ukrainian independence, laws, and traditions of Ukraine are recognized by the civilized world, which commonly uses the local names in case establish English names are absent.

Back to WP:STALK alleged accusations, I explained to Kuban kazak that his identity is of absolutely no interest to me. My interest is primary limited to the Ukrainian topics, the topics of my country. If there are drastic Russification attempts, such as Kuban kazak often used to commit, then it’s my understanding that it should be prevented. Kuban’s attempts are on the edge of vandalism, as basically he’s challenging the integrity of Wikipedia.

The bigger issue is the relation of a majority and a minority. There are more Russian editors than Ukrainians. While WP:NPOV is postulated as one of the key elements of Wikipedia, often it’s difficult to achieve. With respect to the Ukrainian topics, instead of bothering with analyzing references, looking for information sources, some use brutal force to substitute NPOV by Russian POV. The rest of Wikicommunity very often does not care. Frustrated with the situation, many new Ukrainian editors simply leave, which only amplifies the prevalence of Russian POV. In the end, instead of being a source of reliable information, Wikipedia may fail into the hands of such majority groups. This is the challenge that Wikipedia is facing. --KPbIC 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Standard argument, that is half full of lies... anyway talking about NPOVs and integrities then I invite anyone to take a look on my contributions for the period that KPbIC was absent October and November... I knew he was gone, so had I wanted to choose to troll and russify articles, would I not take advantage of not having a stalker? Please if anyone finds anything in my contributions of that time then his argument might stand...however so far there is really is nothing for him to bite into... which immediately discredits every comment about russification which I must say is an extremely abstarct term, and in some cases is actually offensive if all my actions (according to him) are Russification. So that means, hypotherically every article I edit that is related to Ukraine is Russification...

As for Kharkiv Metro stations, then I agree with Alex Bakharev and actually with the moves... and as explained above it was but a simple provocation, to test whether KPbIC has grown up since his departure in October...I even told him on his talk page that should he raise the issue on Talk:Kharkiv Metro without first reverting, as a proof to me, then I would support him. One needs not be an expert to deduce that he has not.

Just to be clear, if there is a dispute on articles, I, unlike KPbIC prefer not to edit war if the people approach with necessary comments on a talk page... There is a WP:EQ which I strive to follow... yet some people, like him do not.

Finally, WP:POINT clearly states that insulted national conscience (his second argument) is no reason to harass other users by stalking on their edits... and the same goes with the integrity and NPOV arguments that he brought up... And just for the record, there are plenty of Ukrainian users contributing, yet so far only one seems to be harassing a Russian user by stalking his edits and then doing a big-bully accusation. I wonder why noone of the "Russian majority" is not extending him such a favour...And that is not because only 10% of his other edits are useful, i.e. as opposed to the 90% of them being reverts of mine. --Kuban Cossack 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a recent example Holodomor, a very charged topic, there was a very lengthy discussion on whether or not to include a controversial category. Even KPbIC participated, in the talk page and the dominating consensus was not to include it as genocide. However new users are often oblivious to this and sometimes this POV-pushing takes place [102]. However, per all consensus on talk pages when thousands of people revert this its ok for KPbIC, when I do it [103], its obviously not [104].

Like I said, I was patient for a long time, but its wearing thin, and frankly at times like these I ask that an admin takes serious action. Not just for the edits over the last two days, but for everything in the past. --Kuban Cossack 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is the move war over the names for the Kharkiv Metro stations. I think User:Olexandr Kravchuk and User:KPbIC are right here. User:DDima and Kuban kazak wrote nice articles about these stations but the name should be based on the rules of Ukrainian language not on a strange Russian/Ukrainian mix. I have moveprotected the articles in the Ukrainian version. If Kazak or somebody else wants to move them back he can file WP:RM but I doubt it would succeed.

The second issue is that I agree that KPbIC (when he is onwiki) appears to stalk Kuban kazak and User:Irpen. E.g. I strongly suspect that even in this case he became involved into the move war of Kuban kazak vs Olexandr Kravchuk not because he had the Kharkiv metros stations on his watchlist but because he monitors all Kazak's edits. This is a recurring pattern and in the most cases (unlike the Kharkiv Metro names) it leads only to a petty harassment of Kazak without any benefit to the project. I have my own history of conflicts with KPbIC, so I might be biased in my assessment of the situation but I ask an uninvolved admin to look into the stalking allegations. Alex Bakharev 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The issues here have to be separated. As far as moves where concerned, those where indeed not "unexplained" as KK claimed when reverting them, but simply "unproposed". Unproposed, at least informally at talk, moves are generally a bad idea, but should not be automatically reverted. Those moves were sensible. As the articles are now at those sensible locations, the issue is moot.

The core of KK's complaint is that KPbIC habitually stalks his edits and reverts, picks fights and edit wars in various articles. I can ascertain that this is true. The editor indeed stalks KK (and myself) and while I find being stalked amusing and even thrilling to be that editor's obsession, I can see that Kazak has no obligation to take the stalker with a similar humor and can be, as such, annoyed by him. Stalking is really an issue here. KPbIC' response is basically off-topic. He has grievances about Wikipedia's systemic bias, he has his eternal grievances against "the Russians" in general, he invokes some unrelated issues in Ukrainian politics, etc. This all does not belong to WP:ANI.

Kuban kazak complains that he is being stalked for many months by user:KPbIC. I can certify that this is true. The only issue here is whether the KPbIC' habit in question falls under Harassment ("following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" , "stalking another editor who is acting in good faith" and "constantly nit-picking in violation of required courtesy") or it is a legitimate activity of correcting the problem editor. In my opinion KK is not a problem editor but a committed contributor (not without the fault like all of us) and KPbIC' activity qualifies as Harassment. I can tell because I am also an object of KPbIC stalking. I simply take it with pity rather than with anger. --Irpen 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Stalking is a big deal. To answer Kuban's original question, and I do think Alex's and Irpen's agreement that it is stalking is convincing (and therefore worrying), this noticeboard probably won't solve this kind of problem. Your best chance would be to file an RFC and go to arbitration if the behavior doesn't change, or perhaps even make an arbitration request immediately. Arbcom has banned people for stalking [105] [106], but, based upon severity and the offender's productivity, it has also devised useful remedies for preventing harassment [107] [108]. Either would be useful. Dmcdevit·t 11:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism in modern India-related sockpuppetry

I stumbled across this (really, I was running a check on a completely different user, so it was an odd occurence) case of major sockpuppetry related to the ongoing edit war at Buddhism in modern India. I can say with a high level of certainty based on the IP evidence that Pkulkarni (talk · contribs), Shrilankabuddhist (talk · contribs), Buddhistindian (talk · contribs), Ambedkaritebuddhist (talk · contribs), Dhammafriend (talk · contribs), HKelkar2 (talk · contribs), Iqbal123 (talk · contribs), Bhangi brahmin (talk · contribs), and Kelkar123 (talk · contribs) are one person. Note the two impostor accounts. This is potentially a workplace IP, so meatpuppetry is a possibility, but based on the nature of the editing, it looks like a single person to me (scrutiny welcome). Dmcdevit·t 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has been the cause of a lot of edit-wars. I have indef-blocked all the socks/attack users, and also blocked Pkularni for a month as this is a first time offence. I have also made a post at the Indian noticeboard as there were some discussions about the article in question there. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this was previously reported fir checkuser as Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bodhidhamma (but declined). Thatcher131 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I was thought of filing a Checkuser for Shrilankabuddhist (talk · contribs), and Dhammafriend (talk · contribs). utcursch | talk 12:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Dmcdevit helped me nab Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green23 and his neo-Buddhist socks. THey are related to this case as well.Bakaman 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Green was on 216.254.121.169, so it's unlikely they're related, as they're on different continents. Dmcdevit·t 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He is avoiding his block by using a sock puppet account User:Indianbuddhist. See the most recent edits [109] and Indianbuddhist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Determined chap, that, but it's fairly obvious that he is a sock given the name ("buddhist" at the end, same as User:Ambedkaritebuddhist or User:Shrilankabuddhist and tendentious editing on Dalit Buddhist movement ). Hkelkar 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Instruction creep

Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) and Steve Hart (talk · contribs) have apparently gotten the impression that legalistic and bureaucratic guidelines are a good idea, and that our long-standing page against it should be deprecated. I'm not sure what Steve's reasoning is, but Jeff's appears to be his dissent with the current wording or procedures at WP:CSD, although he has declined to point out specifics. Anyway could I get some comments on the issue of whether or not we should keep avoiding instruction creep? (Radiant) 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to completely misrepresent my argument. At no point did I say "legalistic and bureaucratic guidelines are a good idea," I've merely said that the way we handle our guidelines and procedures are "instruction creepy," and that your tagging of WP:CREEP as a guideline is premature, lacks general consensus, and hasn't been approached properly. I do not know what this has to do with AN/I, honestly, but if you're going to draw attention to my claims, have the common courtesy to be accurate about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to completely misrepresent my actions. It's not "premature", it was three months ago and despite this page being heavily linked and in use, there have been no objections at all in that time. (Radiant) 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thus my complaint. You haven't had any objections because no one knew about it becoming a guideline with minimal discussion. Now that people are noticing it, they're coming out in opposition. That tends to happen. Considering WP:CREEP is linked to less than 50 times and the actual page less than 50 as well, your claim of it being "heavily linked" also lacks merit. It especially lacks links to the various pumps, which is telling. The meta page may be linked a lot, but that doesn't make it guideline here without discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We should keep avoiding instruction creep. El_C 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we should. And we do. But I'm looking at the talk page of WP:CREEP and seeing very little discussion and NO consensus anywhere to make this a guideline. It doesn't matter if Radiant did this 3 months ago, he did it with almost no input from the community. This is the kind of unilateral behaviour that makes me worry were he elected to arbcom. pschemp | talk 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

However, see the second section on its talk page, "Wikipedians who have used "instruction creep"". It shows usage by 36 users - hardly a lack of input. (Radiant) 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they have used it. And possibly did while it was still an essay. But no actually gave input, your claim that use is input on the question of changing this from an essay to a guideline is illogical. Additionally, You are missing that fact that I stated there was no input into the change from essay to guideline, I didn't say no one ever used it. Its the changing of the status with no input that is the issue here. (Not to mention 36 people is a trivial amount on Wikipedia. I'm quite sure our other guidelines have thousands of instances of use. More people believe in the flying spaghetti monster than 36.) A change like this without input or in case without even an attempt to get input deserves to be questioned as inappropriate. pschemp | talk 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just read WP:CREEP and I agree with most of what it says. The bit I disagree with is the last paragraph:

"Page instructions should be pruned regularly. Gratuitous requirements should be removed as soon as they are added. All new policies should be regarded as instruction creep until firmly proven otherwise."

This is a classic case of over-generalisation, and may indeed be an example of instruction creep itself. Page instructions should be pruned when needed, not regularly. Not all new policies should be regarded as instruction creep. It should be easy to identify whether a new policy is instruction creep or not, without assuming it is guilty. It is much easier, and less derogatory, to consider whether a new policy is identical to, or an extension of, an existing guideline or policy, and then subsume the new policy under the old one by merging or redirecting. Slapping the derogatory label "instruction creep" on something is the wrong approach because, as the page says, the efforts are often "well-meaning".

More generally though, it is important to realise that the opposite process can happen. Just as instructions can get so bloated that they are useless, they can also be so excessively pruned that they are equally useless, something I've termed "anti-instruction creep creep" in the past. Maybe WP:PRUNE is needed?

The essence of the argument is that some people want detailed instructions, and some want brief, bullet-pointed nutshells that help them remember things. It should be obvious that the new editor will want something short and clear, the inexperienced editor will want more detailed explanations and instructions, and the experienced editor will want a brief summary with their own annotations added to make it as clear as possible to them. The trouble comes when people start adding what should be their own personal notes (which could be added to an 'examples' page) to the main document, lead to bloat and instruction creep.

It is also extremely important to distinguish between instruction creep and genuinely useful additions to a guideline. Sometimes a logical step is missing from a guideline or set of instructions, and adding it is simply filling in a gap and is not instruction creep. Also, it is invariably the case that someone expanding an instruction either finds it useful, or thinks someone else will find it useful. If you don't find it useful, ask yourself "can I put this somewhere else instead of just deleting it?" and "how can I make sure those reading the main guideline know how to find these extra instructions if they want them?" Carcharoth 15:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hm, considering that we actually don't regularly prune page instructions, I'd say we remove that phrase. (Radiant) 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. I've also commented, with examples <gasp>, at Wikipedia talk:Instruction creep Wikipedia talk:Avoid instruction creep (gah! why didn't that talk page get redirected...), in case those here haven't bothered to go there yet. Carcharoth 15:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Carcharoth's post overall, w/gratitude (can't type much today, you saved me trouble/pain.) Creep bad; essay 2 guideline w/o community support = creep; what prune/regularity?! makes me think bad joke but not joke in this context, eh? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One handy way to avoid instruction creep is to never bother reading the rules in the first place. I haven't. --Cyde Weys 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! A worthy response. But surely you want other people to read the rules? :-) Carcharoth 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this relevant to ANI? AN maybe, but where's the Incident? Georgewilliamherbert 06:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse redux

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the interesting history of Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been criticized for mass tagging sprees, not the least of which is connected to a great number of articles created by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) and involving the Starwood Festival. Mattisse has been subject to many checkuser cases, some of which are documented here, which resulted in a block, here, and here, which resulted in a longer block (1 week) for inappropriate uses of sockpuppets.

Well, an RfC and a mediation case are still ongoing regarding Rosencomet and the Starwood Festival articles. It was recently brought to my attention that Mattisse approached another user involved in the disputes, complaining about an article that one of Mattisse's own confirmed socks created, apparently as a device to discredit other parties in the mediation and create an impression of impropriety. I feel this action warrants a longer block. Thoughts? --Ars Scriptor 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm advocating for Matisse, my only comment is that Matisse was asking Paul Pigman what should be done with the article and wasn't really complaining, just asking for advice. As it happens, I've prodded the article. Addhoc 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

However, Matisse should learn that 'It wasn't me, it was my granddaughter' only works as a sockpuppetry excuse once and is a poor one the first time. I hope she has learned better sense. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, same excuse given here. —Hanuman Das 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out, purely for the sake of information, that I've taken on the Starwood Festival mediation case. As far as I can see, Matisse has declined to involve herself in the mediation process, although if I've missed an alternate account of hers, please let me know. - Che Nuevara 07:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Elaragirl

By User:Firsfron. While I do not dispute - others may - that this is inappropriate, my understanding is that blocks are supposed to preventative, not punitive. The blocked user does not have a history of repeated similar behaviour and in my opinion a few harsh words would have been adequate to prevent reoccurence of such behaviour, or even deleting the page in question. A block was not required, and is in violation of the blocking policy.

I strongly request unblock for Elaragirl. Moreschi 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of the blocking policy. Perhaps I am misinterpreting it. riana_dzasta 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm perhaps flattered to be considered a "Good" admin, this kind of thing is unacceptable and it isn't an isolated instance of incivility. On the balance of things a 24 hour wikibreak is no hardship. I don't know that I would have made the block, but I won't overturn it. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I think that a warning (from an uninvolved party) would have sufficed, that's all. riana_dzasta 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Was she even warned to begin with, though? Also, it seems like she's getting it from some other areas, which may be part of the issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Given this exchange - which got pretty much laughed out of the house - I would also question the absolute appropriateness of Firsfron making this block. Moreschi 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. He's not in a dispute with her. I see no problem with an admin who previously warned someone over something blocking for same. Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of the people involved in the subsequent discussion thread on Firsfron's comment above, I have to say that I see no impropriety in this block as it may or may not relate to the comment. Plus, while my comments in that discussion thread might be seen in favor of "laughing out of the house", I would not characterize my position on Firsfron's comments in that way. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say the matter has come up (see [110] for a suggestive example). Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that the block on Elaragirl would not serve as a preventative measure, but I do think it is perhaps overkill (even though it's a mere 24 hours). While I have been bothered by the extremely acerbic nature of much of Elaragirl's commentary, she does generally keep it just this side of personal attacks and incivility (and I have to admit that often she puts people in their place). This edit was clearly over the line, though, and if such comments were made by some Joe Schmoe with fifty edits, I don't think anyone would have batted an eye. It's only because Elaragirl is so clearly visible on places like WP:AN (and has her fans), has, I think, there been a real issue with this block. But then, I might argue that being so visible causes the situation to actually be different than if it were a block of just some wanker. In closing (this comment sure ended up being a lot longer than I intended), I'm a wimp, so I'm not going to intervene. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How many times must a user be warned? This user was warned repeatedly by multiple users to refrain from making personal atttacks. See her talk page. This block is not in violation of the blocking policy, and as Mackensen says, it isn't an isolated instance of incivility. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the section in the admin criteria, and while I defend Elara's right to be sarcastic, I am frequently concerned by her comments, and how they affect both her and the person they are directed towards. However, given that there is an ongoing RfC regarding her behaviour, I'm not convinced as to whether a block was necessary. riana_dzasta 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While I hate to do it, I believe Elaragirl may have stepped over the line this time. As Firsfron indicated, she has been warned to be careful in the past. This 24-hour block amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist, and I don't believe Firsforn overstepped any bounds by imposing it. While I enjoy Elaragirl's enthusiasm and wit, I do think that there are limits. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As flattering as it is to be called an "excellent administrator", other parts of the diff in question are clearly unacceptable, and I wouldn't support any overturning of admin actions that have already been undertaken in this case. --Cyde Weys 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And I think that type of strong unwavering comment (exactly the opposite of mine!) is exactly why Elaragirl thinks you're an excellent admin (hope that doesn't mean I'm a crap one). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo what Cyde said. 24 hours is more than I'd've given, but not too much for an obviously unacceptable edit that I'd actually object to it. A mere warning would strike me as slightly ridiculous; I'm sure Elaragirl knows already that given her general demeanour she needs to be careful about crossing the line. Her general attitude I have no problem with, just with isolated mistakes like this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Elaragirl herself has said she won't contest the block, and from what (relatively little) I've gathered about her personality, I think it's because she knows that she's broken her own rules and is ready to take her lumps. This whole thing is pretty much moot. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the input, guys. riana_dzasta 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That edit was over the line. I wouldn't unblock. --Deskana talk 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Elaragirl's style and I think people frequently overreact and incorrectly label her wit, sarcasm and bluntness as WP:NPA violations. I also have some reservations on whether blocking was the best option at this point for the edit in question. However, I can't argue for overturning this block, at this time, for that edit. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Elaragirl often uses sarcasm, wit, and bluntness to good effect. I don't see how edits like "Geogre is a fucking idiot" or others can be mistaken for anything other than personal attacks. Thanks, though, everyone for the review. I think reviewing such blocks is important. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no great opinion on this but I would like to comment that I found there doesn't seem to be any process for a user to appeal a block on a third party. So I wrote my own template, User:Fys/3rdparty-unblock. Feel free to use if you so wish. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Elaragirl definitely overstepped the bounds here. She hasn't been on Wikipedia long enough to know enough about these admins and such, and I think she just based her opinions on that of other Wikipedians. Whatever, I think the block was justified. Nishkid64 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Elaragirl has been very helpful towards me. --SunStar Net^talk 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

...but the 24h block got nothing to do w/ your experience. Nothing wrong w/ having a list of "excellent" and "bad" admins but i'd not call anybody stupid. I dislike me being warned about something i could avoid, let alone being blocked 'cause of that afterwards. We have to be consistent and prove to some people we got no cabal in here. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

sight

Can somebody take a look --Striver 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• It looks like he's been warned to behave himself (User talk:RunedChozo#Comments against Striver). Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I noted this because it speaks very much to the behavior of a group of POV pushers on that article. RunedChozo 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's one thing to note POV edits or collusion. It is another thing entirely to engage in a personal attack against an editor (as you did by insinuating he is part of Al-Qaeda) because you have a content or behavior dispute with them. I'd suggest Striver takes it to WP:PAIN if RunedChozo does it again.--Isotope23 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not insinuate he is part of Al Qaeda, but he is certainly very sympathetic to terrorist viewpoint and propaganda, and he is trying to make a page in Wikipedia into a terrorist propaganda page. This is POV pushing of the worst sort. RunedChozo 21:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to put the warning template on RunedChozo's talkpage, as I am one in the discussion that has disagreed with Striver a fair deal. I did so because I was hoping he would accept it from me more than he would from one of Striver's supporters. Civility is key.--Rosicrucian 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC) WP:PAIN. That one is new to me. Ill use that in the future. Thanks. --Striver 03:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Impersonator? Not sure

While checking the history of an article in DYK, I noticed the page had been moved by a User:Geejo. The guy's been around since late September, and seems to be mostly just moving pages around to new titles, some sensibly and others not so sensibly. I'm a bit leery of taking any action myself given the obvious conflict of interest, but I can see the similarity causing some confusion down the line. Someone else care to weigh in on it? (for the record, I've had this username for a year and a half now, and was promoted to admin status a few months after the creation of Geejo's account) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked as a violation of WP:USERNAME + up-to-no-good account. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat

As per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl, please indefinitely block this idiot. There is a clear cut consensus. --Cat out 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting... whats keeping you? --Cat out 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, why the hesitation? He is asking for it... --Cat out 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to bait us. It's not big, it's not funny and it's not clever. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was actually requesting it formally. But very well. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Cool_Cat --Cat out 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Cool Cat since he asked for it specifrically. I don't really know what this dispute is about, so if he's being sarcastic I am not really sure what effect he's going for, but when you ask to be indef blocked you should realize it just might happen. If he'd like to explain why he said something he didn't mean, I'm listening. --W.marsh 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's justified purely by the user requesting it. This request smacks of trying to make a WP:POINT. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we don't usually do requested blocks. Cool Cat was probably just letting off steam, and didn't really want to be blocked. Prodego ^talk 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a mind-reader, he said he wanted to be blocked. He can now say he didn't actually mean it, if he didn't. At any rate given the joke RFAr I think a block for disruption was coming soon anyway. --W.marsh 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not indefinite though, I think a 2 hour disruption block would be better considering that Cool Cat is a positive contributor. Prodego ^talk 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't get what's positive at all about this tantrum. He should really understand that he shouldn't have done this, apparently he's stubbornly waiting for me/another admin to blink. That may sound like I'm myself venturing close to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but I don't at all see blocking him as disrupting Wikipedia. If others disagree I respect that and will unblock. --W.marsh 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just a tantrum. You're blocked now, Cat, so, um, I guess "Mission accomplished". The big wiki keep on turning, Cool Cat keeps on burning. You know how to use the unblock request templates whenever you're ready if ever. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Cool Cat was upset at the lack of support for his position on the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl, where he eventually wrote:

"I am bailing out of this request. Too many trolls and/or members of the deletionism cabal. If Elaragirl's conduct is acceptable, please delete WP:CIVIL. --Cat out 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)"

and:

"Indefinitely block this idiot. This cool cat guy is only here for a malicious purpose. He should be annoyed harassed like no tomorrow as he has always been. (please check timestamps of evidence too) --Cat out 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)"

I'm sorry he feels that way, but the RfC itself may have been a violation of WP:POINT. I did participate in the RfC, so I am not an uninterested party. Still, I wish him well. --Kyoko 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat has been frustrated for the last couple of weeks because a number of Star Trek-related articles that he respects have been put up for AfD, and I believe in a couple of cases deleted. In the process he has crossed paths with User:Elaragirl, a self-described "very aggressive" user and emphatic deletionist (who is currently blocked for 24 hours in an unrelated matter, see discussion above thread "Block of User:Elaragirl") and they have certainly rubbed each other the wrong way. Cool Cat's RfC filing against Elaragirl earlier today received, one could say, less than unanimous support which seems to have upset Cool Cat further.

Cool Cat has been talking about leaving Wikipedia, temporarily or permanently, for a few days now and probably could use a little bit of a Wikibreak. One possibility that occurs to me is that he's sought out a block as a means of Wikibreak enforcement, which I know is not permitted, yet is probably harmless for a couple of days in this instance. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he's been unblocked by Bishonen. I don't really mind aside from the minor point that I'd like to at least have been asked about it first before my action was reversed, but whatever. Hopefully Cool Cat will have calmed down and come back. --W.marsh 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to post but got edit conflicted all over the place. I've unblocked because we're not supposed to block on request, just as admins aren't supposed to self-block. Please chill, Cat out. Bishonen | talk 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Eh, a single revert of an action is no big deal. Why should we own our admin actions any more than we own our edits? Looks like no harm done, at any rate. Friday (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He's an admin at Commons and is acting this way. Heh. -- Ned Scott 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling CC. -- Drini 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Bishonen's unblock and second Drini's comment. This looks like an exercise in WP:POINT. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this case re User:Moby Dick added to CC's frustration. Whatever the real reason is i ask CC to cool down and take easy. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Penis images

Can someone explain what happened over the past few minutes? Many pages were filled with a repeated image Image:Right.jpg. Dmn € Դմն 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism at Template:Please check ISBN - see Talk:Macedonia (terminology) to credit the guy who tracked it down. Carcharoth 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's fixed now. 165.21.155.11 vandalized the high-risk {{Please check ISBN}} template and it carried over to many articles. Also, the template is now protected. Nishkid64 01:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

God I hate the Commons. We should have been able to delete that image as soon as it appeared everywhere. Dmn € Դմն 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We could upload some milder image locally using that same image name. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was on Template:Please check ISBN. Can we block a range of IPs? These were from 165.21.155.10 and 165.21.155.11. I suspect he's also User:Fairxento as well (see the edits to Down Syndrome from 21:49 to 21:51 on December 5), but it may just be a shared computer. In the past few days, he's put genitalia on the front page (on two separate occasions, with two separate images), and he's given Bill Gates and George W. Bush Down Syndrome. But the other edits seem very constructive! What to do? tiZom_(2¢) 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem prudent to alter the procedure for featured articles, by protecting any template that appears on the page. Dmn € Դմն 01:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's going to come to that, sadly. It will take a considerable amount of time to do each day, too. But considering we see this kind of vandalism more days than not lately, it looks like we might have to do it. --W.marsh 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He added the image to {{ref label}} as well and thus had himself back-uped when the first of the two templates were reverted (which was {{ref label}}, and you don't want to know how stressing it was to look through 20 templates, finding the vandalism, removing it, and than seeing the articles still having penises all over them...). Anyway, shouldn't templates such as those be protected on a regular basis? They should not generally be edited, and {{ref label}} hadn't been edited since April this year before he came along. – Elisson • T • C • 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that this incident may have convinced me. I have been looking at the dozens of templates on a country page, such as {{AGO}} and {{Country alias Angola}}, and shudder at the thought of trying to locate a piece of vandalism in this haystack. These templates are extensively transcluded and almost never edited and I see very little reason why they shouldn't be protected as a matter of course. - BanyanTree 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it doesn't have to come to blocking everything. Is it possible for an admin to block a page from viewing? This vandalism was well thought out, and took a while to get fixed. If an admin could stop all views on a page while they worked on reverting it, I think that would be helpful... tiZom_(2¢) 02:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop all views of Today's Featured Article (the main target)? I doubt that would go down well – Gurch 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The image of choice is now Image:Smegma_Penis01.jpg --Bshrode 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The image says it links to two articles, but I can't seem to find it at all.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Use MediaWiki:Bad image list to prevent the use of an image on all but select appropriate articles. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have (temporarlly) put all images listed in the commons category into the bad image list. We no doubt will want to remove them all again soon but maybe for now it might help... ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

recent changes in Template namespace <- please keep an eye on this. --74.109.173.23 03:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I also caught them at template:Loc (though the image was Image:Image_of_frenulum.jpg). careful monitoring is needed for a few hours. these are sneaky. Circeus 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By my count, about 11 of the templates within today's Main Page FA, Macedonia (terminology) were vandalized. I know there's still discussion on whether the Main Page FA itself should have protection or not, but there's really no reason that the templates on the Main Page FA, or even Templates in general, shouldn't have semi-protection. A new IP user making a good faith edit really has no business mucking around in the Templates.--DaveOinSF 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mk icon needs protection. Its just been targeted by the same vandal[111]. Gdo01 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected. Luna Santin 07:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does Commons even HAVE so many pictures of penises? And can it not set up some "blacklist", and have images on that list not be automatically fetched from commons when a local copy doesn't exist? Seems to me that would solve a lot of problems – Gurch 08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That sort of defeats the purpose of having Commons, though, and it would presumably be new development. I did add all the images in the category (there may still be others) to the blacklist as a temporary measure (thank you AWB for making generating that list easy!). Other hardworking admins (Centrx and BanyanTree) reviewed the list and made it permanent. That really should help. Don't forget there ARE legitimate uses for some of the images, after all...) ++Lar: t/c 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template vandalism still happening?

From this it looks like the template vandalism is still going on. Can someone protect all the templates used in this article, please? Plus the templates used in the templates... Carcharoth 12:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Other discussions on this topic

Other discussions on this topic are here, here, here and here. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location. Carcharoth 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, we've been seeing a lot of more of this as of late: template vandalism to the FA (and often penis images as well). I wonder if it's the same idiot, or if they're somehow connected (hope no one said this before).-Patstuart^talk|edits 14:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was getting the same problems with Template:Lang-ru last night, which caused penis images to appear on various Russian articles. I am hoping most of the damage got fixed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

TerriNunn

User:TerriNunn is apparently completely oblivious to the concept of encyclopedias, and has repeatedly insisted on List of bisexual people that people who are allegedly bisexual should be included "to let the reader decide", that NNDB is a reliable source, and that the concept of Wikipedia as it stands is narrow minded, "There does seem to be a prevailing mindset on wiki that can't cope with grey areas, the elusive, complex, fugitive, difficult. Nothing can exist as it is, it has to be squeezed, mutilated, distorted, have parts lopped off, until it fits into neat compartments. We should be reflecting the complexity of human behaviour and desire, not developing a willed and distorting case of tunnel vision.".

She has refused to accept WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABLE, "Notability" is hardly an objective category. It is the expression of a particular set of power relations (read any theory of ideology since Marx). Verifiability (see article on Vienna Circle for the limits of that idea) - 98% of life is in the realm of the not-yet-verified, partially verified, tentatively put forward on partial evidence, partially falsified, as well as the unverifiable. What is to count as evidence? Is that decision verifiable? Who decides?).

Basically this user seems to want to turn Wikipedia into a dumping ground, and that all Wikipedians who think otherwise are stupid:"I am not saying that Wikipedia is narrow - I am saying it shouldn't be narrow. It's motto should be Here Comes Everybody. And I am saying "If your evidence is bona fide, then provide it, and let the reader decide" Treat people as grown-ups".

She has called me a bore for asking her to stick to policy (WP:NPA), and is being unpleasant to people for insisting on the same thing. She keeps screaming about people "policing" Wikipedia, and she's severely pissing both me off and every editor she has come into contact with so far. Can anything be done? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't do that do that per WP:BLP - nothing controversial. And if anything is controversial, being bisexual certainly fits the criteria. I wonder if the BLP board could handle this one. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see a separate issue here - if this isn't Terri Nunn, then we have a WP:USERNAME violation (in the prohibited section: Names of well-known living or recently deceased people, such as Chuck Norris or Ken Lay, unless you are that living person. ) I've posted a note on her talk page asking her about it. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My question was "answered" by the user blanking her talk page and replacing all content with the words "Welcome" and "No." I'm going to take that to mean she's not Terri Nunn, and have indef-blocked her per WP:USERNAME. Let us know if she resurfaces under another name. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart

She protected my User page after she placed a sockpuppet accusation sign on my user page. She provided no evidence of sockpuppetry and blocked me as well. I asked others to remove the sockpuppet sign as seemed to have been my right but now they can not since she protected my user page. Sarah and I have had conflict ever since I started editing and it seems wrong that she was the one to block me and mean spirited of her to force this on my user page when I am blocked and can not edit anyway. She also protected my talk page after she got it the way she wanted it[112]. She seems to have manipulated the system in such a way as I can not even complain without being in breach of her block; a block which has no basis either. Canuckster

• Good for her. See Canuckster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ottawaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher131 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sure looks like Canuckster (talk · contribs · logs) is the one trolling. Sarah's actions look entirely appropriate -- Samir धर्म 03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Going to endorse Sarah's actions as well. You'll have to show me a lot more to convince me that Sarah has acted in a way not appropriate. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe Thatcher performed a CheckUser. So good for her. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since she thinks I am Ottawaman and he has been blocked indefinitely[113], where does that leave me? I'd like to see some proof that I am Ottawaman, especially since it's a lie; it's not right to make accusations without evidence. Canuckster

I said that based on the comments of the CheckUser clerck User:Thatcher131. Maybe you'll be needing to have a look at his report. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there. Clerks shuffle papers, I don't have access to the checkuser function. I made the same determination Sarah did, that Canuckster and Ottawaman are the same person, based on their single-minded focus on smearing Michael Ignatieff and style of edits and edit summaries. (AFAIK, JohnnyCanuck is VaughanWatch, a different banned user obsessed with a different Canadian politician.) Ottawaman was blocked for trolling and incivility, extended to indefinite when he created another sockpuppet account and used it to fraudulently certify an abusive RFC against Sarah. Canuckster is now banned for a week for more trolling. To Canuckster I suggest sitting out the rest of the week without editing from IP addresses to evade the block, which was well deserved. When the block expires, hopefully you can be a productive and cooperative editor. If you insist on continuing to try and smear Michael Ignatieff or harass admins who are just doing their job, you will quickly join the ranks of permanently banned editors. Thatcher131 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at CSD

Essjay suggested I mention this here so I am: the backlog at C:CSD is huge, and some admin help is needed. Anyone who can help would be appreciated. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 01:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

When isn't the backlog at C:CSD huge? :) I once gave a shout over at #wikipedia, which seemed to work a little... riana_dzasta 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I did all 90 or so of the images, but ten minutes later, a whole new bunch appeared. Blurgh. Proto::► 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highfructosecornsyrup

Edit count for Highfructosecornsyrup Edit count for Wikipediatrix

It seems my/our suspicions of this user being a sockpuppet were well founded, however the editor responsible was certainly a shock. Checkuser confirms the perp is definitely Wikipediatrix - and, to quote Essjay;

"The sock appears to have been a straw-man sock, and was used for double voting (albiet, opposite votes) in several AFDs. What to do with it should be left to the admins."

There are also disputes on various Scientology articles talk pages in which the sock has been used to directly breach WP:SOCK.

So, question is, where to from here. As a "involved party" I would appreciate input. No blocks have been issued at this time Glen 05:44, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

Er, double voting and breaches of SOCK are shocking and unacceptable for an editor who has been around so long. At the very least the sock should be indef'd and Wikipediatrix given a week block to prevent her from continuing this behaviour and to think about her actions seriously. At the least. pschemp | talk 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I mean yeah. That's completely unacceptable. What Pschemp said (I'm somewhat involved having welcomed the user and been the first editor to ask if the editor had previous experience and argued with the editor about deletion matters). I'm probably too involved to make the block. JoshuaZ 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(many edit conflicts) Well now, this is very bizarre. Of course block Highfructosecornsyrup indef. Beyond that I don't know what to do. So weird... Grandmasterka 05:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The sock is blocked. I'd prefer to leave Wikipediatrix to a more experienced admin; my recommendation would be a short-term block per WP:SOCK, and if everyone else here is conflicted, I'll do the block myself. | Mr. Darcy talk 06:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a short-term block, perhaps a week. --Coredesat 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking over the user's history, a longer block might be needed, possibly more than a week (I'd suggest maybe two weeks). --Coredesat 06:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually usually the conservative one on block length, but I make a real distinction between disruption and outright deceit. Two weeks is the minimum block I would apply in this case. I think the block length should at least equal the length of time for the sock account, which would be about two weeks. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just in case no-one saw it, my reccomendations (which I gave immediately following the findings from Essjay being published) are here.[114] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. I have asked Wikipediatrix what gives. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Having studied (thanks, in part, to the excellent articles we have here) the history of Scientology in detail, I'd like to know if there's any feasible way of framing someone in this way? yandman 08:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Wikipediatrix around in a lot of AfDs, and him using a sock puppet like this... doesn't make sense. Maybe there's something more to this? Maybe he knows this guy in real life and they were using the same internet connection at one point? I mean, really, it doesn't make sense. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second. 'Trix stopped editing on the 29th, and before then, CornSyrup made no edits to CoS related pages. The CoS edits on the fructose account are all after trix disappeared. What the f... is going on here? yandman 08:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - The sockpuppet didn't start editing until a week before Wikipediatrix stopped. There is little overlapping... I wonder if Wikipediatrix was planning to ditch her original account and get a new username for privacy, and voted opposite votes to disassociate the identities? If so, you guys have just taken a cannonball to that plan :-\ Milto LOL pia 10:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• FYI For a full summary of the articles, and all the individual diffs showing the pages common to both accounts see here Glen 11:14, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

I think the people questioning this are unfamiliar with how checkuser works so let me give you and example. Essjay's findings show that these two edits were made within minutes of each other using the exact same underlying IP address and no other users have used that IP address. There is no way this is more than one user, the IP isn't an open proxy.

• (cur) (last) 03:50, November 29, 2006 Wikipediatrix (Talk | contribs | block) (removed rant. this isn't a chat room.)
• (cur) (last) 03:41, November 29, 2006 Highfructosecornsyrup (Talk | contribs | block) (→List of Teletubbies episodes)

This, combined with the diffs Glen has listed are pretty damming. Plus, I've no reason to doubt the checkuser results. Additionally, the fact that Wikipediatrix stopped editing about the time the sock became really active is even more proof in my book. I've blocked for a week. pschemp | talk 14:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand how a checkuser works, however I believe that the pattern of editing here is closer to that of two people using the same computer than that of a user deliberately socking. See here. yandman 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, two people who used the same computer within 11 minutes of each other who also edited the exact same articles? Highly doubtful. pschemp | talk 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say possible myself... A lot of people have home networks and therefore several computers could appear as the same IP (a closed proxy).

However, I am not saying that this is the case - I am just a little bewildered by the fact that a previous good editor suddenly does all of this. It is a little bit strange is it not?

Has anyone actually emailed her to find out what she has to say?-Localzuk^(talk) 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it was strange except that it has happened before and more than once. Remember User:Jtkeifer for example. And then there was the guy who was vandalising under one account and reverting it under another. Anyone is welcome to email the user, and a message has been left on the talkpage. Should a plausible explanation be put forward, things can be reconsidered, nothing on the wiki is permanent. However, right now, I feel I've done what the situation warranted. pschemp | talk 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but she's been defending the articles against the CoS on a daily basis for over a year now, in fact she's one of the main causes behind Xenu being FA. Why would she suddenly switch sides? Maybe I'm assuming too much good faith, but I can't help smelling fish. Anyway, as you say, nothing's permanent. yandman 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just sent her an email. However, she's not edited for the last 10 days, so I don't know if she's anywhere near a computer. Maybe she's married Tom cruise... yandman 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately yandman, whilst I applaud your ability to continue to assume good faith it the most dire of circumstances and look for any rationale that could explain this, I must invoke Occam's Razor; you are wrong. You are excluding one vital factor in your assumptions; The fact that I asked four or five direct questions this user regarding their previous experience, and they denied they had ever edited here, and learned by watching us for two years. (see here for a reminder) This would have been the perfect opportunity to tell use her roommate was an avid editor... or another such explanation. So, its Wikipediatrix, no question there. But, I do have some serious concerns that need answering about all this that havent been discussed. (see next post)  Glen  16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the rub: This is the fucking perplexing thing about all this. It is directly because of Wikipediatrix that I am even here at all. She actually wrote the original article about my website that caused me to find Wikipedia. A website that parodies Scientology and Tom Cruise. When questions arose about merging the article, she defended it. Almost exactly a year to the day later, I am lodging the Checkuser request that gets her blocked But... (see my next post...) Glen 17:00, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

This is better than CSI! yandman 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A two-word question:   wireless router? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 16:44, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Yes, that is a good point but what speaks against it is that wikipediatrix diappears and HFCS appears. If she was being played you would expect both editors to be active during the same overall time frame. I have a few ideas but none worth repeating and none that speak to her blocks. --Justanother 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please look at the facts here: 1) They edited the same pages, and within minutes of each other. 2) Wikipediatrix stopped about the time that Syrup picked up, 3) There is no other activity from this IP, 4) Syrup immediately jumped into administrative level stuff. I know people don't want to believe she's capable of it, but gosh, to be a rather blunt: if it looks, feels, tastes and smells like sockpuppetry, it's probably sockpuppetry. The chances of this being a coincidence are about the chance you'll win the lottery today. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Undeniable. But why would someone spend two years fighting Al and terryeo and then suddenly turn into them? There's gotta be one heck of an explanation somewhere. Thatcher131 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Glen S above. A few people are tying themselves in knotts here trying to explain what is pretty clear to me. I think the burden is fairly on Wikipediatrix to explain the situation if we are wrong about the deception and sockpuppetry, and I highly doubt that we are. I still think a one week block is not long enough and would prefer to see it extended to two weeks, and even this seems like maybe not enough. This type of deliberate, willful deception is far more disruptive than your typical willy on wheels vandal, so my recommendation for a longer block is not for punative reasons, but to allow time for the damage caused to be undone and for the community to reflect upon this incident without having to worry that it is continuing. Note that I have had no interactions with either of these accounts, so there is no personal stake for me in my statements here. It is simply a reaction to the scope of the damage to people's trust in the community that behavior like this causes. I think perhaps an ArbCom case should be opened in this matter, but I will leave that decision to people more closely connected to the events. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The situation indeed is quite odd, but the editor has been asked for some sort of explanation, both on her talkpage and I father via e-mail. I would suggest that any further action be held in abeyance until we see whether she posts anything and what she has to say. Newyorkbrad 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

agree. Everything Fructose did was immediately reverted as blatant PoV, and everything trix did was accepted at the time. I agree that we've all been deceived and that an arbcom is definitely needed, but Wikipedia hasn't really been damaged, so there's little cause for alarm. Let's let this one play out. yandman 17:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Everything Fructose did was immediately reverted as blatant PoV, and everything trix did was accepted at the time." And what does that tell us. Cause I have to tell you, guys, she did much more credible work as Fructose than she did as Trix. And I don't think that comes from my POV as a Scientologist either. At least over the period I've been here and also her older edits that I have worked with. --Justanother 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we can wait for a response before extending the block. However, if we have no response by the time the one week block expires, I suggest and indef block until we at least get a response. As to the statement from Yandman regarding "Wikipedia hasn't really been damaged", I respectfully disagree. I repeat that these actions are far more damaging than a blatant serial vandal, and I can't see anyone arguing that that doesn't cause damage. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

what do you see as damaging? The edits by wikipediatrix? The edits by HFCS? Or something else? --Justanother 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Primarily the undermining of trust. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, true. But we never really know who we are dealing with and should govern ourselves accordingly. I wonder what precedent wikipedia has experienced for something like this. --Justanother 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No frakking way!!! This is surreal... There must be another explanation. Maybe she is on vacation and someone is using her computer? We absolutely need to hear what she has to say before we do anything permanent. Including the ban of HFCS. As far as I am concerned all that has been done thus far is that another rational editor of Scn arcticles has been banned for life. ---Slightlyright 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, nobody has been banned for life. Read the discussion more carefully. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

See Wikipediatrix's explanation and comments here. Newyorkbrad 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on that response I think the current 1 week block is the appropriate response and it can end there. Regardless of intent, double voting, switching back and forth over short periods of time, and contributing with both accounts to the same articles without disclosure is disruptive. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the deliberate dissemination when Highfructosecornsyrup querried regarding previous experience here. That was disruptive in all the effort that has been expended getting the straight answer that should have been forthcoming when first asked. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I was going to ask why the block because I did not see anything wrong with Fructose's edits and socks are not specifically disallowed. Changing your mind is also not disallowed. Then I checked and saw that she had voted keep on two of her own AfDs so that is somewhat disingenuous and grounds for some short block. Other than that did trix/syrup do anything really wrong other than torque people off. Hell, trix sure torqued me when acting the critic. --Justanother 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. A week seems right. Thatcher131 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Something still doesn't smell right about this: a one week block for a death threat? I'd like to see the diff of that threat. Durova^Charge! 01:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussed here. Newyorkbrad 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes lets just make this perfectly clear; Wikipediatrix did not make any death threats, nor anything remotely close. She was informing me of a blocked user who had made them on his talk page. That's all. Lets kill that rumor now. I've only just turned my PC on so still processing the rest of all this. Glen 05:18, December 9, 2006 (UTC)

No she didn't, I misread the diff. I have however, corrected the blocking reason in the log. No need for anyone to get excited. pschemp | talk 06:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wasnt clarifying that for you Pschemp, was aware you well understood; just making it crystal clear to anyone else just quickly browsing over this before a whole new conspiracy begins.

Yeah i knew you weren't. I was just making clear to casual readers of the page that the mistake had been fixed. pschemp | talk 14:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, regarding her explanation, I guess I'm kinda relieved. Was anything resolved regarding the block? My concern about what she did lies solely around WP:POINT. There were changes she wanted made, obviously, and it was her doing them via a new account with no explanation that caused all the edit warring, and, is the reason this whole section/checkuser was done in the first place. Take, for example, this. Now Wikipediatrix started and in fact wrote that entire article - yet, days later - marks her own work as a copyvio with the sock! Now if she'd done that with her main account, as the creator, no one would doubt her. But instead edit warring ensued. Here Wikipediatrix was the last person to edit the template, and made some fairly big changes; the very next edit is her, as the sock, removing info... and again edit warring ensued. The socks intentions seemed to everyone to be to disrupt. Thus it effectively got nowhere. Wikipediatrix is respected enough to have mde those changes and for us all to AGF. But then I cant imagine Wikipediatrix making such sweeping removals, and nominating clearly notable Scientology critics for deletion without discussing it first... But, I guess Wikipediatrix did. Glen 06:24, December 9, 2006 (UTC)

Disruption on Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 and Talk:Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945

The article tagged as POV by users promoting unnacceptable, pro-Soviet POV (i.e claiming Baltic states were not occupied by the USSR). The whole talk page is full of sources, proving that world community generally regarded Soviet rule as occupation. Despite obvious sources and clear third party opinions [115], users Irpen, Ghirlandajo, Grafikm fr continue blogging the talk page with their own inventions and 'analysis' based on Soviet propaganda myths.

Probably violating Wikipedia policies:

• routinely Wikipedia:Disruption due to WP:OR 'counterarguments' [116]

and refusal to recognise established opnion of the world community/researchers: [117], [118] [119] (claiming Baltic states joined the USSR - this is not acceptable opinion) [120]

• WP:POINT or (Wikipedia:Spam): littering talk page by adding unsuitable Russian propaganda, with no relevance to the 'dispute' [121]. Constanz - Talk 10:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Constanz, you are fresh from a 3RR block and back to tendentious editing again? I did not add a single sentence to the article in question, therefore your accusations are both misleading and offensive. Please take a note that WP:ANI is not part of dispute resolution process, therefore your message will most likely be ignored here. I see that it was User:Piotrus who advised you to move your disputes to this page, and I think he should be reprimanded for doing so. His previous forum shopping activities are already under scrutiny here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarah Basse off to a bad start on 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy

Hi, we have a new user who is off to a bad start. She appears to have signed up today so some of the 3RR diffs are from her IP. They are: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6. She has reinserted the same series of paragraphs into various places in the text and has been reverted by myself, User:Gadfium, and User:CharlotteWebb. She has also approached other editors on the talk page with a distinct lack of good faith (see "Third party campaigning" and below on talk) and has accused User:Gadfium of ...trying to obstruct the truth. There may be legal implications." I don't know if this is now some kind of legal threat, but her edits, and justifications are IMO POV-pushing and abusive. I've suggested, perhaps too soon, semi-protection of the page to Gadfium, however to his credit, he suggested compromise. I don't want to WP:BITE, but I think now there needs to be some intervention from an uninvolved admin to explain to her the need for NPOV and civility, and the 3RR rule. <<-armon->> 11:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• A warning or explanation on her Talk might have helped, I have now left one. If this continues she can be blocked briefly and if necessary the article semi-protected, but hopefully some calm discourse, combined with letting her know how Wikipedia works, will have the desired effect. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Puneetsquare blocked

I just blocked Puneetsquare (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for persistently adding a non-notable person to Stockdale High School despite warnings not to. For the next 72, I'll be sparse around here, so can I have a few others watch this article? The user was operating through IP addresses for a lot of yesterday (presumably while at school) so the block probably won't really hold in that sense. Also, the user's most recent action before the blocking was to install pop-ups and turn-on the ability to revert easily, so I would guess that the intention is to keep reverting any people who keep the person out of the article.

The person is the very definition of non-notable and probably is the user who keeps adding it. The section that keeps getting added is about a kid (Puneet Singh--note the relation to the user) who wrote a letter to the editor that was published in a local newspaper. If anyone wants to add any protection to the article, that's fine too, I didn't feel it was totally necessary for one user's actions right now. Metros232 11:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh good, he's added popups to his monobook page. Now he can revert with hardly a second thought. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

TerriNunn again

Further to my point above, User:TerriNunn has started going into all-out personal attacks here - could someone please tell her about what an Encyclopedia's for, and/or block her? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the self-blanking of her talk page and her comments pointed out above, Terri is contemplating wikisuicide-by-cop.. Her response to a perfectly legitimate question about her suspected violation of WP:USERNAME was to blank her talk page, I'll defer to others to take action here but something has to be done. Deizio talk 13:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

She probably deserves an indef for the WP:USERNAME violation, but even beyond that, the diff Dev920 linked above show pretty clear contempt for the concept of an encyclopedia and earlier comments dismissing the concept of WP:V, as well as WP:RS, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:BLP suggests that Wikipedia is not the right place for this person.--Isotope23 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just discovered that she blanked her talkpage before calling me simple-minded - she seemingly does not intend to stop editing. List of bisexual people on which she has mainly argued is one thing, but it seems she has also got a habit of alleging people are bisexual in their articles - her edit summaries and consequent message on the talkpage was full of personal attacks and accusations of homophobia. Nunn appears to be a bisexual on a mission - bring as many into the fold as possible, even if it is kicking and screaming. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked her for the username violation. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

She has returned under the name NerriTunn, and it personally attacking me here, and here. Please, please, could an admin do something. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

admin

Take a look at this. --Striver 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with by JoshuaZ. Proto::► 13:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears JoshuaZ dealt with a previous problem a couple of days ago. I've blocked accordingly this time round. Striver, you could give a little more context when reporting on AN/I e.g. recent editing history and blocks incurred by this user. Deizio talk 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user

Per [122] I blocked User:Leonalewis, who seems to have no aims here other than self-promotion. I think we can do without her. Even if she is hot. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What a case! -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

She loves arson! El_C 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you ban me??

I would like forgiveness from the community, and, while I have done some bad things here, I hope the community can forgive me, I do not WANT' to be banned by the community, I'll be a good kid. I will not use sockpuppets, or be abusive, or anything else. This account is my sockpuppet, last-ever one at that! --Chadbryant 14:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm! And who should recompensate admins' hard work? Just use this new account if you want to become cooler. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Netsnipe already blocked this account as soon as it started making disruptive edits. – Chacor 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially this one. Tagging an article w/o discussing! It wasn't a good sign from someone wanting to be forgiven. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

nor was 1)falsely claiming he was unblocked, 2)disputing the most benign article he could possibly find, or 3)immediately nominating several RfA's. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal the block, log back on as Chadbryant, not Pifflinman, and bring the matter to your own talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're trying to get yourself unblocked, that contribution history is only pushing you 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:151.188.0.229

This user has a history of mischief. They were blocked for the month of November. They're back now, and vandalizing again. They've only received a couple of warnings since returning, but they've vandalized at least four articles over two days. Not sure what the policy is on warnings for a repeat anonymous vandal, but it seems at the very least like something to keep an eye on. Waitak 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again. Refer to WP:AIV next time for prompt actions. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Waitak 00:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a user, it's an IP address. Unless you know for sure that it's the same person, whatever happened in november or before is irrelevant. Zocky | picture popups 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

IP vandalism - "page replaced with..." and "blanked the page" edit summaries

I've noticed a large number of very similar-looking edits recently (see [123], [124], [125], and [126] for several examples). Having been a bit out of the loop recently myself, I'm wonder if this is new, or has it been dealt with before? Does it strike anyone else as something co-ordinated, or am I seeing patterns where none exist? --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a new feature (I love it!!). Makes it easier to catch vandalism on RC patrol. And now I wish we had a "section blanked" feature as well. Antandrus (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Very nice, thanks for the quick response. I was wondering if maybe it was some vandalbot being flagrant about its activities. But the Wiki itself putting it in there, that's really quite neat. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably him. → Replaced page with 'GAY', Blanked the page, Replaced page with 'dick', Replacing page with 'POOP', etc... -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked User:D dude212 for just that. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Departure of User:MONGO

See here. Newyorkbrad 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• A loss for WP. A pox on the houses of those who drove him away. Crockspot 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, this is indeed a black day for Wikipedia. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope a little time off will allow him to reconsider; if we let the trolls win, Wikipedia is finished. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is exactly why we cannot be soft on trolling, it drives away legitimate editors. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an important point. Jkelly 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Trolling is bad. (and see my comments below) Patstuart^talk|edits 19:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Aude on the "truthers"

This would mean more workload on others to monitor the 9/11 pages. I didn't come to Wikipedia to work on those pages, but won't tolerate undue weight amount of "nonsense" fringe theories. There are so many 9/11 pages here, which are attractive to the "truth" movement, who are extremely persistent and determined to spread the truth with their non-reliable sources. They like to use Wikipedia as a tool in their truth spreading. And, I've been on the Loose Change forums and do observe them often consulting Wikipedia in their "research". If you go on their forums and at all question anything they say or profess expertise, such as in engineering or as a pilot, they BAN you from their forum. I've been banned, but can signup again for another account. Not only do they go after folks like MONGO who insist on reliable sources, WP:V, and enforcement of other policies, but lately I've seen the "truthers" even go after 9/11 victims and their families. This shows how despicable their tactics are.

Examples of the tactics used by the "truthers":

• Charles Burlingame, the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 is a popular target for "truthers"... His sister, Debra, remarked in the USA Today about the Loose Change video, "The only thing they (the filmmakers) seem to have gotten right about the Sept. 11 attacks is the date when they occurred...They aren't truth-tellers looking to save the world. They're con artists hoping to sucker conspiracy-theory paranoids or anti-government malcontents into shelling out their hard-earned dollars." [127] His daughter, Wendy Burlingame came on the Loose Change forum and remarked "Reading the conspiracy theories regarding my father have made me and my family sick. We realize this is being done by sick individuals who need to deal with 9-11 in a different way than others. It does not make it any easier when you read your father was involved with the terrorists when you Google his name. I hope the people who write these things can sleep well at night." [128] BTW, she died earlier this week in a suspicious fire in her apartment. [129]

• They are also going after Lloyd England, the taxi driver who's cab was damaged by a lightpole when AA77 flew over the highway and crashed. See photo, Image:Pentagon_taxi_hit_by_lightpole.jpg. ([130] Dylan Avery (director of Loose Change), his "co-producers" Jason Bermas and Korey Rowe, their friend Russell Pickering, and their other buddies on the "Pentagon Elite Research Team" came to Washington at the end of August. They found out where Mr. England lives and came by unannounced with a video camera. They tricked the poor old 70 year-old man into talking with them. They are probably going to cherry pick bits from the "interview" and use it in the final cut of Loose Change. They have already been showing the video and amusing themselves with it. This google video is sick [131] Here's one of their blogs, which talks about their "interviews" with other Pentagon witnesses. [132] (it's a myspace link, so okay to click on it w/o fear of being tracked) Who knows, some of this could be lies, but some of it is real and disgusting.

• The truthers ("Killtown" in particular) have also gone after Val McClatchey, who took this photograph near Shanksville, moments after the plane crashed there. [133] Here's one of Killtown's blogs [134] (it's a blogspot link, so okay to click it) Killtown and others accuse her of having faked the photograph. Here's how Killtown has harrassed Ms. McClatchey, as reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [135] "The real estate agent has recently become a target of bloggers calling themselves "9-11 researchers," They have visited Mrs. McClatchey's office and called her at home, posting satellite maps of her property and accusing her of digitally altering her photo to insert a fake smoke plume. The bloggers have picked apart her story, highlighting inconsistencies in different news accounts and questioning her motives. Others have described her as "surly," "hostile," "irate" and "defensive." People have called her at home, accusing her of being anti-American and of "holding the photo hostage." On a simple Google search, Mrs. McClatchey's name now pops up in the same sentence as "total fraud." ... This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."

• And the NY911Truthers show up every Saturday at Ground Zero to "protest" and harrass tourists and passerbys. I would care less if they showed up outside the White House or some place else. But, find this highly distasteful.

It's one thing for some kids in their parents basement to do all this from behind a computer screen, but when they show up at GZ and go out harrassing victims and their families, it can't be tolerated. I know that some of the truthers that edit on Wikipedia are some of the hardcore folks. Banned user User:TruthSeeker1234 is one of them.

I have done what I can to keep those articles in check with Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:RS, WP:V, etc. MONGO has been invaluable, and with his experience writing featured articles, he knows the policies well and what it takes to maintain a reputable, good article. The September 11, 2001 attacks article is always among the most viewed articles. [136] If that article descends into a propaganda, conspiracy POV pushing article for the "truth" movement, it would on the whole make Wikipedia look quite bad. I doubt they will ever succeed, as there is no consensus for what they are trying to do. In the event they did, I would likely give up on Wikipedia myself, viewing it as a waste of my time. There would be no use working on articles relating to my main area of expertise, including criminology (sorely lacking on Wikipedia). It's my hope that Wikipedia has the mechanisms in place to support enforcement of Wikipedia policies that are essential to keeping 9/11 articles reputable, yet alone create a hospitable environment where we can work to further improve the quality of them.

It's not ordinary trolling we are dealing with, but rather some real hardcore folks. --Aude (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I'm not up on this whole thing. Can somebody explain to me exactly why MONGO quit? Which trolls do we allow too much? -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for MONGO, but he's been caught up in both the Encyclopedia Dramatica situation (including extensive attempts to "out" his real-life identity) as well as attacks from editors on the September 11 and related articles. It really has been unrelenting. A recent proposal in an ArbCom case to desysop him can't have done much for his morale either (note that this is not a criticism of the arbitrator; I opposed the proposal, but the arbs have jobs to do, too). Newyorkbrad 20:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware if User:Seabhcan is involved with ED. I don't think so, but could be wrong. But, he's been pushing the "truth". I have Seabhcan over on the Loose Change forum, as heavily involved. If that's what he chooses to do off-wiki, that's okay. We can have a place for 9/11 conspiracy theories, and present them for what they are. But, I don't accept folks pushing the "truth" here against WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:RS, WP:V, etc. Furthermore, his mannerisms have been rather uncivil towards MONGO, User:Morton devonshire and others. It's a combination of this and the ED situation that tests our patience. Wikipedia needs to be firm in enforcing such policies. MONGO was trying to do so, sometimes taking actions into his own hands, thinking it often takes too long for other admins to respond to ANI posts. Though, MONGO does make note of his actions on ANI for review by other admins. Other admins concurred with the block of Cplot, for example. With the User:Cplot situation, the trolling has been relentless and his socks need to be blocked on sight. This situation is frustrating me, as well as MONGO. --Aude (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Seabhcan has anything to do with ED. Of course I speak from my own point of view, but I see the arbitration as mostly about Seabhcan's incivility. His opinions about who did 9/11 are peripheral, in my opinion. What he does off site is his own business, as Aude said above. A point I would add to Aude's about 9/11 "Truth" is the profit motive. Many of the conspiracist sites sell dvds and books, and solicit contributions. Granted we can't very well cite an article about a conspiracy theory without linking to the promoter's website, but these links and the google page rank that comes with them are an important part of some business models. I think that is a factor in some of the zeal to spread the "Truth." Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's really sad to see Mongo go, especially since this involves caving in to the demands of the cplot sockpuppets. Also, obviously the ED trolls were relentless in outing Mongo's identity. Some evidence suggests Mongo himself may have even been involved with the ED initiatives. And how can anyone cope with another outing the most intimate details of one's identity, when the one outing oneself is oneself. It's truly invasive. The Cplot sockpuppets were relentless too. They actually demanded Mongo and other admins try to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policies. Even worse these trollish sockpuppets expected Mongo to abide by those policies on certain occasions. It defies belief. The worst part is that now other admins will need to take up the slack: to try to enforce the opposite of WP policies to ensure that the articles related to 9/11 remain strictly Whitehouse propaganda. --AirlineToHeaven 03:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User warned about this behaviour and similar uncivil comments/personal attacks elsewhere. If it continues please nuke at will. --CBD 11:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just cplot again, and could be banned and reverted, but I though leaving this up as an illustration would be more useful (this is, in fact, mild for cplot). Thatcher131 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of copyrighted content

New user Docued, apparently acting as an employee of Documentary Educational Resources, has repeatedly copied and pasted text from DER pages into articles Jay Ruby, Robert Gardner, Dead Birds (1965 film), John Marshall (filmmaker). User has been warned that this likely constitutes copyright infringement and any case is not consistent with policy. In hopes that this is the correct space to report this, --Media anthro 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There may well be Wikipedia:Username concerns here as well. Jkelly 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

DER holds the copyright to all information Media anthro continues to delete. This information is not only legitimate and accurate, but it is also information filmmakers, anthropologists, ethnographers, historians and many others will find great value in. All sources, including DER, have been cited according to Wikipedia policy. Is this not a site for sharing important factual information? It seems Media anthro has a problem with DER, or DER's filmmaker's, who I'd like to point out, are some of the world's most respected and important documentary filmmakers. Also, DOCUED, is DOCUMENTARY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES abbreviated, not sure what Jkelly is alluding to here. Docued 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've answered at User talk:Docued. Jkelly 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're willing to turn over the copyright information into the public sphere (i.e., you can no longer claim any of it as your own, even if someone uses it in their own material), then you can feel free to paste it here. But you'll also need to put a notice on your website that all information is now under the GFDL license. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, that is not true. GFDL allows the copyright owner to dual-license. The originator always keeps the copyright. What they add to WP is released under the GFDL and can be copied/changed. But they can also keep the copyright notice on the original page as well. That page does not have to announce that the material has been dual licensed elsewhere. But they do have to send an email to Wikimedia Foundation stating that they GFDL what they do add to WP. 32.97.110.142 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

32.97.110.142 is correct... we don't expect contributions to be released into the public domain. Regardless, we don't really want cut-and-pastes of promotional text however it is licensed. Jkelly 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

After posting a GFDL notice on a DER page, User:Docued is reinserting the copied text again (into John Marshall (filmmaker), Dead Birds (1965 film), and Robert Gardner. I still feel these insertions are inappropriate for Wikipedia, but I will hold off on reverting them to see what other editors think. --Media anthro 20:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Without a specific GFDL release, and without specific proof that the person in question has the right to make the release, they are a copyvio, and the User should be blocked for serial copyright violations. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I think the fact that he has modified the external site to indicate GFDL licensing proves both things: that he has the right to release them on behalf of his org and that they are no longer copyvios (even though the notice is not quite correct). The question does remain whether we want the material or not. I'll leave that for someone else to decide. 32.97.110.142 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use!

Another for fair use. Article Devil Fruit have over 40 screenshots for illustrative purposes, all claiming fair use, yet nowhere are the images or the situations depicted being discussed themselves. This fails WP:FU, and also counterxamples apply:

An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate the article (or an article section) whose topic is the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article.

Now, could someone else take a look? I've been reverted and the 40 or so screenshots have been reinserted. Maybe I was wrong, but if not, could someone explain User:Jreferee the fair use concept? -- Drini 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be another of those "I'm going to put a screenshot for every item in a list" cases, which are often a ridiculous amount of work to resolve. Jkelly 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's image-cruft at best, but more to the point, it is probably a FU problem. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s has resolved a lot of these cases, and can probably point to precedent. Jkelly 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that is too many iamges, they need to go (except for the lead). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in to the issue as I?ve been a priori disqualified to do it ;) From my talk :

See your talk. I did it sinc ethey didn't fulfill Fair use criteria for their insertion. -- Drini 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree since I know otherwise, but I'm not going to argue otherwise because I think your going to be one of those Wikipedians you can't argue with. It doesn't matter, we've solved the problem. (...) Angel Emfrbl 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

TerriNunn = NerriTunn

(See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TerriNunn, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TerriNunn again.}

She has returned under the name NerriTunn, and it personally attacking me here, and here. Please, please, could an admin do something. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Those personal attacks amount to nothing less than trolling. Block and harsh words required. Moreschi 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I issued a single warning to her to knock it off. If she persists, I'll indef-block, but since the last block was for WP:USERNAME, I want to give her one chance to straighten up and fly right. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, that username seems to have just a bit of WP:POINT to it, no? Patstuart^talk|edits 19:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I didn't see this section before I blocked her for being a sockpuppet of a blocked account. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The original account was only blocked for the User name, blocking someone who comes in with a new User name shouldn't be automatic. I would support an unblocking and a final warning. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually did just that about an hour ago. She gets a short leash, but she gets a leash nonetheless. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User Stealthusa is uploading copyrighted images

Stealthusa has uploaded a host of copyrighted images. He has been warned about using these images on his talk page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stealthusa), yet he has either decided to ignore these warnings or does not understand them; he has now removed the image warning and placed incorrect licensing tags on the images. Please note his contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stealthusa Elcda0 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left a last warning. Jkelly 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And right after that, he uploaded another copyrighted image. I've blocked him for 24h with a stern warning to knock if off. The fact that, rather than acknowledging his confusion, he left an indignant note on your talk page indicates to me that we're not getting through to him. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tag vandalism by User:Irpen

Irpen (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed tags regarding images which might not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In June 2006 User:Irpen was subject to a RfC regarding the improper removal of notice tags (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen), however he has continued doing with this behaviour: diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 (there are more diffs, but since the images have been deleted they are not visible: diff 4 diff 5 diff 6 diff 7 diff 8 diff 9 diff 10).

Regarding the latest incident, User:Irpen was cautioned by an administrator User:Robth who wrote: "This was not the proper way to handle that situation, and you know it. If you dispute the replaceability, add the disputed tag on the page and explain why (I have done this for the image in question). Please don't do this again." on User:Irpen's talk page (diff). User:Irpen has demonstrated a lack of willingness to observe Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and work together with others, for instance the heading written by User:Robth on User talk:Irpen was changed from "Please don't do this" to "unexplained RFU tag" (diff).

Usually vandalism results in blocks, with the length being increased each time. --Oden 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand is illustrated by the #Personal_attacks.2C_harassment.2C_baiting_and_pestering_by_user:Oden thread above. Unlike other users, the user above uses the image tag as a harassment tool. While overall image patrolling is a useful practice, user:Oden simply picks on users who had unrelated disagreements with him and digs through those user's entire upload history in order to harass them with tagging the images. The user also refuses to explain the tags at the talk page, a simple courtesy he was asked multiple times. I welcome more attention to the issue. --Irpen 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There does indeed seem to be some strange behaviour going on here [137] perhaps an admin needs to investigate this seriously Giano 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The same user who started that thread also started User_talk:Oden#Thanks. --Oden 22:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we see another falsehood here. Those threads where started by different people. --Irpen 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Both threads were started by User:Ghirlandajo. Am I missing something? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that both sides should calm down. While Oden's selective approach to tagging is not appropriate and inevitably leads to accusations of a personal vendetta, he should be encouraged to continue his RfU activities in an impartial way, like Carnildo and his OrphanBot do, giving the uploader time to find a free replacement and avoiding large-scale massacres of images. I urge Quadell, Irpen, and other people involved in the dispute to cool off and to stop accusing each other of vandalism. Your increasing hostility and aggression are not going to defuse the situation. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If this section is a suggestion that Irpen should be blocked, I strongly disagree. He has not continued removing tags since I asked him to stop, and blocking good contributors is a last resort. I do not think that the actions of any party in this disagreement require administrative intervention. --Robth^Talk 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that User:Irpen seems to demonstrate an attitude that he is above Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This thread should serve as a last warning, a user who has flouted the rules for five months should not be allowed to continue.

I have seen good contributions in this user's logs (which I have reviewed), however his interpersonal skills leave much to be desired. He also seems to harbour the view that any review of his contributions constitutes stalking, while any disagreement is a form of trolling. On November 30, 2006 User:Quadell wrote "This is what I've seen of Irpen. Insults, edit wars, and hostility" (diff). It pretty much sums it up so far. --Oden 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Quadell's statement is an accurate assessment of Irpen's behavior with regard to the recent fair use debates, but I do not think that blocking would be a productive action at this point. --Robth^Talk 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless WP:3RR or other policy has been violated, all parties should try to discuss the issues on relevant talk pages. Edit warring in the articles is annoying, but 'it takes two to tango', and as long as it's under 3RR it's not very serious. I tentativly support the non-delete tag till the consensus is reached, simply since undeleting image is more difficult then deleting it :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus here. If there is an ongoing discussion in search of concensus, the tag stays. If the tagger refuses to engage into discussion, tags an image, writes nothing at talk and leaves, this is not a discussion when the tag is stamped on top of the good-faith rationale. I asked the taggers to start discussing things many times to no avail.

Contrary to Oden's ascertion, I simply request my opponent to follow the policies, guidelines and common sense, not the other way around. His threats above are unimpressive as well as another undug edit not related to the matter. There is an abundance of opinions by many editors of Wikipedia about the attitudes of user Oden. I am not bringing them all here as we are discussing a narrow issue at hand. Questioning my ability to discuss the matter in good-faith disagreement would be found surprising by most of my opponents in many content disagreements.

I would like to thank Robth for the partial disagreeing regarding the suggested by Oden course of action. However, contrary to an opinion by Robth, I think the matters does need an investigation and an administrative intervention. Several users use tagging images as the way to harass editors with who they disagreed on unrelated matters. One thing is an overall image patrol, like the one done by the Orphanbot or users who go over images randomply, topically, alphabetically, etc. Quite another thing is picking on the contributors based on unrelated matters and dig through the months/years of their work looking for images to be tagged among those uploaded by these specific contributors. There is no other motive in this but harassment. WP:Harassment addresses the issue in detail. The evidence of aggressive and abusive stalking is abundant and this repugnant practice aimed needs continues. For evidence, see #Personal_attacks.2C_harassment.2C_baiting_and_pestering_by_user:Oden, User_talk:Oden#Stalking.2FReplaceable_fair_use_images, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok.

The issue was raised by many editors, especially in connection to Oden (talk · contribs) who right above brags about "reviewing" my entire contributions logs. I find being "reviewed" especially amusing. --Irpen 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that blocking User:Irpen will improve his behaviour either. However, I do believe that there is a need to press home the importance of not vandalising good-faith tags. It is serious when a editor places a tag in good faith, and User:Irpen removes it in apparent bad faith (childish behaviour that has been tolerated for too long). There is a need for a strong condemnation of this.

I also agree that some fair use images are arguably harder than others to replace, which is why a editor has the possibility of disputing the tag, instead of removing it. The involvement of an admin who decides whether or not to delete ensures that at least three editors have been involved in the discussion. Removing the tag disrupts this process, and disrupts Wikipedia. --Oden 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he did it again: diff. Apparently there's no need for WP:V either.--Oden 00:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What? The article has 5 refs, which is quite OK for a starter article. Unless you want to add this template on all article without inline citations, this looks like WP:POINT to me. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think creating such a kind of entry while having a WP:ANI investigation going on borderlines on trolling and, worse yet, on stalking. Indeed, there is no other word to describe an editor picking another editor and stalking his contributions for many months or years exclusively with the aim to tag more and more images of his. And again, putting a no-source template (which incidentally goes to bottom and not to top) is clear-cut WP:POINT. I really hope that an uninvolved admin will intervene and sort this out. People like User:Truthseeker_85.5 got 1 month off for even less than that. Fair image patrol is one thing, deliberate trolling and disruption from Oden is another. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of the other Wikipedians recently most vocal about what has been described as a "jihad" against Fair Use images, and especially against the persons that have spoken out against the current enforcement practices removing nearly all Fair Use images of living persons, I have little doubt that Irpen has been targeted, as have I, for scrutiny of every image I've ever loaded to Wikipedia. While in the case of Oden, we were able to work through a FUR tagging exercise of dozens of images, seemingly reserved especially for those of of that publicly disagree with said policy enforcement, and in my case Oden in fact made a number of helpful suggestions, unlike most of his contemporaries, other users who share the same general viewpoints about "free" images attacked dozens of other images I've uploaded, and so far I've lost 32 of 35 images challenged. It's very, very clear that those of use who dispute the "jihad" are targeted for extended periods and forced to jump through hoops few others are, which a number of people have indicated is a violation of Wikipedia policy in and of itself. As long as the present enforcement policies remain in place, I will not load images of any kind to Wikipedia, and have asked others who have been attacked to consider the same. There is absolutely no doubt we are being targeted and stalked in these instances. Tvccs 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the comments above are good arguments for why there is no need to notify the uploader.

Images which can be fixed should be fixed without involving the uploader (I usually wait for the uploader to act before fixing missing rationales and try to make sure that orphanded fair use images haven't been orphaned by mistake).

If the image is missing a source then it might be necessary to contact the uploader. If the image is replaceable and the deleting admin comes to the same conclusion then the image should be deleted, and involving the uploader in such a case only causes alot of unnecessary aggrevation. --Oden 14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh repeatedly inserting WP:OR

Someone please either severely warn or block User:Vlh about his repeated insertion of original research into Triple Crown Champion, Grand Slam Champion, Randy Orton, Adam Copeland and various other articles for over a month now. I have went through {{test4}} with him a couple of times now and he is only editing about every 3-4 days, so it's pretty slow-paced. I'm tired of warning this user with nothing happening to him for blatant abuse of policy. semper fi — Moe 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking through his contribs, I see plenty of legitimate edits. Can you provide diffs that show vandalism or OR insertion? | Mr. Darcy talk 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hardly call removing protection tags, references tags and inserting WP:OR about the WWE United States Championship and changing legit facts constructive: [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] And from reading his talk page, he has been trying to insert this since June and has been violating WP:OR every since. semper fi — Moe 22:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't remotely look like OR to me. It's either a tiny edit war, or it's vandalism, but it's not OR. The only warnings issued to him since August came from you, which makes this less compelling to me. Can you explain to us non-wrestling fans what exactly the issue is? Those diffs don't make it clear to me. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot not everyone watches wrestling and would understand this :) The issue is of the WWE United States Championship being a part of the requirements to the Triple Crown Championship and Grand Slam Championship. WWE doesn't consider, or hasn't confirmed that the United States Championship is in fact a requirement for the Triple Crown or Grand Slam to occur. I tried e-mailing WWE, but I got no response. This issue was furthur stimulated when a wrestler made a rouge comment on WWE television about how he had completed the "grand slam of professional wrestling". Despite searching long and hard on the internet to provide sources for this statement, nothing pulled up as a reliable source. The original research is inserted into a table format in the diffs, stating the United States Championship is part of the Triple Crown and Grand Slam championship status', but that's WP:OR because there have been no reliable sources for this claim outside that one comment on television one night, which can;t be taken seriously because of professional wrestling kayfabe. Vlh has been inserting this claim of the United States Championship since June, and has been reverted ever since, and no, his other messages on his talk page confirm that I wasn't the only one, and no I wasn't the only one reverting this, as other editors have reverted him too. semper fi — Moe 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Woud someone for the love of god stop this editor please? He continues to revert without providing sources and this is really testing my patience, so someone would someone please? semper fi — Moe 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the details. I have issued a clear warning to this user with a request (or perhaps a demand) for sourcing info. If he continues to revert without providing a source, please post it here again and I or another admin will take appropriate action. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you semper fi — Moe 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh now blocked 48h for vandalizing two more articles after my question/warning. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Pkulkarni is using sockpuppets to evade a ban

Pkulkarni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been handed a one-month ban for sock-puppetry continues to use strawman sockpuppets Shudra123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Hindushudra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given that he has expressed his intentions to continue trolling [147], dont you guys think that he should be perma banned?

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See a related discussion above on this page the ani section on "buddhism" and sockpuppetry. There is a big quagmire of sockpuppetry among a fringe group of self-professed "neo-Buddhists" from India (nevertheless the true spiritual head of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is not affiliated with this movement).Bakaman 23:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All three accounts have been blocked by other admins for sock puppetry. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He is avoiding his block by using a sock puppet account User:Indianbuddhist. See the most recent edits [148] and Indianbuddhist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Determined chap, that, but it's fairly obvious that he is a sock given the name ("buddhist" at the end, same as User:Ambedkaritebuddhist or User:Srilankabuddhist and tendentious editing on Dalit Buddhist Movement ). Hkelkar 12:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Indianbuddhist as an obvious sock of Pkulkarni. I am also increasing his block to 2 months due to continued disruption. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, at the very least whenever a sockpuppet is found, Pkulkarni's block timer should be reset per policy, although if he creates enough, we should definitely consider an indefinite block or ban. --Coredesat 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

CJWright. Again.

Previous discussion. He's back as Theavatar3 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). I tried to wait to see what he would do, and while he started out OK, his edits have once again turned strange. Among things, he's brought the block notice and page protection from his old usertalk and is flaunting his block history [149], has used questionable edit summaries [150], and has made various random odd edits [151] [152]. He's again created a couple odd articles, though seeking their deletion aftwards [153]. All of that in addition to general reference desk sillyness. He was blocked before for trolling, and adding nonsense and misinformation to articles, and it looks like he may be continuing.

He was just blocked for 24 hours by Friday. Unfortunately he's learned he can switch his IP about to escape blocks. Is there anything that can or should be done? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked as a blatant sockpuppet of an indef-blocked editor. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if there's some way we can keep an eye out for any editor who edits their own userpage more than 35× per day, it should be really easy to spot him. Anchoress 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more the ref desk edits that could raise suspicion. His editing style is fairly easy to make out once you spot him, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, with all the unnecessary and deceptive wikilinks. I actually noticed those, and I recognised them, but I was too wonked out on painkillers to make the connection lol. Anchoress 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Backlog on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets

There are some 65 cases listed at WP:SSP, and it appears that no administrator has taken action on any of the cases since mid-November. That page does not at present seem to be an effective way of reporting problems with (alleged) sockpuppets, and yet it looks like the "official" method of dealing with sockpuppetry. Is there some other method users should be following? Should WP:SSP even exist, since it doesn't seem to get regular attention from administrators? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe regular users can do everything that needs to be done on that page. If the community discussion indicates a need for admin action, a request for action can be made on a page that admins pay attention to. --JWSchmidt 02:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I would consider it, but what the heck could I possibly do? Patstuart^talk|edits 07:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars on Transnistria-related articles

A bunch of edit wars broke out today on Transnistria-related articles. The ones I noticed were on Tiraspol, Union of Moldavians in Transnistria, Renewal (Transnistria), Politics of Transnistria, Transnistrian referendum, 2006, War of Transnistria, Transnistria (World War II), and Varniţa, Anenii Noi. I was wondering if some other admins could look into this. I was thinking that blocking both users would be the best solution, but perhaps there are other options. Khoikhoi 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Both users have previously been blocked (by me) because of the constant edit wars between the two of them. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• MariusM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and
• William Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have been blocked 72 hours each. Note that their block logs are identical, both having been previously blocked 24, then 48, hours for exactly the same behavior. —freak(talk) 06:03, Dec. 9, 2006 (UTC)

Socks

(moved from WP:AN posted it on the wrong board) There have been several socks of Mactabbed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turning up, two of which I have dealt with. Be on the look out for more, I have sprotected Fallout 2, Fallout (computer game) and Somebody Up There Likes Me (film) for a while, because they are the pages the socks are hitting. They have been continually reverting changes to WP:AIV (ie where they have been reported) and abusing popups. Viridae^Talk 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there appears to be two new socks of this user operating per their intimate knowledge of articles User:Mactabbed/User:Maior's socks have been editing on and sudden involvement . They are TechJon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rand Integer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (→Netscott) 05:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For those wishing to familiarize themselves with who this individual is see Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mactabbed. (→Netscott) 05:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism/reverting on a page

The page Fly like a Raven is constantly being reverted to include rumored and unconfirmed information on a forthcoming album. The user who continues to do this is unregistered, and only an IP address appears in the history. I have reverted the page again, but please keep an eye on it, because I've reverted it several times and it still continues to be vandalized. Rhythmnation2004 02:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• The users 129.44.234.53 and 71.240.253.89 has now broken the three-revert policy by once again replacing the rumored information. I have reverted the article, once again, to remain neutral. I strongly request that an administrator step in and take care of this nonsense. The user 129.44.234.53 has also repeatedly reverted other pages in attempt to restore vandalism. This users IP should be blocked indefinetely. Rhythmnation2004 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Xenophobia

Are posts like these from User:Nadirali acceptable?

1. [154] Ethnic slurs, nationalist sentiment, coterie formation.
2. [155] Xenophobia
3. [156] Threatening admin Ragib
4. Spamming hate sites [157]
5. Anti-Hindu remarks [158]
6. [159] Baiting
7. [160] Xenophobia and falsehood (History of India has multiple flags)
8. [161] - declares he will edit war together with the help of User:Siddiqui (extremist views per RfC here) Hkelkar 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He continues trolling on Talk:History of Pakistan. See Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hkelkar 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've given him a stern warning. -- tariqabjotu 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note; he seems to have admitted to being a puppetmaster, I would think that would warrant an immediate block, no? -- Chabuk

^{[ T • C ]} 02:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• While we're on the topic, is the list of "threats to world peace and stability" this user has on his userpage really necessary? It seems to me that it will do nothing except cause disputes. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm... nah. He threatens to become one, but doesn't say that he has. --Kizor 06:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have ganged up against me a third time.Im not stupid enough to ignor that.This whole affair would not have continued had you stopped threatening user:Sadiqui along with calling me a "madrassa student" and vandalizing my comments on the Pakistan talk page.Regarding the "sock puppet",I only have one account.I lost my temper at ragib because I was under the impression that he was taking sides against me.As for the flags,you probably never heard of free speech.User:Szhaider has similar content on his user page.I also find it curious that you HelklerHekler and your freinds happen to post approximately the same time when attacking me or other Pakistani wikipedians with your anti-Pakistan sentiments.Is falsly reporinting me to an administrator while hiding your own violations your way of getting back at me?Nadirali 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali Let's talk about Xenophobia then: "where did you read this? In a Pakistani madarassa? C'mon, have you ever heard of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. After the arrival of Aryans in the Indian subcontinent, the IVC was virtually destroyed. The civilization created by the Aryans afterwards is known as the Vedic civilization. Dude.. go read some history books before blabbering here and stop showing off your madarassa education. --Incman|वार्ता 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)" Pakistan puffs it's chest in rabid jingiosm, hides it's problems under the rug, tried to portray itself as a paradise, and get's laughed at by the civilized world as a poor, backward and paranoid nation.Hkelkar 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that paks are confused about their identity. I think they have a hard time choosing whether they are Indian or they want to be arabian? Do they want islamic sharia law or commonwealth law. They look upon islamic invaders as heroes even though those same invaders came and raped their ancestors and coverted them. they're all about jatt/ punjabi/ rajput pryde even though the rajuts started out as hindu and sikhs were being slaughtered wholesale by the moguls. I think education is the key to solving this problem. that and separation of church and state.--D-Boy 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Separation of religion and state in Pakistan???? It's more likely for aliens from planet Glarbon to land their spaceship in the middle of Waziristan and do a belly dance to an audience of hookah-smoking Pukhtun poppy-seed dealers.Hkelkar

There is no room in the official historical narrative for questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the Ideology of Pakistan—devoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation. This, as opposed to nearly a sizable of Pakistan up at arms to separate from the state (*cough Balochistan *cough), with another fraction run by the Taliban and Osama, the the remaining half full of jingoist whackos spreading hate against Hindus and Christians and selling anti-semitic Jew-hating conspiracy theories on every street-corner in Lahore[162](Pakistan: In the Land of Conspiracy Theories, PBS)[163][164]. [165].Gee whiz, what a paradise! Hkelkar 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Here's your Xenophobia.Hope I didnt scare you by revealing all the racist stuff you posted along with demonizing Pakistanis.Nadirali 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

• Oh for goodness sakes. Wikipedia is not a message board. You've both violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I think both these users could use a short time-out. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your being fair. Just like to point out that nadirali has professed to sockpuppeteering[166] and done some post-mediation baiting in my talk page (to which I shall not respond)[167].This, after it was HE who said he would instigate edit-warring with the assistance of Siddiqui (and, presumably,his own socks), not I [168]. Hkelkar 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Nadirali persists in coterie formation with Pakistani nationalist editors even after being warned [169], effectively making threats against other editors (intent to mass-edit-war)[170].Hkelkar 06:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Im not going to say much.But people should know that it was not I who started the personal attacks.And regarding the "formation",that's exactly what Hklelkar and his fellow nationalists do by posting together and attacking other wikipedians such as me.That's all I have to say.ThankyouNadirali 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

To pipe in, I've had conversation with this fellow a few times and his tone seems to me to be unapologetically contentious, xenophobic, paranoid, rife with a sense of persecution, ultra-nationalistic, anti-Indian, anti-Hindu, and generally trollish. Top that off with bad spelling, grammar and punctuation/space usage, and a strong inclination to delete other people's comments on talk pages and/or edit them (by changing copy or interspersing his own commentary), and I am beginning to think this guy is going to be a thorn in the side of most people he decides to disagree with (which it seems is most people). He demonstrates a lack of good faith and a willingness to play tit-for-tat over perceived slights (i.e., comments that disagree with his opinions or make note of his behavior). Taking him at face value he seems to be genuine in his rationale, and not just being disruptive for sport. But he should probably be watched closely and given more serious consequences for continuing his unpleasant behavior.

By the way, some of the comments above ARE baiting, and not constructive. If you don't like this guy's approach, don't comment on his background. Comment on his approach. I understand that discussions of South Asian religion and politics can be rocky, but don't feed a troll like this guy. If you want to debate these issues, at least keep ad hominem comments out of it. Erielhonan 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

24.174.181.96 (talk · contribs) and Gretagolding (talk · contribs)

Looking at their contribution history, they seem to be spamming multiple pages with references to Jade Esteban Estrada. Thoughts? Gzkn 03:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would try saying something to them first, and asking for the problem. It looks to me like the guys is trying to promote himself, or perhaps an overzealous fan. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Images on Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

The article for Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident has been protected due to edit warring regarding the permissibility of two images – Image:Beit HanounBlood.jpg and Image:Gaza morgue .jpg – with disputed fair-use rationales. Some have complained that part of the reason the images ought to be removed is that they are meant to play on people's heartstrings rather than be informative. However, in an attempt to contest this theory, Striver (talk · contribs) has posted fourteen pictures used in other Wikipedia articles to the article's talk page – related to The Holocaust, 9|11, and the Armenian Genocide. At least one editor complained about the images, and I agreed with his sentiment. I believe the display of the images are pushing a WP:POINT violation, as they appear merely there for shock value (and, ironically, pulling on heartstrings). It looks like the approach was something along the lines of compared to those fourteen gruesome images, the two images for this article are nothing, which, in my opinion, is not an appropriate approach to deciding the correctness of a fair-use rationale. So, my question is, should these images be removed from the talk page or am I just over-reacting? -- tariqabjotu 03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

While not an admin, I took a look at the page in question. That entire talk page is absolutely filled with violations of everything from WP:POINT to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NOT. The images of the Armenian Genocide (I didn't see any there from the Holocaust) and from 9/11 serve no useful purpose on the talk page except for the user in question to attempt to debunk an opinion which they disagree with. On the subject of the pictures, the gaza morgue image is clearly irrelevant as it could just as easily be a picture of people crying in any city in the world on any random occasion. While I could be convinced as to the relevance of the blood image, simply standing on its own in the article would not give it any useful purpose. In contrast, if there were images available of Israeli troops during the event itself, or some other topical image from the event itself, I could see its relevance more surely. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The images under Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident#Request for Comment are from the Holocaust. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I came here due to a message from Tariqabjotu, so thanks for the notice.

I dispute that edit warring is regarding the fair use ratinal of the pictures, that is in my view a obvious distraction that will no succed: any one who is impartial will recoqnize that they fullfill all the cirteria for fair use.If they indeed would have been fair-use breach, one of them would not have been undeleted after i took it to deletion review, complaining that "one" admin had deleted it out of process, and that it indeed was fair use.

WP:POINT is not applicable since it states that one should not disrupt wikipedia to make a point. The other pictures are not there to make a point, they are there as an argument. That is a huge difference. If my article gets deleted, and i afd another article, that would be POINT, ie to do something one in reality does not endorse, to prove its inappropriateness. The additional pictures serve no such purpose, they are not there to demonstrate the inappropriateness of anything. WP:POINT would be to go to Holocaust, 911 and Armenian Genocide, and removing those pictures arguing that they are "pulling on heartstrings" (what a nonsensical made up rule!). So no, POINT is not applicable.

"They apear for shoch value". C'mon, if they were shock site-picture, they would not be on wikipedia to start with. They are on stable articles and nobody is disputing their appropriateness on those articles - it is very weak to argue that they are appropriate on article main space, but not appropriate on a talk page regarding a dispute of the appropriateness of war time pictures.

"serve no useful purpose on the talk page except for the user in question to attempt to debunk an opinion which they disagree with". Is "to debunk an opinion which they disagree with" not enough reason in it self? C'mon, we are talking about a talk page, talk pages are there to present arguments and debunk false arguments.

Regarding the validity of including any individual picture in that article, this is not the place to comment or respond to comments regarding that, the article talk page exists for that. Further, i would like to make clear that i am the one actively engaged in trying to find a solution to this problem. I talk on the talk page, i invited third parties. When that did not work, i created a RFC. Now, this did not work either, and i have filed a request to the Mediation Cabal. understand that i am working in accordance to policies and guidelines and have no interest in breaching either of them, it is me that is following the dispute resolution process, it is not me that is unitarility deleting images out of process, it is not me that is removing peoples comments and arguments in the talk page and it is not me that have been warned and blocked for incivility and revert wars, rather, it is me reporting those kinds of behaviors. Further, i want to make clear that i am not the only one advocating the right to present the images on the talk page as arguments, at least two other users have supported their inclusion. That is the talk page, that is were we present arguments. And those are pictures used on Wikipedia articles, so how could they be good enough for an article, but be "to shocking" on a talk page? Are we going to deny one side the ability to present arguments in good faith? Peace. --Striver 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see this to understand what kind of opposition we are facing. It is a challenge on its own to not loose patience when seeing those things. adding to the incivility and that people try to side-step the main issue by invoking fair use disputes and denying one side to present arguments is not helping either. This is a highly infected debate, and it would not surprise me if i will be forced to go all the way in the dispute resolution process. --Striver 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've been tangentially involved in similar disputes, which may make me slightly biased, but if this one is anything like any of the others, I'll have to say back up Striver. This appears to be yet another example of the ridiculous Israel POV-warriors vs. ridiculous the Muslim POV-warriors, not about FU. While I was on a similar page, I felt people were using excuses to get each image suggestion removed, and it doesn't surprise me that the fair-use criteria has come up on this page either. Striver was doing nothing more than saying, "hey, look, these other images are part of WP articles, so why shouldn't this article have one?". Because it was not a FU argument, but a content argument (or at least, Striver saw it that way), this was not a WP:POINT violation, but a reasonable request. That's my two cents, I may be wrong, but it's what it seems to me. All said, I wouldn't mind seeing every Israel-Arab article on this entire encyclopedia full-protected until people learn to work out their differences. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree it's not a Fair Use issue, but I do think that it is a valid content dispute... though by definition that would then not be dealt with here. To make it seem like it's cut-and-dry though, as Striver seems to be doing, is fallacious. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• That being said, Striver, you could have just linked to the images, rather than displaying them, which was kind of untasteful. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've said on the talk page already there is a serious fair use problem with putting the images on the talk page (at minimum). Furthermore, I'll note that the dif Striver gave is from an anon using a dynamic IP who all editors (even the more pro-Israel ones) are reverting on sight- the user has been blocked for personal attacks twice before. That dif is not a representative sample of the situation. JoshuaZ 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this was not a query about the fair-use images for the article, but rather the display of the Holocaust, 9|11, and genocide images on the talk page. I won't stop you from discussing the fair-use images, though. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambarawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have no idea what to make of User:Ambarawa putting {{indefblockeduser}} and {{vandalblock}} on his talk page. [171] But whether he's a vandal or not, can someone please explain to him again why copy-and-paste moves are verboten? He moved Grammy Award to Grammy Awards again after I told him not to. Kimchi.sg 03:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I have fixed the move. Feel free to do an actual move if you feel that the plural is the better title. Viridae^Talk 04:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not encounter the page until yesterday, but going by Talk:Grammy Award it appears that there's agreement to keep it singular. Kimchi.sg 04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I left this comment on the user's talk page. -- tariqabjotu 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image backlog..

I'm not sure this is the place to mention it, but there is a huge backlog here--Vercalos 04:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Images for deletion are normally left up for a period of five days before being processed, so those still have a couple more days. -- tariqabjotu 04:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Block User 70.187.141.135 Please

This IP number constantly vandal Marriage (conflict) page with this passage:

	HOMOSEXUALS HAVE A CIVIL RIGHT TO MARRY, NO ONE CAN SAY WHO WE CAN OR CANNOT MARRY! MARRIAGE ISN'T ALL ABOUT PROPREGATION, IT IS ABOUT LOVE BETWEEN TO PERSONS

--Calupict! 05:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is normally a case to report to WP:AIV. However, you'll have to warn him first, which I'll do for you. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dragong4

I just blocked User:Dragong4 for 24 hours, after he was reported to AIV, for various unnecessary comments on the talk pages for North Korea and the Village Pump. You can see them in the difs of his recent contributions. This user has been blocked several times before, most notably a 6-month block in June which was lifted after a month. Should I have givenh im a longer block, or not blocked him at all for these comments? Thanks for your comments. Academic Challenger 06:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sniffing the user creation log, finding offensive usernames

Hi there!

I've more offensive usernames to report:

• SAPTAM HIMU - all caps username, possibly vandal account; perhaps a sock of:
  • MANOJSHETH (both accounts created 5 minutes apart)
• Dipanjan majumdar2007 -- username too long
• Chanakya666 -- possibly religously offensive username per '666', the Mark of the Beast per Christians.

If you feel I've got my arguments wrong, just don't block those users. Cheers!

Yuser31415 06:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As no kind of expert whatsoever, I have to disagree with dipanjan - it's long, but not all that long, and to my knowledge there's no stated limit. Besides, CSCWEM got away with it. --Kizor 07:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

None of these usernames appear to violate the username policy. SAPTAM HIMU has no contribs, and neither does MANOJSHETH, and therefore they can't be vandal accounts (there is also no evidence MANOJSHETH created the other account). The number "666" by itself does also does not violate the username policy. I'm not blocking any of the names - please assume good faith in the future. --Coredesat 07:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What about admin MONGO (talk · contribs)? Patstuart^talk|edits 09:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm against blocking any of these too. The last 3 appear to be Indian names. Manoj is a popular Indian name, Sheth is a popular surname. Same for Dipanjan Majumdar. See Chanakya for the significance of the 3rd name. I wouldn't block anyone for just 666. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Action sought against Sc4704

Sc4704 has been persistently inserting unreferenced filmography information into several articles connected with WP:INCINE, most notably Shah Rukh Khan, Hrithik Roshan and The Mahabharata (full contribution list here). See (diff1) (diff2) (diff3) (diff4) for examples.

He has continued inserting unreferenced and disputed information after requests for several clarification were placed on his talk page by several editors. He is unresponsive to dialog and continues to insert unsourced information.

After his most recent edit I placed a {{subst:needsource2|username}} on his userpage and also warned him that further violations would result in this complaint. He completely ignored this as usual and again re-inserted unsourced information (diff). Administrators, please take action as per the guidelines at WP:DE. Thanks. - ekantiK ^talk 06:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ekantik. Tried to talk to Sc4704, but he again placed unverfied information on Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam‎ and a made-up movie on Salman Khan's page. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Xenanthropism

The article Xenanthropism is absolute nonsense with a single google hit from a MySpace blog and the article is a copyright violation of that blog [172]. The author, Blazingnikons (talk · contribs), continued to remove the speedy tag and after a series of warnings suddenly has supporters: Philophile (talk · contribs) and Sumyunggui4thgt (talk · contribs) whose edits consist of removing the speedy tag and then writing on the talk page summaries that basically consist of oh I've heard of this, you should keep it. There is clear sockpuppetry here but it doesn't yet meet criteria for a checkuser. Can the page be protected until an admin looks at it for speedy? It is driving me nuts to have to keep putting the tag back on as brand new users show up and remove it. Amor fati (talk · contribs) showed up and removed it with the edit summary of I have deemed that I have grounds to remove all notices of speedy deletion, since I, myself, did not create this page but do not feel that it meets criteria for speedy deletion which is just absolute nonsense. IrishGuy ^talk 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... We also have SliverTissue (talk · contribs) who spammed it across several pages.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've speedied the article for copyvio and protected it for the time being to prevent further disruption. I've left the talk page alone for now, as it might be useful to deal with the socks. Sandstein 09:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

...and would some more experienced admins please attend to the socks? My feeling is to final-warn or block the original author (he's also created Xenantropism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a personal attack page, now also speedied) and to block the evident socks, but I've no time now to hunt for the appropriate templates... Sandstein 10:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

{{suspsock}}, {{blockedsock}}...—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 10:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Philophile (talk · contribs) has recreated the article as Xenanthopism. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. --Wasell 11:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, all blocked/deleted now, thanks! Any admin who thinks this is too harsh may undo these actions at will. Sandstein 11:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. IrishGuy ^talk 17:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

complaint: Wikistalking

I weant to complain about 71.139.38.76 who has for some time been tracking my edits and blanking them. This mystery person seems to have no new materials to add, and seldom comments--for example major reverts are called "typo". Recent blanking = Timeline of United States diplomatic history Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. (many, many blankings); Henry Morgenthau, Jr., etc. Rjensen 09:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I found one bad faith revert ([173]), which I have warned the IP about. The rest seem to be content disputes, with explanatory edit summaries, and I it may be best to discuss them on the talk pages of the articles, or with the IP directly via their talk page, rather than get dragged in to reverting one another. I wouldn't call it stalking, as the IP has reverted other people on various articles, not just yourself. Proto::► 11:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

IP range vandalism

OK, this I'm not too comfortable handling on my own yet. It looks like we have one vandal operating from the 193.113.200.* range whose IP address is changing every time s/he edits. (See this page history; User:193.113.200.231 was just blocked for vandalism as well.) What's the appropriate course of action? A very short-term block on the range? Just hold on and see if it stops? Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SSS108 keeps on revealing real name of user:Ekantik

SSS108 (talk · contribs) keeps on revealing the real name of Ekantik (talk · contribs) on talk:Sathya Sai Baba. User:Ekantik is a self-admitted sockpuppet of Gaurasundara (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ekantik.

User:Ekantik has requested SSS108 twice not to reveal his real name [174] [175]. I also warned SSS108 not to reveal a person’s real name [176]

In spite of this user:SSS108 continues to reveal user:Ekantik real name and has stated the intention of keep on doing this. See talk:Sathya Sai Baba. I had not a clue who user:Ekantik was before SSS108 stated his opinion about it.

User:SSS108 justifies his behavior by saying that his identity was revealed too by others. I admit that I Andries (talk · contribs)have revealed user:SSS108’s real name too even after he requested me not to do so, but this is because user:SSS108 keeps on revealing his real name himself even after he requested me not to reveal his reveal his name. This was found okay by the arbcom decision regarding Sathya Sai Baba. SeeWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya#Publishing_of_personal_information andWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence#Complaint_by_SSS108_about_Andries_divulging_personal_information_about_SSS108

I suggest that user:SSS108 is warned. Andries 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As discussed in a prior ArbCom case, Andries is the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest website on the internet opposing Sathya Sai Baba ([177]). Andries directly promotes, endorses and publishes Ekantik's Anti-Sai writings (under his name of Sanjay Dadlani) on his Anti-Sai website. When ProEdits/Robert Priddy (another Anti-Sai Activist who is Andries friend) divulged the full name of Freelanceresearch, not once did he object or complain about the publishing of personal information. Andries is trying to suppress the fact that Anti-Sai Activists, who have a keen agenda against Sathya Sai Baba, are editing the article incognito.

Ekantik had every opportunity to choose usernames that would not identify him with the Sai Controversy. Unfortunately for him, he choose to use the name "Gaurasundara", which directly links him to the Sai Controversy because he uses that very same name on the internet (which he recently changed then re-changed on one of his blogs in an attempt to suppress this fact).

Before discovering his sockpuppetry, Ekantik was directly asked by Jossi if he considered himself a POV editor ([178]) and Ekantik said "no" ([179]). Needless to say, this response flies in the face of "Ekantik's" numerous blogs against Sathya Sai Baba and Sai Proponents (one even specifically attacking me and my edits here on Wikipedia) and thousands of highly defamatory, derogatory, sexually-explicit and grotesque accusations and comments against Sathya Sai Baba on various Yahoo Groups and forums.

Despite Ekantik's extra-Wikipedia online behavior and using a known name on Wikipedia that identifies him with Sai Controversy, he is attempting to suppress this information and portray himself as a neutral party who does not have a POV to push and that his interest in the Sathya Sai Baba article is innocent and without bias. Fortunately, his identity was discovered before he pushed forward his edits incognito. It is also important to point out that despite his self-professed neutrality, all of his edits revolve solely around the Sai Controversy.

If you would like for me to support all of my above comments, I am more than willing to create a page that highlights Ekantik's Anti-Sai Agenda against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet, along with a list of all his blogs, public claims about a prime participant in Paul Lewis' newspaper article against Sai Baba and a sampling of his unbelievably vitriolic accusations and comments against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. All I can say is that you won't believe your eyes when you compare his Wikipedia persona with his Anti-Sai persona on the internet. Needless to say, Andries defence of Ekantik is for a reason. He is attempting to suppress the fact that the most vocial opponent of Sathya Sai Baba is attempting to edit the article incognito. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any name of user:Freelanceresearch that I believe to be her real name. User:ProEdits did not reveal her real name but another internet user name. User:Freelanceresearch made her other internet username as mentioned by user:ProEdits quite clear by her behavior in Wikipedia. In contrast, I had not a clue who user:Ekantik was, though I am familiar with all the main internet proponents and detractors of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I told SSS108 that if he finds sockpuppets of the user, send them our way, but to not use the real names of editors unless they published it on Wikipedia before themselves. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:BhaiSaab

The user just announced that he left Wikipedia, arguing injustice. Is there merit in his complaints? If yes, does he deserve an official apology? That case is new to me, but it does seem to be in need of some scrutiny. --Striver 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is in the business of issuing Official Apologies. If BhaiSaab feels wronged, he should use the dispute resolution processes which offer a number of ways to discuss the issue. He is free to leave too if he prefers that option. Weregerbil 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab is about to be come under a year's banning from this proposed ArbCom decision. I think he's making rather valid points on his talk page though. (→Netscott) 18:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a kurt response, did you two tangle Aksi? (→Netscott) 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No. But I don't feel that we should be wasting more time on the Bhaisaab-Hkelkar case. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the response. (→Netscott) 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes we did tangle when Aksi warned me once for insinuating that Hkelkar is a sockpuppet of Subhash. I have not announced that I am leaving Wikipedia. I am being banned. Do I think it's not fair? Yes, but honestly who cares? Arbcom does not go back on its decisions as far I'm aware and there is nothing that can change their decision. And I do agree that there should be no more time wasted. I just wanted to share my perspective on my banning on my talk page. That is all. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As uninvolved users in this dispute, you may tend to feel sorry for him considering his emotional farewell before the "execution". But this case has passed through the scrutiny of numerous admins and the decisions have been approved by a majority of arbitrators. Please have faith that their decisions or review the case yourself if you are dissatisfied. --Srikeit 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the length of the evidence page, I feel the arbitrators have not scrutinized this case at all (and I would understand why they don't want to do all that reading). I presume they think my behavior is some sort of erratic response to nothing, and I also believe that they think that no one was aware of the sockpuppetry until close to the beginnings of the arbcom case. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

5 arbitrators voted. isnt it over?Bakaman 21:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say this Bhai, but if you're going to leave, then just leave. This marks the second deletion of your userpage in just over two weeks, and it seems to be more about getting attention for your cause than actually leaving. You are free to defend yourself, but these pretend departures are not the appropriate way. And, to be honest, I'm not convinced by your defense; anti-Semitic remarks are offensive, no matter who they are being directed at. It's unfortunate you do not realize that. -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of one's userpage is just that. Where did I say I'm leaving? If you take anti-Israel remarks as anti-Semitic, that's your problem. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

Czechoslovakia was moved to Republic of Czechoslovakia on 30 November by Domino theory (talk • contribs), leaving Czechoslovakia as a redirect. Subsequently Themightyquill (talk • contribs) changed the page to a dab. Needless to say, several thousand links were left pointing to the dab page. I reverted today when I noticed it. Juro (talk • contribs) and Zundark (talk • contribs) have reverted me. Well I'm not going to edit war over it. Perhaps I'm being dense, but it seems to me that unless the people that want a dab page are willing to fix the links, the convenience of readers should come first. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason we've separated the article on Czechoslovakia into three parts? I don't believe we've done that with other countries. Soviet Union is one article, for example. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason appears to be that Domino theory thought it was a good idea, apparently pissing off the other editors mentioned. I'd have thought that the answer would be reeducate Domino Theory and revert everything to the way it was on November 29 or thereabouts. I'm not sure it's that simple; presumably Themightyquill, et al, would have done that if it was. The multiple-articles situation is old, what's new is whacking great chunks out of ex-Czechoslovakia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, we need to put everything back together. An article division/redirect like that should be done with the consensus of the editors involved. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Complex vandalism?

Bowser Koopa (talk · contribs) was blocked November 24 for blatant vandalism to several pages, including John Cena. A few days later, I blocked Bowser, King of the Koopas (talk · contribs) as an obvious sockpuppet of Bowser Koopa (this sock vandalized the same pages including John Cena). The Showster (talk · contribs) shows up and starts a category page about the vandal. The Showster was actually created within 10 minutes of the creation of Bowser, King of the Koopas, and concentrated on wrestling articles too (but didn't vandalize). With the veracity in which The Showster was creating (and recreating after it was deleted) the category page, I had some suspicions about the user's intentions and posted this to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive152#Bowser_Koopa. Steel359 deleted the category but wasn't so sure about the sockpuppet part. In addition, You're The Man Now Dog (talk · contribs) was helping The Showster out with the category. You're The Man Now Dog was also created within the same 10 minute span of The Showster and Bowser, King of the Koopas on November 27th. You're The Man Now Dog was blocked a few days ago for vandalism to, among other wrestling pages, John Cena.

Now, The Showster has posted on his talk page that he is blocked under an autoblock because of Crazy Commander (talk · contribs)'s block. What was Crazy Commander blocked for? Vandalism to the John Cena article.

Can some other admins look at this too? It really does seem like all the users are the same person. Metros232 18:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected identity theft

Has User:Deltabeignet been hijacked by a vandal? See User talk:Deltabeignet#Two more unexplained reverts to vandalism and neighboring sections for incidents. — Sebastian 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible sock puppeteer

User:Kyo cat and I suspect that Monsterty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock puppeteer/sock puppet master of Kyo Cat 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Monsterty had vandalized the Sasuke Uchiha article and Kyo cat stepped in to revert their edit and warn the user. We believe that from there, the user created a file to impersonate Kyo cat's but I reported them and they were then blocked indef. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could look into this and block Monsterty if necessary (it shouldn't be too hard). Thank you for your time. // Sasuke-kun27 21:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kyo cat 2's blocked.--SUIT 21:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Highly offensive userpage

This user's page [180] is blatantly offensive to Muslims, pagans, and homosexuals, to name only a few groups mentioned therein. My reading of [[181]] regarding "Polemical statements" seems to indicate that Dwain's page is in clear violation of the userpages policy. 141.154.220.74 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

His user page does not seem offensive at all; nor can I see any mention of muslam. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's the quote. That said, he doesn't say much more than what a lot of people say about Christianity, and "to name only a few" seems groundless. --Kizor 21:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, see the quotation on the very top of the page for what is being referred to there. Newyorkbrad 21:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and the reporting IP probably also means the bolded "quotes" towards the bottom. 141.154.220.74, please first try to resolve this issue by discussing it with User:Dwain himself before alerting administrators. Sandstein 21:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's not User:Pitchka, but User:Dwain, which is where the user actually complained (contribs show this). I have no idea why the link is different, but Dwain also maintains a very polemical Freemasonry page linked from his user page that borders on libel, as he has inflammatory statements regarding Freemasonry placed right before a list of Masons on Wikipedia. MSJapan 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to be both: User:Pitchka seems to be the main account that does most of the 'real' editing, but that account's user and talk page redirect to the secondary account, User:Dwain, which is used mainly for userspace edits. the user also signs with a piped link that reads 'Dwaian', but links to 'Pitchka', which redirects back to 'Dwain.' Is that kosher? It seems like it would just cause confusion, as above, and make it more difficult to access the contribution history of the editor you're dealing with. -- Vary | Talk 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the quotes should be removed. He's entitled to his opinion, but this is a bit too much. Khoikhoi 21:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He also seems to enjoy in a little libel himself every once and a while. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADwain&diff=92489363&oldid=92436162 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dwain&diff=prev&oldid=92436062 Ours18 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the precedent regarding this sort of behavior I think an indefinite ban is in order. We wouldn't tolerate this kind of misbehavior from a new user, why should we tolerate it from User:Dwain? The Mirror of the Sea 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This man is a dick. However, the views he is expressing on his userpage are typical devout American Catholic opinions - you can't block him for that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been made clear that maintaining a userpage with controversial material designed to be polemical is trolling and can be punished for as such. Need I also mention that he deliberately libels Wikipedians who are also Masons? That seems like deliberately disruptive conduct. The Mirror of the Sea 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was saying that his userpage, as it stands, is not offensive but religious. If he's disrupting the wiki, sure, ban him, but blocking him for being devout and/or redneck isn't a good idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it offensive. I find it to be a deliberate bit of trolling intended to incite disruption. That is not what wikipedia is for. After all the stuff that went on in the userbox wars, it seems patently obvious to me that polemical and uncivil material is not welcome on wikipedia, in ANY space.--Vidkun 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling it a "typical devout Catholic opinion" is a bit of an over-generalization... My experience with Dwain/Pitchka has been that he has virtually no understanding or regard for WP:CIVIL, but if we start indef blocking for that, there are an awful lot of editors and admins who wouldn't be editing here anymore. I do think one of his accounts should be blocked though because he edits from both of them and it is damn confusing if you aren't watching very closely to discern those accounts are the same person. To be clear, I've never seen him do any abusive sockpuppeting, but unless he has a very good reason for running two accounts he should be given the option of keeping one active and having the other locked. He can link to the contribs for the other account from the userpage of whichever account he choses to stick with. From what I see there is no good reason he has two accounts.--Isotope23 22:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to see any user blocked for his religious beliefs or lack thereof. As far as I can see, the paramount issue here is the use of two accounts for one editor, which I believe is verboten. Let's ask him to stick to one account, and handle any mainspace issues as they occur. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Moronisatosser

I saw this name, Moronisatosser (talk · contribs), pop up editing Gaby Hoffman. Content dispute possible on the page, where I removed trivia based on WP:AVTRIV and suggested that it be inserted into the article instead. I also removed an unsourced picture, which was eventually deleted under CSD-I4. This new user, whose name may be a correaltion to my edits, has uploaded the image again, still without a source. Any admins care to comment? Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I, User:Cute 1 4 u wish to edit constructively. And please unblock Captin Fucko (talk · contribs), he was my friend.

No more spamming etc... User:Cute 1 4 u as --66.79.168.98 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Captin Fucko was blocked in June of 2006, but he will not be unblocked because of the choice of username. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User Vml675

Could another admin please review and intervene in a situation regarding Vml675 (now mainly editing as Circustop (talk · contribs)) and his or her single issue socks. Despite numerous warnings, the editor consistantly removes sourced content [182], to suit a pro-POV [183] and introduce copyright material [184] to Robina Qureshi using a number of accounts [185] [186]. There is also the recent development of accusatory edit summaries [187]. As the only other major editor to the article that all the socks edit almost exclusively, I do not wish to use admin tools personally. Thanks. Rockpocket 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fijian coup and genocide

I am concerned about the actions of RoddyYoung (talk · contribs), who has posted a paragraph suggesting that a genocide is likely in Fiji in the articles Fiji, Frank Bainimarama and 2006 Fijian coup d'état without any supporting sources. I have removed his posts to these three articles. He posted the same or similar material on all three talk pages, and I tried to move the discussion to the one I thought most relevant (and which is also likely to be the highest traffic page at present), Talk:2006 Fijian coup d'état. He reposted some of the material at Talk:Fiji, and added a section on "Laws" to the Fiji article containing only the genocide law. I have now asked him three times to stop posting such material implying a future genocide and to restrict his posts to the Talk:2006 Fijian coup d'état page, but he has failed to comply.

I have asked for sources. His responses can be seen on my talk page User talk:gadfium#Genocide_Potential and at Talk:2006 Fijian coup d'état. His sources are to the Fijian law against genocide, to an Amnesty International report saying that law could be improved, and to a Radio New Zealand report on possible genocide in West Papua. None of these suggest that an upcoming genocide in Fiji is likely. I'd welcome some more eyes on the situation.-gadfium 01:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)