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

User:Skookum1

I have indef. blocked Skookum1 (talk · contribs) for this legal threat. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Naconkantari 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Very confused. Skookum1 has been here since 2005, has over 12000 edits, contributions to FA, images, etc. The other user RascalPatrol is a SPA for all intents and purposes, with all but a very few of his less than 50 edits being to the article that lead to this dispute. An indefinate block seems very strong for a legal threat, especially with no warnings or the like. I can't how WP:BLOCK or WP:LEGAL supports this at all. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I just read through that, and it is not clear at all that this was a legal threat. A legal threat is something like "I'm going to sue you." or "I'm asking the cops to arrest you." but saying that "My lawyer friend thinks this will be very interesting to the court." is a passive observation of consequences, not an affirmative statement that you are planning to ake any action. So, where is the bar drawn? --BenBurch 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean the parts of WP:LEGAL about taking it to private email and not thrashing it out here? The parts about how legal threats are used to intimidate others so as to get your way on articles or disputes? Isn't that exactly what this edit was? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It was certainly a legal threat, and certainly block-worthy. I'm kind of undecided about whether an indef was appropriate for a user with what seems to be a decent contribs history. Any previous editorial malpractice from this user pre-block? Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It was definitely a passive-aggressive legal threat, but I think that in this particular case, a stern warning and a shortening of the block is in order, unless there have been prior issues. —bbatsell ¿? 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall asking if it was a legal threat. I seem to recall asking what specific part of the policy on blocking or legal threats calls for banning a longterm contributor in good standing indefinitely. I understand that a block for a legal threat CAN be placed without warning, although NPA6 exists just for that. But I am concerned at the definition of "serious legal threat", which is unnecessarily vague. Is this basis enough for an indef block on a longterm contributor in a conflict with a SPA? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See this from WP:BLOCK: "Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or professional, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user may be blocked without warning. If a warning is desirable, the {{npa6}} template can be used. Users that make severe threats can be blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:No legal threats for more information." - that would seem pretty clear. On balance I agree with Bbatsell about the correct course of action to take. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It has been the case that users are indef-blocked for legal threats for as long as I can remember. If that's not clear in the policies, then perhaps it should be. —bbatsell ¿? 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And having read Moreschi's edit, I see that it is explained in the BP. —bbatsell ¿? 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not clear in the policies. "Serious" legal threats? In this particular context, there isn't a "serious legal threat". There is an assertional stance that a lawyer outside the bounds of an actual court or any precedent of law found something interesting. If indef blocking is the de facto standard, then it needs to be clearly spelled out. As it stands, WP:Legal gives no clear idea of what a legal threat actually is, a point I find astonishing. A legal threat is a warning or statement that if you do or don't do this, person will conduct legal action. If we're using the MeatBall:LegalThreat definition, that should be said...but the policy states that users may be blocked, not are always blocked, and that only severe threats warrant indef bans. We should act to clarify the language. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 23:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a week off, perhaps, will do this user no harm? Legal threats like that are unacceptable but I do feel that a user with a good contribs history having a row with an SPA should have one more chance. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Moreschi above. --SunStar Net^talk 22:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

They can make a request on their Talk page and if they appear to be sincere in promising not to do it again, they can be unblocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1 has contacted me by email (his emails are as aggressive as his editing style), and I suggested that if he explains on his Talk page that he retracts his legal threat, I will unblock him. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine. The typical way that blocks for legal threats are done, in my experience at least, is that the user will remain blocked indefinitely while the legal threats are outstanding. Express withdrawal of the threats will typically lead to unblocking. --bainer (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Great resolution of this matter! GOOD JOB!

you get a cookie! --BenBurch 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said this before, I trust Zoe. I just think the policy should be more explicit so that people will understand they cannot do stupid things of this nature. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 01:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that Skookum1 made a legal threat. He threatened to report a person's behaviour to an organization that the person belongs to. In this case, the organization happens to be the Law Society of Upper Canada. This does not seem to be much different from threatening to report a physician's behaviour to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. You could call it a threat, but it's a stretch to call it a legal threat. Kla'quot 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Threatening to call one's employer if an editor doesn't like somebody else's editing is as egregious a fault as threathening legal action against them. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Law Society of Upper Canada isn't the person's employer either; it is a regulatory body. Given the diff, I'm not even sure if I would say any action was being explicitly threatened. I'm not saying whether the block was right or wrong, but I think it's important that the reason be better-articulated so that the user can sincerely acknowledge that he did it and won't do it again. Kla'quot 09:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; this was clearly not a legal threat. It seems to me that User:Zoe saw the word "Law" and (mis)interpreted it without regard to its context. I oppose this block and think it should be rescinded, or at the very least reduced to a fixed duration. —Psychonaut 21:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Threatening to report any editor for on-wiki activities to an off-wiki authority is simply beyomd the pale unless the activitives have been illegal and it's the Police you are bringing in. Anything else is wholly unacceptable and completely blockworthy until such times as the threat is rescinded. Spartaz 13:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is the de facto policy, the written policies need to be clarified. No personal attacks says that "Extreme attacks, in particular legal threats and death threats, can be dealt with by blocking the offending user without warning." I don't see Skookum1's comment as falling into the category of an extreme attack. As some readers of Skookum1's statement think it contained a threat and others don't, it may be best to treat the situation as a misunderstanding. If Skookum1 can promise that he won't be reporting anyone's on-wiki activities to an off-wiki authority, I'd consider the problem solved. Kla'quot 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block of a contributor likely to be helpful to Wikipedia is less likely to help than harm Wikipedia. Perhaps a 2 week block would be more productive? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not an admin, I oppose this block. As others have said, this is not a "serious legal threat" and if it is a threat at all, it only warrants a time limited block. See my comments on the users talk page for more details about this valued editor. KenWalker | Talk 06:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose as well. They weren't clear legal threats. A month or two if necessary would be fine, but indef?? Khoikhoi 06:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think the block was warranted, but I oppose the indefinite length, due to the lack of clarity as far as the legal threat. A long block maybe, but indef seems rather harsh. --Wildnox(talk) 06:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• (comment by non-Sysop) Block endorsed - but the time limit should be shortened to a couple of months, unless he recieved previous warnings. Iced Kola 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

Skookum1 (talk · contribs) has retracted his legal threat. I have therefore unblocked him. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed template improperly transcluded. {{User:Skookum1}}?  :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, that's a pretty blatant legal threat - I find his claim that none was intended to be a bit ridiculous. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You indefinitely blocked an editor of more than 12.000 edits for this:"I've discussed this with a laywer friend who's been following the Ledgegate affair, and he thinks that your behaviour here on Wikipedia is going to be of interest to the Law Society of Upper Canada. Hiding information about yourself, etc..."?!!! No! When such decisions are taken, the contribution of the A or Z editor should be taken into serious consideration. After all, in this case, the legal threat is indirect (and not blatant as another user said!). This is not important?! I think some admins should be must more careful, when they use measures like "indefinite blocks", especially for users with very important contributions to the project. A warning? A temporary time-limited block? But indefinite block?!! No!!! Yes, the block was retracted, but an unfortunate decision was initially taken, and I need to express my regret for that.--Yannismarou 13:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A user with that many edits should certainly know better than to make such threats. It is more reprehensible for an established editor to make such threats than for an inexperienced user to do so. -- Donald Albury 15:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

More ref desk related drama

user:Light current, ably assisted by user:THB, has managed to engage user:Hipocrite in a revert war at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science over a trollish question that's been deleted and re-added 4 or 5 times by now. I'm sort of in the middle of this (I've been trying to get these editors to peaceably exist in the same universe), but if someone heretofore uninvolved in this could take a look at this mess I'd appreciate it. This is related to the user:Friday situation as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

THis is hardly an engagement. Everyone is I believe acting on his own. This is a pure content dispute and has no place here.--Light current 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since it looks like there's an asinine edit war going on, I think it does make sense to bring this to administrators' attention. --Cyde Weys 04:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell me again how the reference desk pays for itself? In drama-to-reward ratio terms, please. - brenneman 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It answers dozens of questions a day. And the drama will go down, eventually, when we straighten a few things out. I wish there were a quick way to reduce the drama, but I don't see one. -- SCZenz 04:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I know one sure way. Remove yourself.

--Light current 03:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also it provides a gateway to Wikipedia, and an example of what Wikipedia is about; sometimes it could set a better example, of course, but like everything here it's a work in progress. -- SCZenz 04:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Bah. I suppose it's observational bias: I never noticed when it was bubbling along fine, but the last (weeks? months?) it has been a hotbed of dispute so I do notice. I've just got my grumpy pants on, that's all. - brenneman 05:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm so glad to see you back, Mr. Grumpy Pants Aaron. ;) --

nae'blis 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt pay for itself . It has no declared purpose. It is completely useless. Its only here cos Larry sanger suggested it. Why not exterminate it. It would save everyone a great deal of trouble and heartache.--Light current 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

RD was fine until Friday and his ilk decided it wasn't. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No it was OK till Rick Block opened the can of worms. I did warn him. 8-(--Light current 23:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm inclined to agree. What part of 'building a free encyclopedia' does answering user questions in real time help build? It seems to draw attention away from writing articles, is a vector for trollish and unanswerable questions, and sometimes a way to push POV which would never be acceptable in articles. -- nae'blis 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Aaron and Nae'blis should pay a penalty for opining here, maybe they should have to get involved in the discussion? Really, "what the hell is the ref desk good for anyway?" is a great question—and i think there are some pretty good answers—the more editors asking the better.EricR 18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm watching. I just don't have anything productive to add there; RD isn't my forte, and I only recently became aware of the scope of it (in terms of edits and importance to readers). It was about the time of the /Strict experiment, for reference. -- nae'blis 19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In case it is of use to anyone, here is a squence of diffs that reflects my efforts to chronicle the edit war: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] ([11]), [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Note that Friday and I are involved in removing the question as well as the users Rick named. Note also the edit in perenthesis, which is an essentially uninvolved user apologizing for reverting Friday because he wasn't aware of discussions on the talk page. From my perspective, this question was worth removing, and remained so because the users who were re-adding it were not addressing (or deliberately misinterpreting) the discussion on the talk page about why it should be removed. Do with the information what you will; my goal in adding to this post is really just to save time. -- SCZenz 05:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that, personally, I wouldn't take any action on this at all at this time. We're hashing out through the wiki process, and had a bit of a flare-up is all—it's something that happens on pages (even policy!) from time to time, and as far as I can see nobody violated the three-revert rule. I don't see how administrative intervention will particularly improve the situation at the moment, although any suggestions anyone has on the ref desk talk page about how to handle things better in the future might very well be useful. -- SCZenz 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Up to a point. Light current has a history of playing silly buggers at the ref desk, and appears to be deliberately setting out to troll and antagonise, so I'd say a strong warning was in order. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you bloody well mind not calling me a silly bugger Guy? I may not have the highest opinion of you but I dont call you a complete asshole in public do I?--Light current 23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I should hope you would not, as it would be a personal attack. Whereas Guy didn't call you a silly bugger. He said you have a history of playing silly buggers which is an idiomatic reference to the exact kind of procedural and linguistic manoeuvring that you have displayed in questioning him. It is this sort of retort that is so trying. Rockpocket 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So I could say any one was acting like a complete and utter shitty asshole and get away with it? How frigging pathetic this wordplay is. We all know things like this are meant as personal insults.--Light current 01:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because acting like a complete and utter shitty asshole is not an idiom, playing silly buggers is. Your protest is equivalent to complaining someone is actually calling you a "pot" when if they were to suggest you behaviour was like the pot calling the kettle black. Rockpocket 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So is there a place where all the allowable insults are stored?--Light current 02:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is this sort of retort that is so trying. WTF do you mean by this?--Light current 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean that you are clearly a smart, eloquent individual and you are clearly not unfamiliar with British English, this led me to infer that you knew exactly what that phrase means, but used the opportunity to refute his analysis of your behaviour with an insinuated personal attack. (coincidently, this is exactly the same thing other editors inferred of you in the example I provided below) Of course, perhaps I'm overestimating your linguistic skills, in which case I apologise for failing to WP:AGF. But at least now you know now how to distinguish between and idiom and an insult and thus will not fall into the same trap again. So everyone's a winner, right? Rockpocket 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have heard the term. I still find it offensive to be referred to by that idiom. as it implies that I am a silly bugger doesnt it?--Light current 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Light_current#On_offense. "People will always step on your toes (inadvertently). People always step on mine (probably inadvertently). The solution is to get some emotional steel toecap boots!" "Ignore offensive posts. Its the Wiki way yes. I know it can be very hard somtimes to do it but we must try. My offense after all may be your right to say something you believe. 8-)--Light current 22:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)"

He's correctly using British idiom and, frankly, he's accurately describing your behaviour. Put on your 'emotional steel toecap boots' and listen to what people are saying to you, rather than playing silly word games. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

THe bit you quoted is for unintentional (inadvertent) offence that may be caused by general posting, not intentional targeted offence like this. Im sure you can see the difference here.--Light current 03:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no "targeted offence". You clearly don't understand the meaning of the phrase. An idiom's "meaning cannot be deduced from the literal definitions and the arrangement of its parts, but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through conventional use." You are inferring a literal meaning, not the figurative meaning. Therefore it implies nothing other than that you were behaving in an "annoying way" (something, as TenOfAllTrades notes, appears to be perfectly accurate). Have you considered perhaps instead of obtusely questioning every perceived criticism, instead of deconstructing the minutiae of every argument in an attempt to avoid accepting the glaringly obvious point, actually thinking about why so many experienced Wikipedians express the same concerns about your behaviour? Please, just think about it. Rockpocket 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately previous experience tells me that strong warnings are simply treated as fodder for Light current to make a WP:POINT. The concept of trying the patience of the community appears lost on him (see here for a perfect example). As an aside, my opinion as a occasional RD contributor, is that the biggest problem facing the subproject is the self appointed "RD regulars" that spend their Wikitime there almost exclusively. RD works when editors with a level of specialist knowledge contribute to questions that they have knowledge of. It doesn't work when the certain individuals feel the need to answer every question asked, then when there is nothing current being asked, to ask their own irreverent questions, then - when they are bored of that - by arguing over unneeded policy. If it was simply used for the purpose it was designed, instead of treated like a social forum, it could get back to relative normalcy. How we would enforce that, I have no idea, however. Rant over. Rockpocket 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So Im going to be the scapegoat again? Well that is a big surprise (I dont think) 8-((

The trouble with scape goats is that one is never enough. When the problems and misfortunes continue, the elders say we they must find another goat to placate the Heavenly one. Then another is scarificed. Unfortunately the problems still appear. What to do? Ah yes, lets find another scape goat. Surely he will rid us of all the evil editors and crap posts!. And so it goes on. Eventually only the tribe elders are left doing all? the work and praying:

"Oh Lord Where have we gone wrong? We have sacrificed many, many goats in your Name and yet we are still in the shit with our only remaining editor writing whatever he wants to. How can we get them to write only what we want?"

The Lord replied: "Its going to be difficult to get anything written now aint it Dumkopfs? cos you've killed off all the good writers ". And the Lord smiled a knowing smile on the tribe leaders.

--Light current 00:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Light current <> the Ref Desk. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! I have had a distiguished carreer of over 25000 edits before even happening across the Rds. People ought to take a look at some of 'em 8-)--Light current 00:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but his behavior contributes to the problems there, and users who stand on the principle of "free speech" above all make it more difficult to keep his behavior from hurting the desk. -- SCZenz 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest sorting out a procedure for removing contentious questions (or even contentious answers) that you can agree on. A good starting point would be that reverting the removal of a question is NOT the right thing to do (that way lies edit warring). Reverting a removal must be discussed first. The reference desk won't collapse if a removed question is not replaced straightaway, and it won't collapse if one poster of a question finds that the question has been removed (if the poster is an established user, make it a requirement to post a note to the user's talk page inviting them to participate in the debate). Then follow a procedure to decide whether the question should be put back, and in what form (maybe modifying the question would help). At the end of the procedure, restore the question/answer or leave it removed. I'll copy this to the ref desk talk page to see if they can agree on using a system like this. Carcharoth 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost right, the start of an edit war is the first unilateral (non-consensus) deletion. The proper procedure is to discuss it first with the author, and then, if the author refuses to remove it and further action is warranted, bring it up at the Ref Desk talk page. If a consensus to delete is reached there, then the post can be removed. StuRat 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Or we could just, you know, remove the clearly inappropriate questions without having to go through all of that rigmarole, thus saving everyone's time. Admins are already trusted to use their judgment and delete articles; clearing questions off the reference desk is nothing, and is well within our capability to handle without so much unnecessary process. --Cyde Weys 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly what admins have done in the past, and most would continue to do, irrespective of the "proper process" that is now being mooted. The problem lies with when certain editors object to certain other editors removing certain questions. In other words, I believe the crux of the problem is with personality clashes, not with the general issue of removing inappropriate content. Rockpocket 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket has summed it up admirably. To repond to StuRat, I would say that if someone removes a question you think should stay, do not unilaterally revert their removal of the question. Raise the issue on the talk page. That way you would be following your own logic. As soon as you revert their removal, you are descending to the level you profess to be avoiding. If you see a question you don't like, raise it on the talk page. And anyone can use common sense and blank/remove questions, not just admins. Have a look at WP:1RR to see what I mean. The philosophy is that absolutely anyone can remove something, but no-one should restore anything without discussion. Carcharoth 01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the restore of a unilateral deletion is not unilateral, because you have both the person who does the restore and the original poster being of the opinion that the material should remain, against the single opinion of the person who first deleted the question. To break it down:

Question is posted: 100% of people whose opinions we know are in favor of the post

Question is deleted: 50% of people whose opinions we know are in favor of the deletion

Question is restored: 67% of people whose opinions we know are in favor of the restore

StuRat 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that edit warring is the way to seek consensus, rather than discussion? Edit warring ad infinitum leads to a theoretical end result of 50% in favour of deletion and 50% in favour of restoration. Absolutely pointless. Discuss, do not edit war. If there is disagreement, remove the content, discuss on the talk page and reach agreement, and then implement the result of that agreement. Work with your fellow editors to achieve something of benefit to the readers. Some more reading: Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Carcharoth 04:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying just the opposite, that no change should be made unless there are at least more people in favor of the change than opposed to it. This means non-consensus deletions should be avoided, to prevent edit wars. Any deletion should first be discussed on the Ref Desk talk page. StuRat 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

But that is not how Wikipedia works. If something inappropriate is added to a talk page, even though you have signed it, anyone can remove it and then discuss it with you. You can then, after discussion, restore it, but you cannot try and put in place 'rules' to prevent such removals in the first place. That stifles the whole "anyone can edit" principle. Carcharoth 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The "anyone can delete anything they want from talk pages" principle directly leads to edit wars. I guess you need to decide which is more important to you, allowing non-consensus deletions or preventing edit wars. StuRat 13:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. If someone removes something, discuss it with them. If you want to remove something, do so and discuss it with them. If they restore it, discuss it with them. Do you see the pattern here? Starting a discussion is what ends an edit war. Whether you can reach agreement is another matter of course, but that requires skill, empathy and being able to compromise. Have a look at WP:BRD. BTW, this is really getting off-topic. We should take this to one or other of our talk pages. Shall we continue at User talk:StuRat? Copy the relevant bits of the thread over there and I'll watch for your reply. Carcharoth 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No thanks, my talk page is already huge. I'm all for discussion, but it's fundamentally unfair to say "I can remove anything without discussion, but you need to discuss it before putting it back". Discussion should start before the first revert (the deletion of the original text), if we don't want to start an edit war in the first place. StuRat 18:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And the whole of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary should be mandatory bedtime reading for those perpetuating this ref desk battle. Carcharoth 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I just scanned through this discussion, and perhaps this was mentioned, but I didn't see it. How about this for dealing with a 'touchy' question: Anyone who feels uncomfortable about it being posted at ref desk could move it to the user page of the person asking the question -- and answer or explain why it is inappropriate. This would accomplish several things at once:

1. It would move the question from a public arena to a more private one.
2. The discussion could continue on the user's talk page.
3. Anyone checking the history would see that it was moved and know where to find it.
4. It would document behavior that might be inappropriate on the user's talk page.

--Samuel Wantman 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very similar to what I suggested, but some editors (at the Ref Desk) think that everything and anything must be discussed before removal. They are, for some reason, rejecting the logical "remove and discuss" option in favour of the risky "leave and discuss" option. It is risky because, while discussion is taking place, the question and answer cycle may be spiralling out of control as people commonly: (a) give medical advice; (b) make lewd jokes; (c) respond to trolling comments. For an example in progess at the moment, see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Atlantis, where someone has, for some reason, started a visible vote on the actual Reference Desk page on whether to keep (or maybe whether to answer) the question. Carcharoth 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That thread has since been removed to the talk page. Hopefully that will become the norm again at the Ref Desk and this thread can end as well. Sorry to have dragged it out so long here. Carcharoth 11:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with moving the Q to the author's talk page is that it's unlikely to be answered there. This is fine once it's determined, by consensus, to be inappropriate, but not just because one editor thinks so. StuRat 13:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Giano for stated intent to disrupt

See [19], [20]. I realise he's sincerely upset, and this is certain to be controversial, but when someone with admin powers states directly they're going to disrupt the wiki to "go out with a bang" and "I'm through here anyway, but lets have some fun", it's a block for the protection of the wiki. I can't recall a case of quietly acquiescing to stated intent to disrupt from any editor in the three years I've been here. (Though there are probably examples, please feel free to remind me.)

I've marked the block "pending AC decision" and let the AC know as well - David Gerard 14:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the block, Giano does not have admin powers of his own. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that wrong, sorry. The point stands - David Gerard 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. El_C 14:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

El C, your comments are verging on disruptive. Please refrain. Remember that Everyking, who was an admin, was eventually banned from posting to Admin pages for repeated bad faith comments on admin processes. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way, Zoe. Please do let me know if you if you wish for me to address any particulars. Best wishes, El_C 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't matter if you're right. What was the context? What is a "bang?" Given that he's just a regular editor, and given that he had already done the bang (posting a log, which would get him banned from IRC), he was speaking of his current action, not future actions. It's not a hard job reading his statements. Also, posting the logs is a violation of Freenode's rules, not ours. The bit about logging and posting logs is not on Wikipedia: it's on IRC. Therefore, Giano was disrupting Freenode and saying that he might as well provoke a storm with his present act. Geogre 14:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The "bang" in question is that mentioned in Giano's reply to me on his own talk page:

No I'm not coming back, I#ll be permabanned by the clique for this, so I thought I'd go out with a bang :-) I've loads more but these just suited the moment, James forrester pretending he did not know why people thought he controlled IRC, see his comment on the arbitration case talk. Oh Dear, they seem to have gone again. Never mind most people have seen them now Giano 23:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

– Gurch 14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, there were no objections when Kelly Martin copied the same comment on the talk pages of ~150 users last week. El_C 14:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong about him being an admin, I don't think I'm wrong about stated intent to disrupt. You know that's an instant block for the wiki's sake. Wik was a fantastic contributor and also felt utterly justified when he unleashed our first-ever vandalbot. I'm just wondering how the hell to get him back to sane writing after this. Even GFDL writing somewhere else. Or something. Fundamentally, the whole thing is a massive clusterfuck of the good guys versus the good guys (I include Giano there) - David Gerard 14:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Much like the Arbitration Committee's latest actions, I do not feel you were being even-handed here, and, as such, you run the risk of coming across as favouring one side in the dispute over the other. El_C 14:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw the edits and knew there was a clusterfuck and log-posting going on and went "wtf". As noted below I've been reassured he won't vandalise, and I certainly hope he won't log post, and someone's undone the block in any case - David Gerard 15:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm adamantly staying uninvolved in this whole mess, but just for the sake of clarification, the rule against publishing logs is a Wikimedia Foundation policy, not a freenode policy. Freenode's channel guidelines suggest some principles to follow in regards to publishing or not publishing logs, but there's no network policy explicitly permitting or forbidding it; it's up to each channel's contacts. Jdforrester (James_F on freenode), the contact for Wikimedia Foundation channels, established the policy. --Slowking Man 14:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He was saying that he had more logs, and people could contact him for more. It appears that Jdforrester is the owner of the channel, sort of, which makes his authorship and endorsing of the "Giano on civility parole" even more clearly a case for recusal. I also don't think it's disrupting Wikipedia. It's disrupting IRC usage and annoying its users and continuing this conversation, but what really has this conversation going is more blocking of Giano. What do you folks think would have happened if you had ignored him? What would have happened if you had said, "Dude, that's not helping. Let's talk it through?" What would have happened if people had approached him with discussion rather than templates, blocks, templates, blocks, patronizing, templates, blocks, and paroles? A guy is here for 3 years. In that time, his behavior isn't substantially different from year to year, but suddenly he must be blocked. What happened with that "suddenly" is up to each to determine. Geogre 14:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Publishing IRC logs to "prove" a cabal conspiracy of some sort is blatantly disruptive to the editing community and thus damages the encyclopedia. Its only effect is to cause drama and ill feeling. EVEN IF HE'S RIGHT. - David Gerard 14:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it you have formed an opinion, even. El_C 15:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC) El_C 15:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm forming the opinion that banning everyone involved for a month would be an excellent idea to let the rest of us get on with writing an encyclopedia - David Gerard 15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a list of who is "everyone involved," or is it also in the making? El_C 16:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Giano promised not to do anything destructive, nor to spam I do not see any reasons to keep this editor blocked. I took my liberty to unblock him Alex Bakharev 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I do not see how publishing short logs having no personal information disrupts the work of Wikipedia. On the other hand, ill feeling of an excellent contributor who has somehow founded suspicion about a cabal acting against him certainly disrupt Wiki much stronger than any of his incivility can. Alex Bakharev 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I locked the talk page, I'll now go unlock it. But really, "disruption" includes log spamming. I realise that Giano feels this is the only way for him to get any justice. But it's not going to work and is the fast train to a great big horrible ban this big. Really really. This should be INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS TO THE MOST CASUAL OBSERVER - David Gerard 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No shortage of drama around these parts. Sorry, DRAMA. El_C 15:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone else unlocked it. I have also been reassured by people whose judgement I trust that Giano would not vandalise, and I must apologise for the comparison to Wik above - Wik is a bit of a Hitler example in good-user-gone-sour discussions - David Gerard 15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from Hitler comparisons, I find these offensive. El_C 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Woo-hoo! The annual Giano drama! I thought we'd forgotten :o) Guy (Help!) 15:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant of course Stalin Hussein - David Gerard 15:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's Law is not your friend. El_C 16:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a Hitler comparison, it is a comparison to ad extremum Hitler comparisons, which exactly relevant to Godwin's Law. —Centrx→talk • 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Best not to invoke the name Hitler, in any case. El_C 01:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitler is no god; we may use his name as we please. —Centrx→talk • 03:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

oh yes, let's give Giano a good preventive cool-down block. That worked really well last time. It wouldn't have hurt to wait until he had really done something bad, David. I guess I object to this block. dab (𒁳) 16:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Looks a tad too punitive for my liking. yandman 16:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree with Dab and Yandman. All these blocks are only increasing the nature of the problem. I'm sure you had good intentions David, but it seems more like you've thrown gasoline instead of water on the fire.--Aldux 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ironically, David's suggestion of blocking all involved parties for a month is one of the more even-handed answers to this problem that I've seen. >Radiant< 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hence, my question: whose on the list? El_C 01:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hey, I suggested banning (not blocking) everyone involved first! :-) A full 16 hours before David's suggestion. See here. I only suggested two weeks, not a full month, but I did suggest a way to do this. A community ban on the basis that those involved are beginning to try the patience of the community. This would only succeed if the community could (a) agree on who is on this list of "those involved" and (b) no admins would unblock. That last one could be avoided if you implement this as a non-blocking ban. ie. lots of people sign up to a plea for certain people to not edit for two weeks and go on an enforced wikibreak. You could even water it down to a proposal similar to that of Doc Glasgow - just plead with those involved to stay away from each other for the next two weeks. To not post on each other's talk pages, to not run around geting upset, and so on. To just get on with being the productive members of the community we know they can be. If enough people sign up to something like that, it might get through to those involved. Carcharoth 01:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Or, it might backfire horribly. Not be a pessimist, but in this case, I lean toward caution over what may well end up being a populist, quick fix solution that fails to achieve appreciable and long lasting resolution, and could even result in further escalation (it certainly has a dramatic flare). But by all means, anyone is free propose any remedy they see fit. El_C 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Carcharoth, what makes you think we would be able to come up with a definiton of "involved"? Have you an idea in the back of your mind as to who the "involved" parties are? Am I involved, for example? If so, I object for obvious reasons – I have (as far as I am aware) done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing that would warrant a two-week block. Even if not, I can't see even two people agreeing on the same list of "involved" parties, much less everyone – Gurch 22:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• You would compare lists, and whoever appeared on all the lists is guilty? Hmm. No, that probably won't work. Just trying to come up with something that would shake sense into those involved in this. Would more discussion really help? I don't know. Maybe we should all abandon our accounts and start editing with new ones. That would certainly achieve something. I'll call this 'nuclear' option the community reset button. Who knows, maybe Jimbo does have a community reset button? Carcharoth 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• The entire community? Again, why should a large number of uninvolved people suffer as a result of the actions of an unknown (to me) but very small number of people? – Gurch 11:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• It was an idea from left-field, and I wasn't really serious. There is the serious point though that people shouldn't get too attached to their reputations built up from past actions. Judging people on their current actions is the ideal. When there is too much history, but someone can still be a productive and useful contributor, sometimes it is best just to change accounts. There is a history of this. I've seen arbitrators offer to let someone edit under a new account known only to the arbitrators for a few months, allowing the arbitrators to monitor them but to avoid others baiting them. This doesn't work so well when someone has a well-defined editing area and circle of wiki-friends, but is workable in some cases. Carcharoth 11:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've been away for a few days and I've been catching up with discussions in various places but I'm missing one thing: hasn't anyone thought it fit to say something about the content of those IRC logs Giano has been plastering all over the place? I've been looking for that but found nothing. Or are we saying "they shouldn't have been published in the first place, so we ignore them"? — mark ✎ 14:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Giano received the logs from someone he won't identify, I can't take them seriously. The 'chain of custody' is broken. -- Donald Albury 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

James Forrester has actually commented in detailabout halfway down this thread, and the diff where he comments on them is here (along with lots of other replies). Carcharoth 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Carcharoth. Something like that was what I was looking for. To Donald Albury: James Forrester actually believes they are not forged ("These logs are, to my recollection, entirely accurate with regard to my text", cited from Carcharoth's diff above); while that doesn't restore the 'chain of custody', it does provide a reason to take them seriously. — mark ✎ 18:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by Jacob Peters?

I suspect that Jacob Peters is using the IP 69.110.222.228 to evade his block. The IP's contributions are Soviet-related topics, which are what Jacob Peters usually edits, and take a clear pro-Soviet anti-Western POV lining up with Jacob Peters's: [21], [22], [23], [24]. Perhaps most obvious is the use of the not-too-common term "agitprop" [25], which Jacob Peters also uses [26]. The tone of the IP, dismissing his opponents as illogical and spreading propoganda, is also very like Jacob Peters's. I am uncertain if this is a case for checkuser or not, so I thought I would post here and see if someone can help. Heimstern Läufer 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but with the number of similarities, I would definitely look into a Checkuser for it SirFozzie 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note • If you wish to have a user checked with CheckUser, please post on WP:RFCU. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Posted. Heimstern Läufer 02:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And confirmed. Would an administrator be willing to reset the block, and possibly lengthen it as seen fit? Heimstern Läufer 02:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Done: Now set to expire in 28 days, which was the previous length given by the last to block. Antandrus (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Extending Jacob Peters (talk · contribs)'s block

1. We block him.
2. He evades the block, and then we reset the block.
3. Repeat step two.

That has basically been Jacob Peters (talk · contribs)'s story. I feel merely resetting the block for the umpteenth time is not working out. I suggest we also extend the block, from four weeks to five (or thirty-three days maybe?). Granted, this may do nothing to stop him from the block evasion, but perhaps he'll realize that in the long run, it's not to his benefit. I'm a bit weary of suggesting an indefinite block, because that will give him no incentive to stop evading the block (and frankly, due to his serial block evasion, I can't picture a time when the current block will be allowed to expire). -- tariqabjotu 03:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK by me, considering the block-evasion history: thanks. Antandrus (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for thirty-five days, per above. -- tariqabjotu 03:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's a wise decision, given the history. Thanks to both of you. Heimstern Läufer 05:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• We're wasting our time. This one is not listening. Show him the door. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Next time he attempts to evade a block, I propose an indefinite block and/or a ban. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like there could be another sock named Hu!tz!l0p0chtl! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Same M.O. as our Stalin-loving friend here. RFCU filed here. - Merzbow 23:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Returned unlikely. I was actually a bit surprise Essjay went through with that; I don't see what led you to think him and JP were the same person. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The account was obviously somebody's sockpuppet. How many pro-Stalinist sockpuppeteers do we have? It doesn't look like SqueakBox (talk · contribs), the only other remotely likely suspect. - Merzbow 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
          • It could also be a new pro-Stalinist person. -- tariqabjotu 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
            • That account above may not have been him, but it looks like Jacob Peters was editing as 69.110.129.77 (same pattern of disparaging sources he disagrees with: [27], same Pro-Soviet POV: [28], same ISP/location as many of his other IP socks: [29] as recently as yesterday. --C33 02:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) is sockpuppeting again

I'm quite sure our old friend is back, using the account Fox33 (talk · contribs). See list of contributions [30] and edit warring with Stalinist POV on Joseph Stalin [31]. I recommend blocking the sock and perma-banning Jacob Peters per discussion above, as he obviously has no intention of following the rules. TheQuandry 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've requested Checkuser at WP:RFCU. If confirmed, it's definitely time to indefblock the main account. This is getting ridiculous. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Although that probably won't stop Jacob from attempting to evade his block more, an indef block is definitely necessary. I saw that Fox account earlier, but there was not enough evidence to make a reasonable RFCU. The IP however looks awfully suspicious, given it's coming from a range typical of Jacob. And considering Fox stops editing where the IP begins, there's something really fishy going on. -- tariqabjotu 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You might like to add that last detail with the relevant evidence to the RFCU. If so, that would be great. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, forget it, done it myself. The account stops editing the article, and the IP immediately starts. Yawn. Wish these people were a bit more intelligent. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Range block of User:SummerThunder IPs requested

Two threads in a row... can someone do a rangeblock on User:SummerThunder's roving IPs? These history pages [32] [33] [34] show some of the recent ones, they're the ones beginning with 7 being rolled back. I semi-protected some pages but he seems to have too many targets for that to be viable now, and I'm going to bed. Unfortunately I don't know anything about rangeblocks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oof... It looks like his range is 75.0.0.0 to 75.31.255.255, which would be a huge block (2,097,152 IPs). Range blocks are limited to at most /16 so we'd have to go through and block 75.0.0.0/16 — 75.31.0.0/16. I don't have enough experience either physically doing range blocks or with the policy implications involved so I'll leave it to another but it may be a much better alternative to simply sprotect the pages he's causing the most damage on. —bbatsell ¿? 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

32 /16 blocks is too much. We'll have to find an alternative solution. --Tango 01:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No they're all PPP in what appears to be Irving, CA, which SBC has apparently stupidly distributed across a bunch of /22 ranges. We could block them and it would be relatively few IPs, much less than even the 65,000 IPs of a /16 block. —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You can see the IPs listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SummerThunder. Khoikhoi 05:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of situation that really makes me wish Wikipedia would implement technical restrictions on variable/shared IP editing. I don't mind unregistered editing from stable IP addresses and stable proxies, but the current dilemma is a major resource drain. Durova^Charge! 04:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked 75.8.100.0/22, 75.3.192.0/22, 75.2.220.0/22, 71.156.32.0/20, 75.1.248.0/22, 75.3.224.0/20 for 2 weeks anon. only. These are undoubtedly not all of his available dynamically assigned IPs, but these are all the ones he has used recently, probably most of them, which will at least make his crusade much less productive, and we can block any further ones that come up. —Centrx→talk • 05:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Add 75.1.244.0/22 —Centrx→talk • 13:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Add 75.16.8.0/23 —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to put the rest of these IPs (not open proxies) on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SummerThunder, where they can be consolidated. —Centrx→talk • 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please block User:75.1.247.15 then, he's been using it to insert the same rants. --tjstrf talk 10:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. I also semiprotected the VP misc and news as possibly less disruptive than range blocks. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It didn't work - now he's using open proxies... Khoikhoi 22:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

At least he will help us to discover open proxies? —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Centrx, please do a check on 200.93.171.26 (talk · contribs) and 203.144.160.243 (talk · contribs). Thanks, Khoikhoi 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Both open proxies. Both blocked for 3 years. —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement review

There has been a long-running edit war on Wolf effect, Plasma cosmology, Electric universe (concept), etc. that has resulted in many ANIs and two RFARs. The two RFARs have banned many of the participants. Two remaining are ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). In the two RFARs ScienceApologist was counselled and cautioned about civility. Iantresman, who brought WP:RFAR/Pseudoscience against ScienceApologist, was put on probation for incivility and edit warring. The remedies include that he may be "banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing". I have read through the ArbComms and both editors' contributions since the cases closed.

I'm especially concerned that the complaints brought to WP:AE are part of a long-running pattern of vexatious litigation. User:Iantresman has brought brought about a dozen "actions" of various sorts (ANIs, RFCs) against ScienceApologist culminating in the RFAR. I'm especially concerned to see User:Ionized (who seems to be an ally of Iantresman [35]) writing "ScienceApologist needs to be banned from editing this article". So, too, Iantresman: 'Add to that you being the subject of two arbitration cases in as many months, resulting in a caution and a counseling, I think there's a good chance they'll make you stand in the corner... and then may be it will be the naughty step.' Since the cases were closed in early December, Iantresman has come three four times to Arbitration Enforcement (here, here, here, and here) with complaints that are mostly minor or misleading.

Iantresman has been warned about disruptive editing twice since the ArbComm by (involved) admins FeloniousMonk here and Guy here, warnings that in my view are warranted.

I am therefore proposing to ban User:Iantresman from Wolf effect, Plasma cosmology, and Electric universe (concept) and their talk pages for one month. I propose to remind User:ScienceApologist about civility. I'm looking for admins' input. (If someone wants to see my notes with diffs -- rather messy, I'm afraid -- they are at User:Bucketsofg/pseudoscience.) Bucketsofg 08:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that Tresman is a problem. I note, though, that he does seem to be leaving the articles alone and sticking to Talk. However, his behaviour on Talk could best be described as "obdurate". See Talk:Wolf effect for a good example - he repeatedly asserts that ScienceApologist will not compromise but despite many offers he has yet to offer a compromise proposal for SA to accept or reject. He also refuses to acknowledge that the text he wishes to insert, is in support of the agenda which we know he is following. SA is capitalising on Tresman's article restrictions to move the articles to a much more sceptical stance - this would be much more of a problem if it weren't for the fact that these are in the main fringe theories. I lack the specialist knowledge to contribute in more detail, other than matters of interpretation (such as resisting a link to a propaganda film made by the plasma cosmology camp). Guy (Help!) 09:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Bucketsofg's analysis of the situation is correct. As Guy says, Iantresman is not editing heavily in the articles, though I do see a couple of reverts on the 30th. An article ban is probably not justified right now. More concern to me is Iantresman's use of dispute resolution to harass ScienceApologist. This seems to me disruptive enough in its own right to justify a block, or maybe even a temporary ban under a broad reading of the arbitrarion remedy. I don't see recent on-going incivility from ScienceApologist that would make a caution necessary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• I had meant to include talk pages in the ban and have added it since Tom & Guy's comments. Although much more latitude is given to users on talk pages, Ian's behaviour is becoming disruptive enough that something has to be done. Bucketsofg 15:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• As I said on the fourth report, such nursed slights as Lantresman seems to have are divisive, create a negative environment on the encyclopedia, and poison the well - many editors aren't going to want to touch an article where this kind of negative environment exists, for fear of becoming entangled in this whole dispute. They seem to have an emotional attachment to the article, and are unable to disengage, as I feel they should. To be blunt, at this point it just looks like an axe to grind with a side order of gaming the system. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. My final inclination is (1) a one-day block for disruption and (2) a three-week ban from the pages mentioned above and their talk pages. The ban is shortened slightly in light of the comments of Tom and Guy. It seems to me, however, that it is the ArbComm remedy that must be our guide: it says he can be "banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing". The disruption is mentioned by several and is clear; there is clear aggressiveness in the "gaming" that Peter mentions; bias is obvious. The remedy calls for bans from articles, which will have the added advantage of removing, hopefully, some of the divisiveness on the affected pages. I am going to wait a few hours before imposing this. If an admin suggests a change, can I ask that you propose a very specific one either on the remedy and/or its length. Bucketsofg 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have now imposed the settlement discussed above. Thanks for your input. Bucketsofg 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking an entire country for a month

Note from Jimbo: It sounds like consensus here was exactly right (yay wikipedia admins!), but the online media (digg, slashdot, techcrunch) have posted inflammatory stories. We have to be really careful about this. We all agree: blocking an entire country = bad idea. At a very minimum, let's try to make it clear by posting comments wherever we can that such a block would not happen without a lot of serious serious consideration, requiring at a minimum a decision by the ArbCom and/or me personally. It COULD happen, never say never, but I think we need to make sure the world knows that we do our best to try to keep editing open for good faith users everywhere, even to the point of putting up with a lot of random crap from bad ISPs to try to help their poor customers.--Jimbo Wales 03:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at User talk:82.148.97.69, and it seems that this IP address is one of a few used by the proxy servers of Qatar's only ISP, Qtel (which apparently also censors content). The IP address has been blocked for a month for repeated vandalism (diff) (block log). Perhaps a softblock might be sufficient? --Oden 12:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It does look as though some of the people who reviewed and refused to lift the block were unaware of the facts (general and specific). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

An indefinate softblock is probably best - one IP for an entire country should be treated similarly to an open proxy, I think (but soft, not hard, as it's not the resident's fault). Some kind of block is required, though - we can't let vandals get away with it just because they have a stupid ISP. --Tango 13:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tango above, as the vandalism isn't going to go away once the block expires anyawy. It definately needs to be soft (account creation allowed) in any case - the usual advice of registering an account elsewhere and logging in on the blocked IP is impossible, it seems. Probably best if we sort this out quickly. Martinp23 13:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made the block soft - feel free to revert. It's still at one month duration for now, though. Martinp23 13:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this solution. If there's (maybe inevitably) more vandalism from this address once the block expires, we should consider permanently softblocking it. Sandstein 14:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been linked to from Slashdot: [36]. Duck and cover. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added an explanatory message to the top of the talk page, which has been linked to from Slashdot. I hope it's clear enough, if not feel free to improve it. Don't we have a template for this? Sandstein 15:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It made it to Digg as well: Entire country of Qatar banned from editing Wikipedia (Digg). --64.230.123.128 17:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Now on BBC: [37]

Shame the BBC can't get the story right... Martinp23 12:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that at the time the address was blocked, I had no idea that I was blocking an entire country. It was not even marked as a shared IP. Although there was a comment on the discussion page, the IP was not marked as shared and I did not read that comment to mean that this was the only ISP serving Qatar. Frankly, I am stunned that an entire country can get by with only one IP address, though I understand about proxies and the like. I would like to say that I will never do this again in the future but in all honesty, it is entirely possible that I will make similar mistakes in the future. Such is not my intention and I would never have blocked this address had I known it was shared (let alone that it was an entire nation). --Yamla 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I am not a U.S. citizen nor do I live in the U.S. My block was not politically motivated nor had anything to do with Al Jazeera journalists. There is no cabal, nor was this block an example of U.S. censorship, etc. etc. etc. --Yamla 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Good apology for an honest mistake; no one here suspects foul play in anyway. The sensationalism should have been avoided. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 22:55Z

Indeed. As far as I can tell, everyone acted correctly - policy doesn't say what to do when a country only has one IP address, it was never anticipated... Yamla did what seemed perfectly correct at the time. --Tango 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

150 edits have been made from this IP in the last 21 days; while that's significant for a normal IP, it's nothing for the nation of Qatar. Per Yamla's statement above, I've unblocked this address. Ral315 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This IP address should be treated like any other shared address. When we get lots of vandalism from a school, we softblock it, we should do the same here. Might as well leave it unblocked for now, but if there is any more vandalism, it will have to reblocked. --Tango 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's seven edits a day- that's statistically insignificant in my opinion. Ral315 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP keeps posting its own version of what happened. Although that version does not appear to be inaccurate, it was reverted 2x by Jimbo (the IP keeps posting it) and 3x by me. Seeing as Jimbo is responsible for PR, beyond the IP I would hope, I'm protecting the page, and posting the decision here for review/comment. alphachimp. 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted the first message on this thread with the intent of mitigating the effects of the block (it was lifted almost immediately). If this or any other ISP chooses this technical solution, we will have to find a way to accomodate those users who are affected while at the same time keeping an eye on vandalism. As far as Wikipedia is concerned there is no difference between this ISP and others who use a proxy server (like AOL, see Wikipedia:AOL). It is also possible that this could happen again, as there are probably several other small nations with only one ISP. --Oden 20:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Long-term, low-key, IP-switching spammer

A number of old computer game articles have been receiving identical spamlinks to a warez paysite masquerading as a free abandonware site. Editors have intercepted most of them. A search found that this is rather big and has been going on since the 2th of October. At least 34 anon IPs have been used for at least 45 acts of spamming, the great majority abandoned after one use. Kjkolb notes that their locations are all over the planet and suspects an open proxy. So what do we now? --Kizor 13:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You can submit the link they're adding for blacklisting at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do. The actual link has been varying, but there are no more than seven basic ones. Thank you. --Kizor 13:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, take a look at this for more: [38]. Conscious 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord. 20 results for one address alone. Thanks for the tool, I wasn't aware of that either and will make a note. Anyone want to join me for a great reversion spree, or will those be automatically taken care of when they're blacklisted? --Kizor 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's done. 94 in total. I stopped listing anon IPs as it became unwieldy due to the amount of spam and because I found a second one that had had a valid use. If you want to see the list, check my contributions. --Kizor 07:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been monitoring this for a while. It seems to relate to [39], which was rapid fire spam from multiple IPs, which led to the main URL of the site being blacklisted. The spammer seems to have learned from this experience and is now using multiple aliases, with low frequency spamming to keep a low profile. I stopped cleaning up to see if a pattern would emerge, but nothing did. There are now at least three different alias URLs involved, and to be sure all are covered I will mention them here. Sapeso dot com. old-games dot com. sanpsw dot com. Unfortunately, all the signs are that the spammer will switch to new aliases once blocked. One useful analysis if it is possible would be to check Wikipedia for partial URLs (since there are often repeated things like pc/sports/games in URLs). I only know how to look for URLs with the site name included. Notinasnaid 12:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Today's FA vandalism

Can someone pls help with this - I'm not an admin, and the image is being inserted in several places. [40] Add to checkuser for main page template vandal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled back the edits, blocked the user and deleted the image. Might be a good idea to request a checkuser, I agree. --Tango 16:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response, Tango - I added to Checkuser. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: RFCU result. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is where I wanted to post the comments below: Has anybody contacted this person's ISP? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Template:Philosophy_navigation

See the history history for Template:Philosophy_navigation. It appears there is a perpetual edit war going on in that template. I'm not sure what needs to be done, but something needs to happen to stop this. --Wildnox(talk) 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected. Both users appear to be carefully skirting 3RR, but the edit war shows no signs of letting up. I'm not sure what other solution there would be. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted this person's ISP? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would an ISP need to be contacted? --Wildnox(talk) 03:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I think I posted this to the wrong discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne and category creation

Pastorwayne has been creating categories at an incredible rate. An incomplete list for the month of December is available here; this list does not include many of the categories created after 12:48 on 31 December (when Pastorwayne created four more categories). A significant fraction of these categories end up in WP:CFD. I am keeping a list of Pastorwayne categories that are merged or deleted here, but this list also needs to be updated and also does not include Pastorwayne's categories from November 2006.

At this point, Pastorwayne's activities are becoming extremely disruptive. On Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1 alone, Pastorwayne's categories nominated for merging or deletion include:

• Category:Sermon writers (nominated by Flex)
• Category:Former Lutherans (nominated by T. Anthony)
• Category:Former Mennonites (nominated by T. Anthony)
• Category:Former Anglicans (nominated by T. Anthony)
• Category:Former Hindus (nominated by Rumpelstiltskin223)
• Category:American religious executives (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:Religious executives (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Dakotas Area (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Holston Area (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Louisiana Area (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Manila Area (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Omaha Area (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Washington Area (nominated by ProveIt)

These categories are creating a huge amount of traffic at WP:CFD.

I would like to suggest that the administrators either do one of the following:

• Bar Pastorwayne from category creation.
• Require Pastorwayne to have other people review his proposed categories before they are created.

BrownHairedGirl, an administrator, had attempted to discuss this rampant category creation with Pastorwayne before 22 December 2006. However, she is apparently still on vacation, and this needs immediate administrative attention.

I sincerely regret having to do this. However, Pastorwayne seems to be out of control. I can ask other people to comment if necessary.

Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I think that having too many unnecessary (and some inflammatory) cats goes against the purpose of a "category", which is to have a few denominations which are used to classify groups of articles. At the rate at which Pastorwayne is going, every article will have a category of it's own, which makes the whole process of categorization meaningless.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I too agree. PW is creating an untold amount of over-categorisation and clearly fails to understand how much chaos he is causing. I think he should be stopped immediately. - Kittybrewster 23:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of CfD's going on at any given time without us worrying about one user's overwhelming number of "products". I have seen the number of categories this user created and judging from the number of discussion on his talk page, some sort of action seems necessary at this point. Xiner (talk, email) 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I too agree. I have updated the list for Dec and added an earlier list, some of which are new eg Category:Sons of Confederate Veterans is a PW category containing 1 article (of PW's). roundhouse 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing some concerns on CfD, so I left him a request for clarification. I've just now responded to his response, on his talk page. I'm hoping that this can all be resolved amicably. - jc37 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the extended discussion on Pastorwayne's talk page demonstrates that he has been unwilling to voluntarily commit to any reconciliatory actions. BrownHairedGirl made repeated requests for Pastorwayne to discuss his categories with other people or to cease his category creation activities voluntarily. Pastorwayne has mostly ignored those requests. Administrative action is warranted at this point. Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal info on talkpage

Can someone please delete this (not just blank)? I ask here because it doesn't really fit into WP:CSD. It is an article talkpage with only one comment on it; presumably a kid leaving his/her phone number. Edokter (Talk) 23:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Edokter (Talk) 23:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point; if it is a child being very silly, then he needs protecting. Anything else, and we don't want it either. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It still needs to be oversighted though. Prodego ^talk 23:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You can contact the oversight mailing list, or contact a OS sysop on their user talk page. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No need, I've done it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually thinking about just moving it away into what basically is oblivion. I have done that for 126 edits (so about 63 cases of PI, assuming one revert per info) so why not now? I sure could use oversight though. ;-) Prodego ^talk 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving personal information to an unknown name is not enough because the move logs and the recent changes reveal it. It is a good temporary measure while waiting for oversight to take effect though. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It actually can work if you mix enough revisions together, since this makes an unintelligible mess of multiple page histories. But thus the comment on oversight. Prodego ^talk 00:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That would depend on how determined the person was to find it. But, as I said, and excellent solution while waiting for oversight. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A really determined admin could find it, yes, and it is even worse if the info was in the edit summary because then it is easily readable. I agree, oversight is much more effective. Prodego ^talk 00:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait... are you saying there are 63 edits containing personal information just sitting there somewhere in the wiki? Please have them oversighted now, and don't do that again – Gurch 11:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You can find pages like that all over the place, not just mine (mostly from Alkavar and his phone number vandal). If you want them all oversighted it will take a long long time for an oversight to kill them all. Prodego ^talk 17:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Potentially offensive username, but not sure of the right course of action

I picked Godwallop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) up while newpage patrolling. All the user's contributions appear to be good, but would the username be considered offensive under the WP:UN#Inappropriate usernames policy: "Names of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs." I would suggest a username change, and didn't want to take this to WP:AIV directly. What would be the appropriate course of action here? Yuser31415 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

When unsure there is always Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for legal threats

I have blocked Linguist J (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for violating Wikipedia:No legal threats because of the edits here and here. I am requesting a review of my actions. -- Donald Albury 00:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like he was ever warned about it, and an indefblock for a policy someone doesn't know about seems harsh. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that our policy against legal threats is not something people regularly encounter. I personally take the policy of given a rather stern and final warning upon the first occurrence of such a threat, then block the second time. Indef blocks without warning should be avoided if there is any belief the user may heed such warnings. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think in this case it is possible that the user may have heeded a warning. However I am not personally prepared to unblock someone who threatens other users. When you go to a website that allows you to edit, such as wikipedia, then start threatening legal action against other users you deserve to be banned forwarned or not. He can come back when the autoblock expires after all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd normally say leave a note on their talk saying "pledge to go write some articles or something and you might get unblocked if you promise to be good." But this user having zero mainspace edits makes me shy away even from my "softly softly" approach. - brenneman 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

An approach I have seen work successfully is to tell the user that he or she is blocked unless and until he or she withdraws the legal threats. Referring the user to the on-wiki dispute resolution process is also appropriate, although not sure whether that's applicable in this instance. I fear that simply indef-blocking with no exit will spur someone someday to really visit a lawyer in a case where it could have been avoided. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't object if another sysop wants to modify or lift the block. The blocked editor, however, has only edited to argue for inclusion of external links that have been repeatedly removed by a variety of editors. The evidence is that this editor is here solely to promote a couple of web sites s/he is affilited with. -- Donald Albury 01:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Donald here. I think the block should stand; an unblock or shortening should only be considered if the user withdraws the legal threats and confirms that they have read and understand our EL policies. —bbatsell ¿? 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What Newyorkbrad said. We've been here before. Unblock only once the legal threats are fully retracted, and make it very clear to the user that legal threats are a particularly nasty form of bullying and are not tolerated. Mind you, judging by the you-must-include-our-linkspam at all costs attitude I shouldn't think it'll be long before this account turns up at ANI again. Moreschi ^Deletion!

banning question

I am in the process of implementing the article-ban discussed above for User:Iantresman and was about to put a {{subst:User article ban|Username|Duration}} on the relevant articles. The template, however, says that he is eligible to edit the talk-pages of these articles, while the ban that I have imposed included those talk pages. (I did this deliberately, since as was discussed, that is one of the primarily loci of the disruptive behaviour.)

I have been bold and created a new template, Template:User_article&talk_ban, but wanted to consult with other admins before implementing it to make sure that this is operating within policy. Bucketsofg 00:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to be more explicit when discussing things ArbCom related... I got a nasty start upon reading the words "the ban that I have imposed" without knowing the backstory: Danger, Rouge Admin! Danger Danger! /* insert flailing tube arms */ That aside, is it really necessary to stop someone from using the talk page? At Wolf Effect I see "obdurate" but it's hardly disruptive per se. I'd like to see stronger support for this before wheeeling it out. - brenneman 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. For others: discussion above and my "ruling" at WP:AE. If you look at the contributions of Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), you'll see that almost all the edits are on talkpages. It seems to me I have two options--go through with the article & talk ban or down-grade it to article alone. Bucketsofg 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, if there is an article ban (supported by the ruling) then what extra does the talk ban accomplish? It creates an obvious place for complaints to very little end. At best, other editors and he have reasonable discourse on the talk, middle-case his talk page contributions simply are ignored after time, worst case it mounts to incivility or clear disruption and it gets dealt with then. No, I think that a talk-page ban founded upon an arbcom ruling that doesn't mention them is a bad idea. But I'll shut up about it now and hear what everyone else thinks. Maybe.
brenneman 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, don't be quiet, I'm glad for your input. As I said, I'm not against pulling back from the talk-page ban. But I spent 18 hours yesterday reading diffs, ArbComms, RFCs. There is no realistic hope of reasonable discourse. But I'm happy to have your opinion and I look forward to others' advice. Bucketsofg 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked in on this dispute every so often, without becoming involved, and Ian certainly strikes me as a continuing disruptive influence. It's very difficult to edit an article productively when there's someone camping out on the talk page, relentlessly drumming on the same point - to say nothing of the continual nonproductive wikilawyering. It doesn't make much sense to let this ongoing disruption continue 'until someone becomes uncivil'. I support bucketsofg's solution, including the talk page ban. Opabinia regalis 07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rict

User talk:Rict is a new account which started today by adding links to its site against WP:EL and WP:SPAM policies. After placing 4 spam warnings the editor continued to add the link to other articles. Every article that had the link added is listed as a client of the site. I then gave the editor a 24hour block, which the editor responded and I further explained my reasons and declined removal of the block. As my actions where done quickly in response to the edits and since I placed the block to stop any continuation I'd appreciate another admin review the situation. Gnangarra 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but as a worthless non-admin I guess I'm allowed to give you feedback. :) If he went through all 4 spam warnings without responding and continued to readd spam links, then a 24-hour block is probably for the better to prevent anymore being added. The only thing, maybe, wrong here is that you said that he requested an unblock, and you declined it. Generally, the blocking admin isn't supposed to review the unblock himself and wait for another admin to review the unblock and decide. Besides that, I think it was fair. Personally though, I'm shocked he didn't recieve an indefinite block being a new user and adding nothing but spam links. I would have, but thats just me. semper fi — Moe 01:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at this and left some comments for Gnangarra. Hesperian 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Urgent Deletion Request

It seems that Cplot has gone back to posting his usual attack diatribe on the talk pages of his socks. I hereby ask that the following user talk pages be deleted and locked:

• User talk:WowYouGuysAreGood (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:ILOVEMONGO (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:GiveItAFewDays (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:WikiMediaFndn (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:PepeLePu (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:RandCorpIsAmerica (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:ToTheTeet (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:TilDaddyTakesTbirdAway (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:SoLittleTime (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Scobell302 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I blanked all of them, not sure if that helps other than clearing their garbage. Protection to prevent replacing of the trolling would be nice. --Wildnox(talk) 02:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I protected them all. Antandrus (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to protect this version, considering that's the one that accurately tags the account? 68.39.174.238 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I did that on a few of them now. Antandrus (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User-blogs

I'm posting here in responce to a protection request from Ryulong. The page in question is User:TheSkunk, which the user has been using as kind of a blog. Usually these pages are MfD'd and deleted, but in this case the user in question is active, even editing today. I don't believe there is any precidence for protecting a userpage because of the user, so I'd like to get some feedback on what we can do here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make note, I requested based on these two revisions:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheSkunk&oldid=97648936
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheSkunk&oldid=97803541

I tried to kindly explain to him the situation here, but he does not seem to realize what is really the issue with WP:USER.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Utad3 Spamming User Talk pages

In protesting a Prod on an article he created, Utad3 (talk · contribs) is spamming User Talk pages (apparently chosen randomly, in alphabetical order). He's already up to a few dozen, and still in the "A"s. Fan-1967 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked him to stop. Asterion^talk 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted all such posts. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Utad3 has apologised and stopped canvassing too. Asterion^talk 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Does someone know why MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext was changed from a very explainitory paragraph with links to Wikipedia:This page is protected and details, with "This page has been locked to prevent editing" ? The latter doesn't seem to have any advantages over the former, except that it's shorter. 68.39.174.238 04:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it may have been a technical error because the page is simply gone, with no evidence of it being deleted. —Centrx→talk • 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. The reference in the MediaWiki software was changed from MediaWiki:Protectedtext to MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext, without the text itself being moved. —Centrx→talk • 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, great. Now we have redirects in MediaWiki space. Is there a good reason why it was moved? Is MediaWiki:Protectedtext going to be used for something else, now? – Gurch 11:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Messenger2010 (talk · contribs)

Known abusive sockpuppeteer, vandal and wikistalker is engaged in vandalizing my user talk page, insisting on adding drummed-up warnings (not using any correct templates, posted regarding 2 month old "violations"), and when I remove them, they replaced them quoting some out-of-date policy regarding deleting warnings on my talk page. This editor has also posted a personal attack on their user page [41]. This editor has a long history of disruption Wikipedia though a large number abusive sockpuppets and IP adddresses, and has been engaged in Wikistalking for a number of months of both myself and admin Glen S (talk · contribs). 04:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Intentional disruption of wikipedia

A user User:Gschadow makes controversial unsubstantiated edits [42]. When I made correction he challenged me in the talk page and expressed an intent to revert-war, violating WP:POINT [43]and reverted [44], saying that he has deliberately instigated edit-war (see summary). I asked him to stop [45] but he ignored[46].Rumpelstiltskin223 04:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I need to add: Rumpelstiltskin223 did not "make corrections" he simply reverted everything. I had discussed my changes on Talk, he did not respond and has yet to discuss any specifics. Instead he makes some spurious allegation about propaganda regarding some organization which I neither know nor does it seem to have anything to do with it. This user frequently teaches others about wikipedia policies, such as civility, but seems to take out exceptions with his allegations and avoidance to discuss specific edits. Gschadow 07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, he says that he "does not care", he will continue to disrupt wikipedia to make his point [47].Rumpelstiltskin223 05:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I detected the reverting behavior as an expected tactics to fend off any attempt at softening the obvious POV of the article, since he reverted without talk, and added no constructive critique or compromise, I simply reverted back, but truthfully and forthrightly stating my motivation for the revert. Gschadow 07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In talk page, he says that he will game 3RR[48]. Obviously, I cannot reach this user at all, so I will detach myself from this issue so that I do not get sucked into the black hole myself. Another party needs to instruct this user on wikipedia policies. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a game, this is simply excercising a right to protect my edits from indiscriminate and undebated reverting for as long as they are not being discussed or reviewed by others. I was always forthright about my motives. Gschadow 07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Whole article [49] is a work of fiction. There is no substance in it. Most of links listed in article does not work and one which works are mainly blogs and op-eds. There is no hard evidence, proof, statistics of any incidence. Brahmins practice touchability and commit crime against lower casts and here on wikipedia they are trying to protray themselevs as victim. Here is the report from govt of India that tells the truth.

"According to the 2005 Annual Report of the National Crime Records Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the government of India, a crime against the Scheduled Castes also known as Dalits is committed in every 20 minutes. The report stated that a total of 26,127 cases against Scheduled Castes were reported in 2005 while the number of crimes against dalits in 2004 was 26,887. The cases include 8,497 cases reported under the Protection of Civil Rights Act and 291 cases under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

On the other hand, going by the recent trend of crimes committed against the Dalits, it is undoubtedly increasing. Many chilling crimes against the dalits have been reported from across India during the last couple of months.

The Dalits are untouchable but incidents of stripping, parading naked, beating, molestation and rape of the Dalit women by the upper castes are widespread and frequent. The 2005 Annual Report of the National Crime Records Bureau reported a total of 1,172 cases of rape of dalit women during 2005."

This article should be deleted immediately because it is a lie.StopUntouchability 06:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It had been discussed just a few months ago to delete it and resolution was to keep, there is no point in bringing this up every 6 months, instead, perhaps a consensus can be reached about how it should be worded. I think the phenomenon can be described retained as an encyclopedic article but its must be more balanced. My editing strategy was to quote the allegations by saying that "it is alleged ...". I also was trying to balance the POV, not just dismissing the issue. Again, I made a good faith attempt but Rumpelstiltskin223 has simply reverted and accused me of something I have no clue about. I was being forthright, but I feel this user is playing a false game by being friendly and purporting to speak authoritative of wikipedia policies and then doing reverting and accusing of abstruse things but never even discussing my edits in detail on the talk page. Thanks for listening, and sorry to stir up yet more of this mess. Gschadow 06:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to become embroiled in a discussion I cannot add much to, being almost entirely ignorant of the subject, I'd like to note that there seem to be very few sources in this article. I think the parties would benefit from taking this to RfC and asking for uninvolved (and without wishing to offend anyone and recognising of course that Indian editors are more likely to have subject knowledge, perhaps nonIndian) editors to cast an eye over it. There are very many statements in this article, many quite hurtful to one group or another, that are not sourced at all. If editors removed unsourced statements, they are going to be supported by the wider community. Let's not just write "it is alleged". Let's put our sources for the allegations, and if we don't have sources, let's remove them. And remember, guys, we are working together to make something acceptable to all. Reverse Gear 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

These are all good suggestions. However, that is not what is going on here. The partisan editors above are not adding any sources but are, in fact, writing hate speech into the article. I agree that the article has POV elements but the editors are trying to replace POV with more POV, which does not help. Rumpelstiltskin223 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What "hate speech" did I add? Gschadow 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"the Dalit Christian movement excercises sharp criticism against what they represent as Hindu and especially Brahmin opressors". Not only is this wrong (Dalit Christians themselves are busy trying to get out of the clutches of upper-caste Christians, particularly in places like Goa) but is worded in a way to inspire hate against Hindus and promulgate communal violence (this may sound flaky to non-Indians, but the fact is that this is precisely the sort of incendiary remark that missionaries use to instigate poor Dalits into a clannish mentality, creating the myth of the Hindu "other" as an ethnocentric concept). This is not the view of the Dalit Christian movement but the view of aggressive and decidedly non-Dalit missionaries. Rumpelstiltskin223 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dreamworld

This article has today been edited by a staff member of the company using the account DreamworldAdmin, I have suggested the user reads WP:COI and WP:FU as the using is insisting that official copyrighted photos be used in the article diff. Does anyone have any other suggestions on how to deal with situation, I'm sure the editor is only acting in good faith so there no need to bite the editor, I just looking for advice on any other policies that maybe worth noting, or tags for the user page to indicate the COI. Gnangarra 07:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps ask them if they have permission to release the photos under an appropriate licence for Wikipedia? -- Longhair\^talk 08:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the editor willing to allow redistribution of the images to third parties unafilliated with Wikimedia, including parties that may obtain a profit from those images? Is the editor allowed to legally distribute images under those conditions? If he says that he is able to do so, we can certainly keep the images. The original source isn't as relevant as long as the images are licensed under a free content redistributable license such as the GFDL or CC-BY-SA. Note that images restricted for non-commercial use are eligible for speedy deletion. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:DRW EntranceGates.jpg this is one of the images, I've already requested that free license images be made available on the user page and the article talk page. Gnangarra 08:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• As a side point his name is improper (he's not an admin but his account name suggests he is). >Radiant< 13:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User Nixer is using sockpuppets on Axis Powers and removing messages on the talk page

I have had it with Nixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his use of sockpuppets to POV push against the concensus on Axis Powers.

Suspected socks

• Planemo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CaesarRosso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nixer has a milelong blocklog and is not a user in good standing. Here he is seen changing his signature because he accidently logged on as Nixer instead of Planemo. This was after a series of account changes by him that morning. here CaesarRosso is seen removing my question about this strange change of signature. He has been invited to talk about his proposed reorganization of the article which is currently against concensus and from previous edit warring we know that such edits must be discussed first. Nixer knows all this already though as he has participated in the development of the article during that period. he is using his socks in bad faith. Also note that User:Zoe had previously blocked him for sockpuppetry in December and that the account Planemo has been used on the same articles that triggered that block but this was not discovered at the time so the block was reverted by another admin. Nixers history of abuse is mile long and this needs to end now. No more temporary blocks that he can just evade using sockpuppets. The Planemo account has been used to evade Nixer's previous blocks and it went undiscovered until I caught him in the act when he changed the signature on the talk page. I'll refrain from reverting him until this is settled by the community. MartinDK 08:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I must concur that Nixer has used sockpuppets to edit war in the past, as when I was more involved with the astronomy articles during the dwarf planet ruckus this summer. I had requested a checkuser performed on him here in which it was proven that he did use a sockpuppet to game 3RR. I would suggest that another checkuser be performed to prove or disprove this fact, just to assume good faith despite his massive blocklog.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms Planemo (talk · contribs) and Ghuter (talk · contribs) are the same as Nixer, but probably not CaesarRosso. Dmcdevit·t 08:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Planemo and Ghuter as sockpuppets. Luna Santin 10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This person should have been banned 3 months ago, [50]. —Centrx→talk • 08:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that it is proven, what should be done?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The two sockpuppets are blocked courtesy of Luna Santin, and this "request" has been added to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nixer. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Community ban for Nixer?

I recommend an indefinite community ban for Nixer. He should have been indefblocked long ago, has a history of over 30 blocks, - see his block log - and has now used socks to edit war. It's time we got rid of him once and for all. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. User's net contribution to Wikipedia has been consistently negative. Proto::► 13:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring is continuing now using an ip instead of an account [51]. Also I find this rather strange. Where are the socks he keeps asking knowing perfectly well who they are. MartinDK 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those weren't his socks. Those socks belonged to User:Jacob Peters, currently blocked for quite a while. In retrospect it probably would have been better if Zoe's indef from that time round had been allowed to stand. Then we wouldn't have to waste all our time yet again, though this should be permanent. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You better make sure Nearly Headless Nick is in agreement or he'll unblock unilaterally. Irpen should probably be involved in that discussion, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. - Merzbow 19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While he contributes, his block log stemming from 3RR is way too long to continue to remain unnoticed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Schism (religion)

Please check history. There seems to be an ongoing violation of various policies (WP:SOCK, WP:NPA, WP:VAND etc) and I really don't know where to post this. Thanks. NikoSilver 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've sprotected the page, for now, so that IPs and new accounts will be unable to edit the page; doesn't look like it was getting much activity, other than this recent disruption spree. If the abuse continues, it may be worth requesting higher protection and/or checkuser assistance. Luna Santin 10:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Happy New Year! NikoSilver 12:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User Posting Contact Information

I wasn't sure what the procedure for this was since there is no user talk space warning related to this; or if it's even serious (sorry if I'm wasting time). User:203.87.189.170 has posted contact information for Daniel Radcliffe,Emma Watson and Bonnie Wright here, here and here. John Reaves 09:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm... for truly sensitive personal info, consider requests for oversight. In this case, it appears to be the addresses of some production studio(s)? And what may also be some iffy material, in terms of WP:BLP. Couldn't hurt to request oversight; better safe than sorry, and the worst they can do is send you back an email declining the request. Luna Santin 10:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try that. Thanks, John Reaves 10:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis socks to block

Infomaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Psychoticanorexic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are obvious socks of the banned user JarlaxleArtemis and should be blocked. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis for more info. —Psychonaut 12:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that while Psychoticanorexic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious no-brainer sock of JarlaxleArtemis, User:Infomaner relates to an entirely different situation and may either be a sockpuppet of someone quite different, or a good faith individual who has chosen an unfortunate way to express his issues with Psychonaut's approach to editing, that should warrant a PA warning. I cannot quite understand why Psychonaut is lumping the two together rather than PA warning User:Infomaner and waiting for a few more edits before requesting a sockcheck? --Zeraeph 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit history. The user exhibits a pattern of behaviour similar to other WP:JARLAXLE socks: a single-purpose account whose only edits are to articles about me or which I have edited, and moreover are to pages such as XfDs which are not normally found by new users. —Psychonaut 14:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I did check his edit history, and it consists of these three edits so far:

• 08:39, 2 January 2007 [52] - expressing an issue he has with you on your talk page in a manner a little too close to PA.
• 08:41, 2 January 2007 [53] - expressing an issue he has with you on a related Afd in a manner a little too close to PA.
• 08:42, 2 January 2007 [54] reverting your claim that User:MumDude is a sockpuppet of User:Daniel10 (a claim for which there does not seem to be much conclusive evidence)

I think you need to consider the possibility that not everybody who has an issue with you (be they right, wrong or in between) is JarlaxleArtemis, and that, like a lot of other trolls, JarlaxleArtemis may, in fact, just wait for some other user to have an issue with you and then "piggyback" his flaming onto that issue.

Obviously User:Infomaner needs a warning (which you will see he has already been given) and could use a little watching, but not because he is likely to be a sock of JarlaxleArtemis. So why not assume good faith, while also keeping your powder dry? --Zeraeph 16:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Psychohistorian is correct about User:Infomaner. The guy is clearly a sock of someone, and the only editor with a vendetta against Psycho that I'm aware of is JA. -Will Beback · † · 19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that Infomaner is clearly a sock of someone, and therefore an indef block is likely appropriate, regardless of the puppetmaster. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sanghak still uploading images with no source information

I mentioned this here a few days ago but nobody took any notice. Just to reiterate -- Sanghak is continuing to upload images without providing any source information. Most (if not all) of them are copied from other websites without providing any source attribution or fair use rationale. He has been warned about this behaviour on numerous occasions by me and other users, and has already been blocked twice for this reason. His most recent block expired on December 22. Since then he has uploaded the following:

• Image:FM-ponah.gif
• Image:FM-kos.gif
• Image:FM-yap.gif
• Image:FM-truk.gif
• Image:Ladkwesheep.gif
• Image:Saint Barthelemy Flag.gif

He hasn't provided source information for any of these images. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to identify where they came from, but Image:Saint Barthelemy Flag.gif looks like a blatant copyright violation (compare Sanghak's contribution with this image from vexilla-mundi.com). -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal information removal required

I wanted to delete and restore all except a particular revision, but with 4226 edits, and no "select all" option, I was missing checkboxes (and I'm late for work :( ). Is there a simple way outside of oversight to delete that one revision? -- Avi 13:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean Avi? It's already been reverted. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently you can use shift+click to toggle a whole lot of checkboxes simultaneously. >Radiant< 13:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. -- Avi 13:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As said above though, you need to get it oversighted. Prodego ^talk 17:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Already done hours ago . -- Avi 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI article as proxy for Juan Cole

Hi, I think we need some admin intervention on the MEMRI article. At the moment a mediation on the Juan Cole page is stalled and it looks like MEMRI has become the place to continue a proxy war regarding using Cole's blog as a source. It has descended quickly into personal attacks and edit warring (not quite crossing 3RR I think but certainly heading that way) and disruptive editing. I think we need some order to be established, and some experienced outside views regarding WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. <<-armon->> 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR has in fact been violated by the very user making this report. This does not belong on ANI -- this is a proper use of RfC. I believe this user has done this in the past, trying to circumvent content disputes by reporting them as if they were conduct violations of WP rules. WP:ANI reports require only convincing one admin to take action, whereas an RfC (whether over substance or conduct) requires consensus. I would love to see more participation on the MEMRI page, which indeed has become a focus of edit wars (though I have not seen too many personal attacks there), but it is not a "proxy war" about Cole -- the fact is that Cole said something relevant about MEMRI and there is a dispute over whether it should be included on the MEMRI page. As Armon is aware, there is other content in dispute on that page besides the material from Cole. So as I said I welcome more participation on that page, but I object to it being solicited via WP:ANI as if there were user conduct issues at stake here. csloat 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:PM Scrap

• Pretty clear this is another VaughanWatch sock, and even if it isn't, it's a pretty clear username vio attacking my former account, the username is very similar to another of his socks User:Pm watch and his first and only edit is to a Vaughan page. Block would be appreciated. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 16:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hier sind die Onkelz

This article has been hit by a number of anons in the past two days. Looks like obscenities and Nazi references in German. I have blocked the most recent IP, but they are changing rapidly. I am on the verge of sprotecting. Does something like this fall under WP:BLP? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:65.0.104.154

65.0.104.154 is on a personal crusade to rid wikipedia of external links, as seen in his contrbution history [[55]]. I tried reporting him twice for vandalism, the first time was more of a content dispute. This second time, they said to come to this board instead. (Result of first report as noted on my talk page). In particular, this dispute refers to something started on 30 December, when I reverted some of his edits and told him he was ignoring the consensus on the talk page. (see our exchange on [[56]] 30 December in our edit comments). I reported him to the talk page of the article and added a Keep vote to the ongoing vote on that page. [[57]] If you scroll through the subsequent edits to that page, he changed my vote (forged a comment by me) [[58]] and then took it upon himself to decide the consensus was delete [[59]] even though he's not in the Cocktails project. I don't see how that's NOT vandalism, but I bring the issue here in order to try to get some satisfaction. He's been warned for messing with external links previously on his talk page [[60]] as as he notes on my talk page he changes ips. I propose a permanent ban and then ban of any IPs used in the future. Nardman1 19:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week for blatant vandalism. I also rolled back removals of external links, but no other edits. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mykungfu new sock blocked

Just a heads-up that Mykungfu appears to have returned; he edited from a few IPs yesterday morning (AOL, as usual, so no blocks), then today started editing again from User:McGrandWizard., an account he'd set up in October but then barely used. He went after User:Ccson again, so I've indef-blocked that account. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello, as this is my first time reporting on AN/I personally, please give me a kick if this is an inappropriate venue.

There has been an ongoing dispute regarding the article Barrett v. Rosenthal. This has been posted before, in an indirect matter, as Ilena's spamming was noticed and reported. Now though, she has shaped up to a degree, and is showing some progress. However, those that disagree with her seem to need prodding in a similar direction regarding links, as recently, fyslee put a link on the talk page that was purely an attack on the character of Ilena. I find this extremely frustrating, as it was counterproductive, and now Ilena is, understandably, in "defense" mode again, and extremely frustrated.

There are a few issues here, and I'll present them in the order I perceived them.

• Ilena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who is Ilena Rosenthal, one of the named parties in the case, started inserting links to her rather biased and coloured reporting of events. This brought forth an AN/I report. After some dialogue, I came to the conclusion that she added them out of good faith and an honest misunderstanding of the NPOV and COI policies. As such, I reached out to her, and she changed the nature of many of the attacks on her site to be a lot less inflammatory and not name particular parties.
• Jance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Curtis Bledsoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) revert warred somewhat on the article. Curtis even reverted myself, saying my edits were POV, and reverting back to a "better version." The actual edit summary was rv - Hughgr's version is more accurate and less POV. I think Curtis must of missed that all I did was change a blockquote HTML tag to the cquote template • diff of my edit.
• Jance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made a request on my page that some sort of action be taken against Curtis - permalink of Jance's request 15:03 EST Jan 2/07. She highlighted that Curtis was still reverting. I advised her to keep a cool head and to leave it to the administration - that if he continued to be disruptive, he would be blocked. Quote: Not at all. People have reverted his disruptive changes, he has just been persistent in trying to reinsert them. If he continues he will be blocked by a sysop, but until then just try to avoid breaking any rules yourself - seek to be better than him, not worse.
• Curtis Bledsoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seemed to leave the Barrett v. Rosenthal article alone after I reversed his reversion.
• Emilydcksn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) posted a somewhat defamatory link on the talk page. This was the link. (Warning: possibly offensive language in points) I replied simply that it was not a reliable source.
• Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) posted a link to an article directly attacking Ilena. I advised him that an Arbitration Committee decision prevented linking to sites with attack content, and removed the link. The case in particular related to Encyclopedia Dramatica and can be found here.

I feel that a statement I made previously, summates my feelings on the situation quite well:

“ Oh, it's hardly extraneous - the talk page has become X v. Rosenthal all over again. Ilena is being tried again in the halls of this talk page, and it's not what Wikipedia is for. We are not a court of law, we are not a soapbox, we are an an encyclopedia. We do not deal in truth, we deal in verifiable facts. I find it improper and unnecessarily divisive that Ilena is being harassed as she is by these users, but I also feel that she has made her own mistakes too, and she is not exempt for her own misconduct because of the misconduct of others. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and this is really just poisoning the well, this dispute. The beauty of Wikipedia is all of us, working together. So lets do that - all of us. ”

Unfortunately, it has fallen on deaf ears, however. The sad fact of the matter is that Ilena has tried to follow my advice, and shape up - trying to avoid conflict of interest by only contributing to the talk pages, and refraining from further attacks and linkspam, but the other parties in the matter, fyslee namely, have refused to return the favour.

As the situation seems to continue to escalate and my own attempts at diffusion seem to have been unsuccessful. I welcome examination of the behaviours of everyone involved in the matter, myself included, and I would like to see, if possible, administrator intervention regarding the attack links posted against Ilena.

On behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Now she's attacking me on my talk page, as well as here. (This is far from the first time she has written such untrue and inaccurate charges here.) What should I do? -- Fyslee 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• looking through this, I think this is the wrong venue. From everything I see here this is simply a content dispute and it would probably be beneficial to try a request for mediation on this article. Bottom line is that the external links I've seen from both sides in this dispute woefully fail any reasonable reading of WP:RS and everyone could use a big helping of WP:AGF here.--Isotope23 21:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am concerned about the attack site links against Ilena. They seem retaliatory and baiting in nature, and such is disruptive. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Might a page protection help? Bucketsofg 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been exactly 4 edits to the page today so if this is an edit war, it is a slow moving one... so I don't think page protection is necessary. I think mediation is what is needed here, and both sides cooling down. There appears to be some history here that predates this article and is outside Wiki and I'd suggest everyone leave that at the door.--Isotope23 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Darin Fidika redux

This is mostly just an FYI posting to make sure as many admins as possible are aware of this issue. Darin Fidika (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for blatant plagiarism and consistently failing to provide copyright information for images he uploaded to the site despite numerous requests and warning about it. He plagiarised over 700 articles (see this page for details on that). He actually got off fairly leniently as he was only warned sternly to not do that again, and to make sure he always included copyright information and reliable sources for all of his information to avoid any such problems in the future. Though he's deleted a lot of them, he was warned multiple times after that about uploading images without copyright information, so I blocked his indefinitely as I believe strongly that he's a really bad legal liability to have around given his horrible track record.

I submitted the block here to make sure others could review it if they chose to. Yamla [61] and Crzrussian [62] have declined two of his requests for being unblocked, and I've declined his third request [63] (Darin Fidika has removed many of these comments, so you'll have to browse through the history to find them all). Since being blocked, Darin has also created at least two sock accounts to get around the block: Darin Fidika II (talk · contribs) and Darin Fidika (2) (talk · contribs). Both of these have been indef blocked as socks of an indef blocked user.

So, I'm posting the summary here to make sure I'm being as fair as possible. Feel free to comment on Darin's talk page in order to keep everything together as much as possible. Note that Darin may delete your comments if he doesn't like them. That's what he does with anything I post there. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Report of ban of Iantresman

In regards to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman_placed_on_Probation]: after consulting with fellow admins at WP:ANI, I have banned Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from Wolf effect, Plasma cosmology, and Electric universe (concept) and their associated talk-pages. My reasoning is given here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Findings. This ban (and a 24 hour block) has been logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Bucketsofg 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwars1955

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just came off a 96-hour block for 3RR vios and personal attacks, and went right back to Brett Favre, making the same edits (including removal of sources and source material) that he'd been making prior to the block. (During his block, he posted a personal attack against me on his talk page, as well an allegation against another user that I investigated and found to be baseless.) I blocked him for one week, with a notice that continued bad behavior would lead to an indef block. This issue was originally reported here about a week ago, so I'm posting in case anyone else was following the case. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)