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

Bullying on the Preity Zinta nomination by Sarvagnya (talk · contribs · logs)

I have to say that this vote appears invalid by Sarvagnya on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zintaand is done out of spite within an hour following a confronation on the article -please see Shahrukh Khan history. It looks very suspicious to me that the above user came across this page after checking the contributions of User:Shhhhh following the edit war on that page and visisted the page specifically to give the "strongest oppose possible" -I find this utterly unacceptable that somebody would delibrately not give a genuine review of an article and attempt to jeopardise it because of a previous confrontation elsewhere. User:Shhhhh was blocked following the incident on that page but I don't think admin were getting both sides to the story. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya is entitled to his opinion (in fact, it's perfectly legitimate). Please assume good faith. Everything you claim is based on personal speculation. To make matters worst, it's disgusting to see how a number of editors suddenly attacked and criticized Sarvagnya for his vote on the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Shshshsh (talk · contribs · logs) who was pretty OTT in their response to the objections to Sarvagnya yesterday was subsequently blocked for 24hours for a violation of the 3RR. He appears to have been block evading using his sister's PC [1] and I have lengthened his block this morning for this. Recorded because there may well be some history in all this that is relevant to this complaint - I haven't looked into this at all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems funny that a user serving to make the page more legitimate is demonized on ANI like this. Sarvagnya has merely been upholding WP:RS.Bakaman 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Privatemusings

I have blocked Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have given a lengthy explanation on the talk page. Basically, having registered an alternate account in order to contribute to a heated and contentious debate (acceptable) he has stepped outside those bounds to edit-war over links to a blog whihc contains the usual bullshit allegation about SlimVirgin. Whether or not the blog is acceptable in the article, it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. Several people have expressed acute discomfort about Privatemusings' editing patterns, including this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167542856&oldid=167537969
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167547955&oldid=167545420
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167724429&oldid=167701098
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167763380&oldid=167759942
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167978680&oldid=167967496

and here supporting an earlier revert by a Jon Awbrey sock:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167515431&oldid=167507361

Enough is enough, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the account was no longer being used to contribute to a contentious debate, instead to edit war, and deserved to be be blocked. I note you blocked with autoblocks on. I suggest you unblock and reblock with the autoblock disengaged. Neil ☎ 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow. The main account holder could possibly use an enforced reminder about acceptable behavior. As long as he doesn't post unblock, he won't give away who he is/was. Thatcher131 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That was an oversight on my part, so yes I will fix it. I've no desire to give even the slightest appearance of being punitive here. I think that the user got carried away and forgot himself, nothing more. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Do we really have to spatter the user page with a "haha we got you" indef blocked template? Neil ☎ 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, using an "alternative account" just to edit war, sorry but no. Jbeach ^sup 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Using an alternative account for hot topics is explicitly allowed. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action". No one's claiming PM's being blocked for abusing sock puppets. --Alecmconroy 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a positive application of Jimbo's new 'take no less hassle from trolls' attitude. good block. ThuranX 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been forced to protect PM's user talk page. See the edit history there, and the reasoning will be self-evident. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to evade a ban, so suffice to say I consider the behaviour of involved editors to be questionable at best. I entreat other uninvolved admins to evaluate the situation, and hope this comment can remain. I won't post again until at least my talkpage is unprotected. Many Thanks, Privatemusings 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So I'm reading through this again, and while I agree with the greater substance of this block, in that PM has gone from contentious high end Arbcom/admin stuff to editing regular, contentious articles. That said, the edits in the list above reflect the core of the difficulties involved in the EL debates. Is that site being discussed in any particular location? It does certainly seem to have credibility overall for the topic, but due to that singular section, becomes objectionable. I'd like to see the discussion in action, as might others interested in both topics. Anyone got a link? ThuranX 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where in WP:SOCK does it state that participation in discussion is legitimate, but the moment that contentious editing is involved, its illegitimate? Failing that statement in policy, I don't see how this block can stand. Does JzG wish to confirm that PM's "good hand" account is also participating in the same content dispute simultaneously? Because that is abusive, and the only justification for the block. Relata refero 09:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OUTRAGEOUS

UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE. Completely unbelievable. Private Musings has been a polite and kind contributor to the situation, and his anonymous mediation was extremely helpful in reaching the solution that was reached at WP:NPA. PM has always been upfront about being a sockpuppet, and as this block shows, he has good reason to fear that his connecting his view on BADSITES to his main account would make his wiki-life a living hell. WP:SOCK is quite clear that socks are legitimate in cases like this.

The so-called "edit warring" isn't much of a war at all-- it's a content dispute, and one that is largely resolved. Growing consensus on multiple pages has come down in support of links of this sort in general, and the article's talk page shows substantial support for this links in particular. PM's edits were supported by consensus.

And if his edits look repetitive, it's merely because he was combating seven edits worth of vandalism by an indefinitely blocked user, Throwawayarb, who was using the sockpuppet MOASPN to evade a block. Reverting vandalism by an indefblocked user is NOT edit warring, and you can't with a straight face say that this is a case of ban-worthy edit warring. The fact that the blocking user is someone who has vocally disagrees with blockee about the content dispute only makes the block look even more indefensible.

This is a travesty. We all know PM is not being blocked for "edit warring"-- his edits just don't meet the standard. at is that links of this We all know PM isn't being blocked for being a sock-- WP:SOCK explicitly endorses PM's actions. PM is being blocked for advocating a position that the blocking admin disagrees with.

This is the sort of thing someone should be desysopped over. --Alecmconroy 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a less shrill objection with more diffs would be more convincing. I support the block. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the shrillness, this action just sorta confirms my worst fears. All through the Attack-Site Arbcom case, shrill lunatics tried to say BADSITES was just about a clique of bullies trying to use wikipedia as a platform to bully others. I always told those people they were crazy-- that everyone on all sides was acting in good faith and the pro-BADSITES people were just trying to protect the rights of all to contribute to Wikipedia using a pseudonym. This block, however, demonstrates to me that in at least for one admin doesn't give a damn about the right to edit pseudonymously if you have a disagreement with him.

I just really didn't want this to be true of Guy, or anyone else, ya know? I wanted us all to be bigger than that. I'm pretty devastated to see him act this badly. --Alecmconroy 10:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then try talking with Guy civilly. Maybe there is more information that Guy can share with you. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My ears are open, and I have contacted Guy about this. But the more important discussion now is going to be how we handle Guy's behavior. --Alecmconroy 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The WP:SOCK policy says:

• Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases.
• The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption.
• If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual.
• Until a week ago the policy also said: Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail.[2]

While I vocally opposed Privatemusings' use of a sock account to write policy, I did not seek to have the account blocked. But using the sock account in a content dispute is different. The account is now being used in disruptive dramas that don't further WP's goals. No wonder the user doesn't want his main account tarred by his activities. I've mentioned it before but I think that using a pseudonym to defend the outing of another user is hypocritical. He did so hypothetically on a policy page, but actually on a main space page. While I don't suggest outing him or identifying his main account, I do suggest that there is no good reason for him to hide behind a double veil while pulling away the veils of others. He can still edit under his main account, and comment on any issue. This isn't an editor ban, only an account block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We should also compare the block of Privatemusings to the recent block of User:MOASPN and related accounts. The two cases appear to share similar behaviors: linking to an outing site and using a sock to make contentious proposals. I'd ask those who oppose this block if they also oppose the block of MOASPN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The PM account has not be used in disrupting dramas. The account has been used in valid policy and content disputes, and in EVERY case where there's been a dispute, arbcom & community consensus has ultimately sided AGAINST GUY and WITH PM. I work very very hard to WP:AGF, but it's very hard to see this as anything more than retribution. That he didn't even take the time to get an uninvolved admin to do the block makes it almost impossible to see this as anything but retribution. --Alecmconroy 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Balls. The account was being used to edit war over a (much discussed) blog link on the Robert Black (professor) article - not what the original intent was. Having a seperate unconnected sock account to discuss and contribute towards potentially contentious policy is one thing, and what the account was originally being used for. Using it to edit war over knowingly contentious content is another - as soon as that happens, you don't have the right to use a single purpose sock account to edit war. Neil ☎ 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCKS disagrees with you. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action."

And even if it were true that PM had somehow accidentally violated WP:SOCKS, the solution is to start a discussion about whether his actions were consistent with WP:SOCKS-- a policy he has worked hard to comply with. If it emerged that he had accidentally misread a minor detail of WP:SOCKS, I'm sure he'd apologize and refrain from such action in the future.

The solution is NOT to jump straight to an indefinite ban. PM, both as PM and as his true identity, is a very respected editor who's done a lot to help us find consensus over at NPA. He's made many many valuable contributions. An indefinitely ban, if it stands, is just a transparent attempt to silence him--- or at least to silence him from speaking pseudonymously . --Alecmconroy 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pedantry first - a ban is not a block is not a ban. The account, Privatemusings, is blocked. The user behind the PM account is not banned You block accounts, you ban the person behind the account. If you really want to wikilawyer, though, you need to read the part of WP:SOCK about "good hand, bad hand" accounts. The PM account had become a bad hand account being used to edit war. An edit war is, by its nature, disruptive. The PM account was being disruptive. Neil ☎ 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

a "Bad hand" is an account you use to violate policy. Do you really believe PM's four measely edits, over three days, to revert a vandal who was using a SOCK to circumvent a ban, constitute a "disruptive edit war" which merits an indefinite block, rather than a warning? PM's edits reverted a vandal, are supported by consensus, his version is STILL the current version, and were examples of "Defending the Encyclopedia", not "disruptive edit warring".

It's a trumped up charge, and Guy should be ASHAMED. It's like that joke about racism in the US South, where a totally drunken white driver crashes into an african-american pedestrian, and when the cops arrive, the wounded pedestrian is sent to jail for jaywalking. PM has been an icon of good editing behavior--- his only real "crime" is that when Guy and PM were participants in the BADSITES arbcom case, PM's side "won". ---Alecmconroy 11:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, I know the identity of PM's other account(s). I have checked very carefully the histories of both, and this is not, in my considered opinion, a valid use of an alternate account. Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand. The route for appeals is ArbCom, by email. The very small number of individuals with whom I have shared the information does include at least three arbitrators, and one arbitrator has expressed privately that he also sees this as lying outside the bounds of permissible use of an alternate account. So, ArbCom is the place for appeals. Oh, wait, CBD has unblocked despite not knowing PM's other account. Way to go. Score one for the troll enablers. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy - I specifically told you in very strict confidence that I would feel upset and violated at you sharing personal information with any other wiki editors. Did you in fact do just that? I trusted you. I really think it's best I stop now, lest i say something i regret. I am very glad you will escalate this. It is a new low. Privatemusings 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the really sad part about all this. Until today, I truly believed Guy just really believed in the total sanctity of users privacy. When he objected to PM being able to edit using a pseudonym, it was very disheartening. If it turns out to be true that Guy has started engaged in limited "outings", violating private trust, I'm totally speechless. Not even angry, just.... sad. --Alecmconroy 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG-- regardless of your personal opinion, I think you know that you are not an uninvolved admin. If PM really is an inappropriate use of a sock account, there's a whole encyclopedia full of people who can make that call. For you to use your admin tools here was a clear instance of using admin tools to gain the upperhand in a dispute.

Now, you say you have secret evidence the PM account is inappropriate-- all well and good. Send it to arbcom. But if you failed to recognize something as simple as "do not indefinitely block someone you are in a dispute with", you're clearly far too close to this issue for us to trust your judgment about more complex issues like whether PM account is inappropriate. --Alecmconroy 12:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not secret, it's just private, and it will stay that way. I have no prior dispute with this user of which I'm aware, it's nothing to do with his opinion on a particular issue and everything to do with controversial actions (rather than opinions), which places the actions of this account outside of what is permissible. If this user had not admitted to being a sock, we'd have blocked it as a disruptive [{WP:SPA]] a long time ago. I know the main account's identity because PM told me by email. That does not suggest that PM considers we had a prior problem. What happened here is that a self-confessed alternate account registered for the purpose of contributing to a contentious policy debate, stepped outside of that carefully defined arena and began edit-warring over links to a blog repeating part of the same harassment as was addressed in the Attack Sites arbitration. The way to handle such matters is to contact the blog owner and point out that there is no evidence to support the assertion, not to edit-war over links to a damaging, hurtful and false accusation. I have shared the details of PM's main account with only a handful of individuals, mainly arbitrators and Jimbo. I will not be posting the name of the main account here or anywhere else.

There is no dispute for me to gain an upper hand in. This is 100% about the limits placed on use of alternate accounts, and stepping outside those limits to link to an ongoing and unacceptable campaign of harassment perpetuated by a number of justly banned users.

Nothing in the main accounts edits actually mitigates that. You have once before found that your speculations were inaccurate, and you gracefully apologised. Your speculations are again inaccurate. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please consider engaging here I sincerely wish you would spend as much effort talking to me as you have about me. I remain upset, and uncomprehending as to the support you think your rationale has in policy. Privatemusings 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, IF what you say about this being about "the limits placed on use of alternate accounts" is so then why would the proper course of action NOT be to tell Privatemusings that he was exceeding those limits, get consensus agreement that this was the case, and then place a short block followed by successively longer ones if he violated those limits? Why was the proper course of action to yourself unilaterally decide that he had 'exceeded the limits' and immediately place an indefinite block. No warning. No public discussion. No possibility of the user agreeing not to exceed these limits. He must be blocked immediately and have no possibility even of discussing the matter. That's the right way to go about things? Then, after he has AGREED to not continue the action you were objecting to he STILL has to remain blocked? This is about users not exceeding the limits of alternate accounts, but he has to be blocked even after he has agreed to do so pending discussion of the limits? Seriously, in what way is this NOT a punitive block? --CBD 13:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage unprotected

The reasoning behind Jeffrey Gustafson being "forced" to protect PM's talkpage isn't self-evident to me. JG, have you thought through the coercive choice that you're actually forcing on the user by that protection? PM does have another account to use, yes, but he obviously can't use his main account to discuss this issue without outing that main account. It's precisely the requests to out his main account that he wants to discuss, and we have now created a situation where such discussion by him would become pointless the moment it began. Not good. Supposing he has pertinent things to say? (Full disclosure: I know who he is, and he's not a troll by any definiton of the term.) As for his "going on and on", what about it? It's not necessary for people who don't want to read his arguments to go to his talkpage in order to be offended. Full protection of the talkpage of a banned account is a very serious business, since it's a complete gag. It shouldn't be undertaken unless we're really forced to. I've unprotected the page. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

I don't see why the talk page had to be protected. And you've halved the possible people PM could be by saying it's a "he"! Neil ☎ 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, that only works if half of Wikipedia users were female, which they're not. Assuming malenesss is still a very logical action here. Natalie 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My take

So, the Robert Black (professor) article had a link to his blog on it for a long time and all was well with the world. The page hadn't even been edited in over a month. Then on 10/26 the Professor made a blog post referring to allegations made on another site about one of our users here. The next day User:Privacyisall, to all appearances a sockpuppet created for the sole purpose of edit warring on this issue, removes the blog link from the article because it has now magically become an 'attack site'. Great contention erupts and suddenly there are all sorts of reasons why this blog link, which was perfectly acceptable and not at all controversial before, is now completely anathema to Wikipedia policies (all of them). Others disagree, edit warring ensues, Privatemusings restores the link a few times, he is indefinitely blocked.

That's the background. So far as I can see, no one warned Privatemusings that edit warring on this issue could lead to an indefinite block. Nor does anything in policy say that sockpuppets who engage in edit warring are immediately blocked for all time. Nor was the 'Privacyisall' account blocked for doing precisely the same thing in precisely the same edit war without any of Privatemusings' prior history of good contributions. The admin making the block (along with several of those supporting it) has a clear 'side' and emotional investment in the issue... and finally, Privatemusings has already stated that he would stay away from the page, thus removing any 'preventative' nature to this block.

I'm going to unblock. IF there is a consensus, rather than a thin excuse for suppression newly invented by a handful of people, that sockpuppets editing on contentious issues are not allowed to edit war at all then we can certainly see whether Privatemusings' is willing to abide by that and block him if he is not. However, there needs to actually BE such a consensus... and it'd be good to TELL the person about it... rather than blocking first and making up a reason afterwords. Only blocking the side that disagrees with you is, along with the lack of consensus or warning, also a fairly poor indicator for this having been a fully dispassionate and impartial action. --CBD 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson...did you discuss the matter with the blocking administrator? As it states in policy: Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. It may not necessarily be obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator.--MONGO 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblocked, on the caveat that he doesnt use that account to eidt war. The editing was in the same vein as what the account was previously being used for (Attack sites) so still a legitimate use for that purpose, ie keep contentious issues away from the main account. Apart from one spate of edit warring, he has been very productive with that account and has been intelligently conducting himself on the policy pages. He wasn't given a chance to stop the misuse, its quite clear he isnt using the other account to hide from the rules, so I support the unblock. Viridae^Talk 11:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus above seems to have been a block was reasonable, and an unblock would be against consensus. If we're going to unblock, I would say that if the Privatemusings account returns to its original purpose - that of working with contentious policy and suchlike - then fine. If it reverts back to edit warring, someone can always reblock. Neil ☎ 11:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

From my experiences with him, I don't think he will return to warring. Viridae^Talk 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that that is the point. Nothing at WP:SOCK enjoins editors to not make contentious edits in the areas in which they have chosen to set up alternate accounts. JzG's stated rationale above "Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand" carefully does not respond to my specific question as to whether PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about. Relata refero 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PM's main account was also active in this contentious area. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, and a dirty trick because of course I can't defend that point. Low. Privatemusings 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD, this is an unacceptable reversion of a solid, consensus supported, block. Did you discuss this matter with the blocking administrator, Guy, first, per our blocking policy? Why have you unblocked against consensus? Privatemusings is a clear goodhand/badhand account (and the "goodhand" side isn't actually all that "good" if you ask me, I know who it is but won't reveal it publicly at this time) and needs to stay blocked. Please stop this troll enabling behaviour, CBD. ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG did not make the case that Privatemusings was a "troll". He did not make the case that Privatemusings was abusing multiple accounts. Indeed, even when repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using more than one account in this matter no one said that he had been. None of that was given as any part of the reason for blocking. The block was placed for edit warring on this issue. The edit war was over. The user had agreed not to continue it. It is frequent practice to remove blocks in such circumstance. It is frequent practice to remove blocks placed by admins involved in dispute with the target. It is frequent practice to remove blocks of excessive duration - such as indefinite for a 3RR violation. Et cetera. If a case can be made for Privatemusings abusing multiple accounts and being a troll, as has been claimed subsequent to my unblock, then that case should be made. However, those aren't the things he was blocked for and the extensive discussion above included repeated requests for clarification if there WERE any such situation. There was plenty of discussion. People asked for a VALID reason to this block. None was given. An indefinite block, without discussion, without warning, for 3RR violation is NOT valid and thus I reversed it. If you have cause for the accusations which you and others have subsequently made against Privatemusings, that he is a troll and sock-abuser, you might want to make THAT case. --CBD 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to state "I'm thinking of unblocking, because of X Y and Zed" and then see what is said, instead of unilaterally unblocking in defiance of policy, which says seek consensus before the unblock, which you do not have. You seem to do this regularly and you need to stop, in my view. As for the rest, this user is an acknowledged sock, but it is a sock of a user who is making unhelpful edits in the same contentious area that this essentially SPA account is. The user should use their main account instead of obfuscating matters, because they are using this sock in a way unsupported by sock policy. Didn't we just go through this "seek consensus first" with Zscout? ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all true that my other account is active in the same area - that's hurtful, insulting, and a lie. Privatemusings 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD: PS.. it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. That's from the original notice, the very first post to this thread. So your allegation that JzG claimed this was only a revert related block appears to be unfounded, that he did not make the case for multiple account abouse. You need to act a bit less in a way that gives the appearance of rashness going forward, I think. If you had posted "I have qualms and am thinking of unblocking" I am sure several people would have made that point for you. I've seen the edits and I am satisfied this is an abusive account. It's borderline by current lax standards but those standards are changing, for the better.

PM: Incorrect. I so assert. Anyone who knows the identity of both accounts can verify it. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I shall email CBD, if I may, and should he have the time to take a look, I would welcome his views. Privatemusings 13:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD has used sysop tools in a controversial way with respect to this case, so he has strong incentives to justify his own actions. I don't think he can be impartial. Can you perhaps ask somebody who is uninvolved for an opinion? I think that would work better for you. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to - it would be particularly good to find a highly respected admin who's around at the moment - could someone put their hand up? Sincere thanks, Privatemusings 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, 'good hand / bad hand' does not equate to 'using multiple accounts in a discussion'. The fact that people repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using multiple accounts in the discussion clearly shows that this was NOT established in the 'original notice' as you are claiming. The only apparent 'bad hand' action stated by JzG was the edit warring on the link. He has subsequently re-affirmed that it was this posting of the link which 'exceeded the limits allowed' for sock accounts. So no, I cannot agree with your revisionist casting of the discussion. If Guy had been making the case of multiple accounts being used in this debate from the beginning he would not have been repeatedly asked whether there was any evidence of such. He also presumably would have responded to those requests with verification of the multi-account involvement... which he didn't.

As you now claim that there IS such abuse... I'm curious why you have not blocked both accounts? I overturned an indefinite block for 3RR violation. I stand by that action. I took it because repeated requests for any valid support for the block were not met... all that was claimed was 3RR violation with a link to a disputed site. Clearly insufficient for indef block without warning. You have now made accusations of much more serious violations. If you stand by these then block for them. I don't have evidence one way or the other and thus would direct the matter to people with the access to look into it. --CBD 14:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What matters is not how many times you asked a question, what matters is whether the question had already been answered, and whether there was consensus for an overturn prior to your acting, and whether you consulted with the original admin. I decline to overturn your overturn. I think I am much less likely to undo administrative actions taken by other administrators than you are, so I personally decline to overturn your unblock at this time. That should not be construed as support for your action in contravention of our custom, practice, and policy, nor should it be construed as not standing by the fact that we have apparent "bad hand" and "worse hand" accounts active in this overall matter. The primary account, which HAS participated in discussions about specific outing users and the policy ramifications of it, is not, at this time blocked, to the best of my knowledge, so can participate if it wishes to. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And even 3rr wasn't violated. The four reverts took place over three different days, and they just reverted vandalism by a banned user. --Alecmconroy 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Horse's Mouth

I wholly reject any notion that any edit warring I participated in was block worthy. Hey, I also reject the notion that I edit warred at all (see my talk page). I sincerely appreciate being unblocked - this has been a horrible experience. I shan't edit at all on the Prof Black article, but stick to the talk page, and will try and avoid Guy, who seems to be firmly of the same opinion. As a consistent advocate of less drama, I'd like to ask all folks to move along, so the bot can do his work in 24hrs, and this can be behind us. Privatemusings 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• You weren't blocked for edit warring. You were blocked for stepping outside the bounds of what is acceptable for an alternate account. At least one arbitrator said this was unacceptable behaviour even before knowing the identity of the main account. This block was based on a review of the contributions of both your main and your alternate accounts. I am escalating this. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy-- why are you escalating? You've had your fun-- PM got blocked, and then his talk page blocked, and everyone got all upset, and we've had all this drama, and now finally we've accomplished what a simple discussion could have accomplished to begin with-- PM agrees not to edit the Prof Black article. And there is a strong consensus at the Prof Black article that the link is okay, so PM doesn't even have any reason to come back there anyway. Can't you just let it go now? --Alecmconroy

• Fun? Fun? What the bloody hell do you mean by that? You think I blocked Privatemusings for fun? That is an absolutely outrageous suggestion and you should retract it immediately. In case you hadn't realised by now, there is a serious ongoing problem with offsite harassment and abuse of multiple accounts, and editign by proxy, to promote that harassment. I reject in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that this is anything other than deadly serious. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• For that I will sincerely apologize. I'm an American, and it seems to be our national vice to assume everyone is familiar with American English idioms. To "have fun" or "to have fun and games" does not literally mean you actually had "fun". I apologize you thought I meant otherwise. --Alecmconroy 13:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am going to disengage - essentially out of blind fury (see above). This can certainly wait a few hours before being discussed further. Privatemusings 12:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PM, if there's nothing wrong with what you've been doing then why are you using a secondary account? You said you wanted to "protect myself from any anger or hot feeling".[3] You expected a passionate reaction to your editing and you got it. Why act shocked? The fireworks and hot feelings are are over now. Let's move on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

the attack sites lot is a very contentious subject, which gets a lot of feeling going - I can understand wanting to use an alternitive account. Viridae^Talk 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so can I. But that does not give carte blanche to then use that alternate account to edit-war over links to Brandt and Bagley's pet assertion about a Wikipedia user and administrator. It was that extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused--- In your eyes, was PM blocked for sockpuppet abuse, for edit-warring, or for being part of a campaign of harassment? If he had made the Prof Black edits with his main account, would you have indef blocked him still, or would that have not merited an indef block? --Alecmconroy 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I deal with five contentious issues every day. Do I use a fresh account for each? No, not hardly. The editor has not been banned. One of his secondary acounts has been blocked. It isn't a big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The big deal is the implication for everybody else. Relata refero 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Outing?

There's been a serious allegation made upwards in the thread, and I just want to get to the bottom of it, and instead of making allusions which might not be true, just address it up front with straight talk.

JzG, PM claims here that he confided in you, by email, and revealed his real name and other accounts to you. According to PM, he trusted you as an administrator of Wikipedia not to reveal his identity to others. This is a serious trust, and as an admin of the project, it's important people be able to trust you to keep their confidences.

Now, there are two cases where I feel you would be justified in breaking that confidence.

1. According to the text of the email he's posted claims here, PM told you he trusted Admin X and Admin Y, and you could tell them if you wanted.
2. If you have a legitimate concern that PM has a conflict of interest, it might be appropriate to reveal his identity to the board or the arbitration committee.

Now, your posts on this thread suggest that you've had widespread conversations about PM's identity with a number of people, so I'm just gonna ask you point blank:

Aside from the groups listed above, have you revealed PM's identity to anyone at all?

I sincerely hope the answer is no and we can drop that part of things. --Alecmconroy 13:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I really think PM and the community deserve an answer to this question.--Alecmconroy 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

discussion of outing question

For the record, I independently determined this user's other account via CU, since this account was acting abusively. JzG did not need to reveal it to me. The primary account is editing in the same pages so really, as JzG said in the initial posting it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: "pages" does not mean the particular page in question that was being revert warred over, it means in the same general area, in particular the outing of editors and the drama surrounding efforts to deal with that unacceptable behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also for the record, discussing the abusive behavior pattern of multiple accounts used by the same editor on Wikipedia, as was done in this case, is not 'outing'. Outing would be when we engage in exposing the real life identity of someone who prefers to remain anonymous. Crum375 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you prefer to call it "Deep and extreme violation of personal trust" instead of "outing", whichever. The point is, if I say to you "You're an admin of an important project, I want to confide in you", and you prove yourself to be unworthy of that trust, it's something that shouldn't happen. If a priest violates your trust, he shouldn't be a priest. If a psychologist breaks confidence, he shouldn't be a psychologist. Whether it's an "outing" or a "gossipping" or a "violation"-- it's definitely wrong.

Mind you, I don't know that it did happen yet, but I thought I owed it to JzG to ask him straight out, rather than letting PM just make the allegations and letting them float. --Alecmconroy 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there really is no point in complaining about "outing" PM to ArbCom when most of ArbCom are checkusers and the rest will be privvy to the ArbCom mailing list where such things are discussed. Thatcher131 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about "outing" to arbcom. I encourage consultation with Arbcom. If he had a real concern, the responsible thing for Guy to do would be to ask the arbcom to rule whether or not to block PM. What I am WORRIED about, however, is the allegation that Guy basically told any other editors/admins that he felt like telling-- i.e. that Guy is inherently untrustworthy with private information. Again, I'm not saying this is true, that's why I'm asking straight out. --Alecmconroy 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would consider it highly unethical and a most serious breach of trust if Guy had shared this information with anyone who didn't already have it. I trusted Guy, in a bid to facilitate a dialog which he manifestly rejected. I might add that I believe checkuser data to only remain active for 30 days. I would like to demand a straight answer to Alec's reasonable question above. Privatemusings 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The people who know are: the arbitrators, Jimbo, and a *very* small number of people I trust implicitly (wioth far more sensitive data about myself) whose opinion I sought in a completely private forum as a sanity check rather than simply relying on gut feel. The risk to privacy is negligible, I'd say. And if not, well, then I'm sorry, but a checkuser would have turned up the same and I was actually trying to avoid outing the main account. I would note that the main reason was to eliminate a number of suspicions which people have raised here and elsewhere. I will confirm that the main account is not a prolific or high profile editor, not a sysop, and almost certainly not who you think it is. And that's all that need be said. This account is traceable at two removes to the user's RWI, and I'm certainly not going to go about publishing that kind of information. If you trust me, then you also have to trust my judgement on who I can talk to in confidence. If you don't trust me, don't send me email. Frankly the amount of drama here is out of all proportion to the mainspace contributions of all the accounts this user has used. Or at least those he's told me about. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would a checkuser have been run in the first place? As I said before, we are only concerned if this editor was gaming consensus or disrupting wikipedia; in which case a checkuser could - and almost certainly would - have been submitted by someone who was not in possession of privileged information. Instead, a block was carried out by an involved admin on someone who was editing in support of what appears to be the consensus version of a difficult page. If the presence of privileged information indicated to you that WP was being disrupted on that page or on related pages, it would be appropriate for you to indicate to the individual who provided you with that information - as privately as you were told in the first place. Instead you have claimed that, in effect, a single editor who chooses to use two accounts to edit in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles - even if the principles themselves were not blockworthy. That is not policy as written. I would find it deeply disturbing if it were. That is why all the drama. Relata refero 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Because this is an alternate account used for the single purpose of advocating contentious policy, which has stepped outside the bounds of that in order to edit-war over contentious content. I am wondering how many times I need to explain this. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I to understand alternate accounts cannot add contentious content any more?

Just because it was created in order to advocate certain changes does not mean that it violates policy to make contentious edits in line with those changes, unless those edits themselves violate policy. Relata refero 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that would depend. If the alternate account is being used to add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest, as here, then it's pretty clearly an abuse of the alternate account. Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks. We get very suspicious of such behaviour. Wikipedia is not a social network or a drama club, we're here to build an encyclopaedia, and the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle and removal of such links must be resisted, the harder it gets to remove links to banned editors trying to push their POV and mad theories into Wikipedia, and the more time we all waste on sterile debate while they continue to nudge the ocntent their way through sockpuppets, meatpuppets and even the occasional long-time user acting as a proxy. Of course, they have mutually conflicting desires: to use Wikipedia to promote their agenda, but simultaneously to wreck Wikipedia. I'd rather they failed in both aims, myself. The stakes are high for these kooks: they are on a holy crusade to bring [[[WP:TRUTH|The Truth™]] to the world and correct the lies and conspiracies promoted by those pesky reliable sources we are so keen on. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"To add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest." Right, that's what I thought. In other words, account X exists, it makes a statement about a policy debate, realises that this is going to create too much drama, so it creates account Y to further engage with that policy debate, and ceases to use account X (or at least, largely ceases using X in that area). Is this what you imply is blockworthy? If so, I damn well think a bit more drama is required.

("Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks. We get very suspicious of such behaviour." Nice going! About as subtle as a ton of bricks. Don't get distracted, please. I'm not here to waste my time talking to you, but to continue to edit. Indeed, if you stop and think for a moment, it will be stunningly obvious why your actions recklessly imperil even the most innocent successor account. Which is why I am "piling into" this debate. But still, much easier to throw around remarks about suspicions, eh?)

Finally: any attempt to claim that links to harassment websites are the main problem at WP is in itself problematic. The problem is not those links, which as far as I am concerned can stay or go. The problem is the behaviour of the guardians of our freedom to edit, which, as evidenced by you just now, steps over the line into chilling our ability to edit. Relata refero 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The main problem at WP right now is not harassment websites. It is simply that there is too much drama, and our response to it is ineffective. That is caused and exacerbated, in my view, by two major factions... those that are here specifically to cause drama rather than being here to write an encyclopedia, and those well meaning but misguided folk that play into their hands by overturning sound blocks, or by defending even the worst trollish behaviour on process grounds, on "give them another chance" grounds and what have you. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the outing question, if I understand position that Privatemusings has taken in the debates over policies, it would be OK if someone outed a RL or main account identity on a blog and if we linked to that blog in the course of normal encyclopedia writing. If it's OK to link to outing then maybe outing isn't such a big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In what universe will blocking people you disagree with over policy with the flimsiest of pretexts not increase drama? That universe is one in which WP will be pretty poorly written. Relata refero 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Last Straw

(uindent) Guy says: the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle

Guy, you have just made a personal attack. You have called Private MUsings and Dan Tobias troll-enablers, implied they are affiliated with an external site, and suggested that they are part of a campaign to distract and deceive.

RETRACT your statement and apologize, CLARIFY that you didn't mean to say anything bad about PM or DanT, or PRESENT evidence to me that they really are involved in such a campaign. These sort of bullying tactics have gone on long enough. Either DanT and PM are good faith editors acting on principle and worthy of your respect, or they're bad faith editors just here to pull your leg. If you are going to make these wild allegations in public, I want you to at least email whatever evidence you have to suggest the PM and DanT are acting in bad faith. I'm sure PM and DanT will consent to letting me know whatever it is that you know.

After all that you've done today, that you would start namecalling, it appears you have learned absoultely nothing. If your secret evidence holds up, then I'll apologize, I'll apologize with bells on. If, however, you're full of crap, I think it's time for a user conduct RFC or another arbcom case. NPA applies to EVERYONE-- even you. --Alecmconroy 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. I will not retract it, because it's what I honestly believe. Sincere people are being cynically manipulated by individuals whose principal interest is not aligned in any way with Wikipedia's aims. The fact that they are sincere people does not in any way reduce the impact of what they do. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider Dan and PM to be the sincere people? or the cynical manipulators? --Alecmconroy 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User Guy may be perceived as Wikipedian cowboy, but he has never (in my view) exploited WP in any way. He also deserves the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand User Alecmconroy states on his user page: "I don't care how wonderful Jimbo is, no one person deserves special authority over the will of the people" and he ends with "If we were going have an election for Jimbo the position, Jimbo the person would get my vote." Someone with beliefs like these is either a confused individual or have a problem with authority. I think he is both, and since he is not an admin and obviously too close to the subjects being discussed ( see his userpage and his "an essay on Badsites"). I think it would be best to remove or scratch from this discussion all his comments off the record. Jrod2 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jrod, have you READ WP:NPA? Way to go--- i complain about personal attacks, and you personally attack me. Beautiful. --Alecmconroy 20:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand the comments. His position nor his closeness to the issue have any bearing regarding the content of the statements. Either the content is valid or it is not. Bringing it up does not assume good faith. We are all here to build a better encyclopedia. Spryde 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I fear that is not correct. Not all of us are here for that purpose. And of those that think they are here for that, (I count myself among that grouping) I am not sure that all of us are actually effective at it, so that makes at least three groupings, as I said elsewhere in this thread. If you do not recognise that, then I think that is an issue. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey user Spryde, maybe I don't understand user Alecmconroy's comments, but please don't give me the AGF shenanigan. Either you know Guy and respect and appreciate him for what he contributes to WP, or you don't. Jrod2 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I support some of what Guy has done. I object to other things. Overall I say he has done wonderful things but this is not one of them. People aren't perfect nor should we expect them to be. And please do not call AGF shenanigans. I could have attacked your contribution much worse than I did but I AGF'ed and hoped that you did not understand the comments. That is all. Spryde 00:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Spryde, should I thank you for your benign comment too? Please, get off your high horse. First, you stated that I was not assuming good faith and that my comments weren't valid to this argument and now you are being benign because "you could have attacked" me much worse? What kind of a silly game is this?. If, I go by your statement: "People aren't perfect nor should we expect them to be", I would speedy close this case. Jrod2 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to have a civil and productive conversation with you about this incident. I am not playing any games nor am I on any 'high horse'. I stated the comments you made were not appropriate because of the meaning of the statements made by Alecmconroy. I sincerely hope you are not twisting my words to prove a point. My statement about perfection is clear and taking it to extremes is illogical and absurd. Good day (night), sir. Spryde 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Spryde, I am respectfully asking you to stop disrupting this discussion. I don't want to waste space on this section defending myself and my NPOV to you. Your initial comment was to me insulting and you missed my point entirely. I only thought that the statements on Alec's user page were relevant and consistent with someone who have some strong opinions about authority and the establishment itself and that should be examined. That could have explained why he chooses to have a conflict with Guy and his ways. I also asked that he stops all this. Now, that he wants Guy to apologize is to me a contradiction, there can be an element of thirst for authority if someone is trying to humble admin Guy. But again, you can accuse me of AGF violations, so I am going to refrain from making further comments. I would have stopped long ago had you not accuse me of not assuming good faith. Ultimately, I have come to terms with Alec's position and I wish him good luck. But, he has a long road (in my view) if he wants to prove that admin Guy deserves to lose his admin tools. Jrod2 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it would be awful if Guy were to lose his admin tools. I don't want that-- I want him to stop misusing them and to stop attacking people --Alecmconroy 07:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy you are waaay off the mark with your views on dans and PMs attack site linking. They simply reject the idea of instant censorship. And of course the drama is not being kept going by those who are trying to dicuss the policy (when they get a chance to discuss it without being labelled trolls) it is being kept going by people like yourself, who, in seeing this issue in black and white, label them trolls, claim their opinion is worthless because they are of that opinion and run around like a bull in a china shop trying to strip the links from long archived talk pages. Thats what creates drama, because you appear to have no concept of a civildiscussion - instead you blow your top, overreact and bingo, wikidrama ensues. Please try and think about that one. At no point has dan or PM said they advocate harrasment, they simply do not believe in thought crime. Viridae^Talk 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, I think it's rude for you to call Guy a "bull in a china shop." Please don't engage in argumentum ad hominem. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is critiscism of his method, so its a tad hard (ie not possible) to avoid ad hominem comments - when I am crisicising his approach, then I have to make my arguments "to the man". Bull in a china shop is not an insult anyway, it is simply a comment on the unsubtle way he conducts himself, which serves to magnify drama wherever he goes. Viridae^Talk 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, I am sorry if you perceive my remarks as a "personal attack". Guy said something which you are using now to discredit him. Is that a personal attack? If it's not, then me bringing up your views on authority and BADSITES should not be considered one either.In addition, I am not comfortable with the tone of your comments against admin Guy. Have you crossed the line with WP:AGF yourself? I am not here to judge that, but I am not going to sit idle and let a good admin be treated like scam. Is it possible that you maybe biased on this dispute? I am just asking questions and the only thing I thought would be fair to this argument, is that you distance yourself from it. Thank you. Jrod2 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No harm done-- and I'm sure everyone is aware that I speak as someone who opposed BADSITES, and therefore, if opposing BADSITES is grounds for blocking, as Guy seems to have indicated, obviously, I might well expect similar treatment as PM has gotten.

However, we have a serious NPA problem going on in this dialog. There is a campaign of harassment and defamation trying to allege that I, PM, DanT, GTBacchus, and others are allied with hate sites. I've tried ignoring these attacks, and they continued. I've tried pleading for it to stop, and they continued. I'd tried mocking them, and they've continued. I've tried using forceful language, and they've continued. So, now, what am I left with?

And Guy's as good a place to start as any. Either stands by his allegations or he does not. If he stands by his allusions, he should prove them, and all us anti-badsites trolls should be banned. On the other hand, if his accusations are groundless and unproven, he has spent all of today dragging the names of good editors through the mud, and I expect the community to take steps to stop him from doing this in the future.

Hopefully, he'll apologize, and promise not to defame editors in the future, and that will be the end of it. --Alecmconroy 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary break) Allegation of sockpuppet abuse

(stricken, please do no rearrange my remarks, use a diff if you like) ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that gets my attention. Are you telling me that PM was simultaneously editing Robert Black (professor) under two different accounts? Cause THAT would be a major problem. As I look over the history, I see from the page history and the talk page that, in addition to Privatemusings, the disputed link's inclusion in the article has been endorsed by myself (Alecmconroy), Altacc, Phase4, SchmuckyTheCat, Sfacets, Shojo(luke), and Hyperbole. Now, without naming names-- is Private Musing one of those people? If he is, then that would definitely be a problem. --Alecmconroy 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's busy and who knows how long it's reasonable to wait for a reply-- but as the time questions like these go unanswered, my opinion tends to approach the conclusion that "No, PM hasn't actually simultaneously edited the same page at the same time under two different accounts" --Alecmconroy 15:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that question has actually been answered. In response to my question whether "PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about", JzG said the main account was "also active in this contentious area." In other words, not that specific article, but the harassment discussion in general. So, no, the second account did not disrupt wikipedia, but both accounts were simultaneously active in a broad sphere of policy. That is the only thing consistent with everything that's been said. Relata refero 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is crazyness. Privatemusings created this account and then was hounded by various Privatemusings-sounding like accounts (I blocked a few), culminating with User:MOASPN (who did edit that page). Now, edit warring is bad, whether through one's main account or any other. I do not, however, see the same accounts editing anywhere near the same time. I've yet to look into the whole block, I gather it was for edit warring? El_C 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My summary above: a user editing in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles. I judge this to be the case from JzG's statement above: "extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem." Relata refero 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That made me more confused, not less. El_C 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.

PM's main account contributed to the discussion. PM created his secondary account for the ArbCom case: JzG thinks that was OK. Subsequently the second account did not go away, but was used to edit in contentious areas. JzG thinks that wasn't OK. There is no suggestion that they edited over the same specific issue, or in the same article; but both accounts edited in the same general area, though there is no suggestion that it happened at the same time. If you're confused, its because you're trying to understand. I'm a little confused by how this could happen myself. Relata refero 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the block was way inappropriate. CBD should have respected Guy's admin action, discussed his disagreement in a dialog with Guy and convinced him to undo it himself, or gained consensus on the noticeboard for unblocking. Leaving aside how the unblock was done, the original block was the right thing to do. Whatever privatemusings' motivation, his seeking out controversy to involve himself in does not advance the project. He should have been stayed blocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside your needlessly insulting (and just plain wrong) comments, Tom, you really should also be open about the fact that you are also a party to the content dispute at Robert Black (professor) - and I would really encourage editors to take a look at the edits you have made, because as far as I can tell you are removing information expressly against consenses, without engaging on the talk page, showing no respect to traditions of our process. That is very poor form. Privatemusings 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Tom Harrison, he should be blocked, and I will block him if I have community support. Jbeach ^sup 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with the assessment that he should be blocked. There is not enough even alleged to support that, much less evidenced. I've in the last 24 hours encountered discussion over two blocks that so far as I can tell, come down to "blocked for holding an opinion I disagree with", that of KurtWeber and this one. That is not a sufficient reason for blocking, in either that case or this one. GRBerry 02:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't block me again - I really fail to see how that could possibly help the situation. Privatemusings 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading through all of this, I'm left with a current impression no different than my inital impression PM was created as a legit SOCK to avoid becomeing a victim in the contentious BADSITES fight, a tailored purpose for the SOCK. That's been established now, most of the policy is ironed out, and so on. PM then runs into regular articlespace and starts enforcing the policy as he interprets it, getting into a possible revert-war with a possible 3RR. I say 'possible', because the wording of the probably policy says that there's no 3RR on that sort of removal, or did last time I reviewed it, a few days back. JzG took this as something which PM's regular account could've done, and should've, or else PM (the person) should've sat on his hands. As a result of the contentious nature of the edits, he blocked the account, saying it had served it's purpose, and was now becoming an excuse for non-meta-policy contentions, which ought to be handled by the regular account. I support this assessment. I totally understand PM's intent in protecting himself, the 'bad sites' have some sick freaks there, who can blame him/her/them/it for wanting to remain safe I don't have any problem with it in theory, although it does make its edits less credible because of a lack of experience perception behind them. However, when she moves outside his declared purpose, they become the bad hand, and it should be blocked because he is not making the edits she declared them had the intent to do. I've shuffled the pronouns to the point that my eyes hurt, hope that helps. I support this block, not the unblock. However, if PM is only used from now on for meta-policy debates where exposure is bad, I can accept that. ANythign else, though, block the account and toss the key. ThuranX 03:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A disagreement. You are wrong in asserting that the no personal attacks policy allows 3RR violations to remove such links. The 3RR exception language was very explicitly killed, and we seem to have consensus on what language to use. This particular link had vanished from discussion at WT:NPA because the talk page there felt it had found a different reason for removal and that it was generally agreed that it was better to use reasons other than NPA when removing links from articles, but that different reason is appropriately discussed at the article's talk page rather than WT:NPA so there may or may not ever have been consensus formed around that. GRBerry 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Another disagreement: "However, when she moves outside his declared purpose, they become the bad hand, and it should be blocked because he is not making the edits she declared them had the intent to do." Why? Where in WP:GHBH does it say that you have to stick to your original declared purpose with an alternate account? Why should non-meta-policy contentions - not contravening policy - be handled by the main account? Isn't this precisely one of the uses of legitimate socks? WP:GHBH is set up to ensure admin candidates do not conceal their record and admins do not conceal their involvement in issues where they use the sysop bit. Which of those is happening here? Relata refero 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, I stated I hadn't read it in a few days, hence the 'Possible'. Releta, PM stated that the edits from that account would specifically be for the contentious policy, not for randomly running around the project, making edits the main account could do. Further, if the editor knew those mainspace edits would be contentious, then hiding behind an alternate account to do so is contravening normal consensus building policy. Again - to protect oneself during a contentious policy debate about personal privacy makes some sense; to exploit the policies to accomplish edits which the regular account could simply find consensus for, or cite the policy to support is a problem. ThuranX 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of small points - looking at the edits you'll see that there was absolutely no violation of 3RR anywhere. It's my belief that you really have to squint at the situation to see an edit war also - but then these allegations have been largely retracted, which is good.

The irony of the whole situation, is that I can really see the points in your comments about appropriate use of accounts, and would have welcomed dialog on this - or at least notification that I was behaving in a way some felt to cross a hitherto undefined line (it's certainly not in any guideline yet - perhaps that's the more appropriate venue for discussion of this type). I've tried to respond immediately and politely to every concern raised with me - but what made me so upset and angry was from out of nowhere to be slap-banned forever and my talk page protected. I further believe there to have been serious ethical lapses, but would like at the moment for the whole situation just to calm down. I'm serving tea on my talkpage, if someone can bring the biscuits then we can leave AN/I alone. Privatemusings 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You were never banned. One of your alternate accounts was blocked. You said ahead of time that you were using this account because you expected that your edits would generate "anger or hot feeling", other words for disruption. You apprently knew it would be controversial so you explained your motivation ahead of time. So, how was this response unexpected? You knew the use of a sock puppet would be controversial because questions were raised about your previous use of sock accounts. Now you've said that you are going to "edit solely using this account",[4] rendering pointless its use in the first place. I hope that commitment includes sticking to one account in the future. Using sock puppet accounts is not an acceptable and non-disruptive method for engaging in activity likely to result in "anger or hot feeling". If we aren't willing to take the heat that our actions may cause then perhaps we shouldn't take those actions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To be indefinitely blocked with no warning was hugely unexpected. My decision to stop editing with my other account is an attempt to calm and resolve the situation. Your proposals for WP:SOCK may well gain interest and approval, but should be implemented there. Privatemusings 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You did expect to generate "anger and hot feeling". Intentionally generating anger and hot feelings is disruptive, and some might call it "trolling". WP:SOCK prohibits using a sock account to avoid scrutiny of your editing patterns. It also prohibits good hand/bad hand accounts. Both prohibitions seem to be involved here. May I ask if your user page announcement is in fact a commitment to use only one account in the future? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved, but not breached, unless WP:SOCK has been rewritten since the block. I have made this point above. Relata refero 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that. ++Lar: t/c 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Predicting that one's perspective may make people angry with you is not at all synonymous with 'trolling' which of course also requires that to be the sole purpose of your maintaining it. <rant> In fact, for the record, I have found every single instance of the use of that word, not just referring to me, but all over the wiki, to be singularly unhelpful. It's just a rubbish way of making a point. </rant - not directed at Will specifically>. But yes, I have made a firm commitment to only edit using this account. Privatemusings 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has a moment

Can someone skim a second pair of eyes over this AfD, which (aside from degenerating into a farce of sockpuppetry) is starting to fill up with bizarre BLP violations and vague allegations of interference by the Cabal, all by the (almost)-SPA Farstriker (talk · contribs)? As I've already posted a fair amount to this AfD - and apparently am now part of the Cabal myself - it would probably be less likely to end in a reversion/block cycle if someone who hasn't commented did any necessary snipping.

Also, if I am now a member of the Cabal, I'd like to lodge my extreme displeasure that neither the groupies nor the secret Wikimedia gold bullion have turned up yet. — iridescent 01:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored the really egregious part and left a friendly message. Your cabal certificate and pin are in the mail, along with the key card to access the gold bullion stored at your local branch of the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, the groupies have been diverted for an important strategy session at the Pentagon and will not be available for several days. --Haemo 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... (The annoying thing about that AFD is that all the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are quite right in his case.) — iridescent 01:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that cabal membership entitles you to access to the Bar de l'Admin Rouge on production of a block log containing at least one user whose username indicates a crusader for The Truth™. I see your block log qualifies you here. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Discussion I do note that a fair portion content was removed prior to the the edit by Farstriker @ 1900 on the 2/11 it was this diff by Farstriker at 0100 on the 2/11.but was restored two minutes later here and his comment was removed in the reversal process in error. Gnangarra 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Rkowalke insists on exposing personal details of fellow editor

User:Rkowalke is a WP:SPA that graduated from Warren National University (WNU) and now edits primarily just that article and the talk page. He has exhibited what I would characterize as an edit pattern of trying to minimize any negative information about WNU. He exhibits severe violations of WP:AGF frequently bordering on violations of WP:NPA against any editor that adds information critical of WNU to the article. He has talked about revealing what he believes is my personal name despite my protest and requests that he discuss the article and not discuss his fellow editors, [5], [6], and [7]. His editing pattern includes blatant plagiarism at which point he showed zero remorse but instead denied that copying information from the WNU website and including it without quotes or reference was plagiarism because this was for the WNU article and he wasn't claiming that he wrote it. Talk:Warren_National_University/Archive_2#Faculty_Section_plus_miscellaneous_.28plagiarism.29 He has been banned for violating WP:3RR [8]. Since his block for 3RR his edit warring has gotten much better but he has probably become even less civil. For example, he recently has insisted on posting the city location for an anon account that added an edit that he didn't like. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. TallMagic 03:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TallMagic that posting the city location is highly improper, as it is clear from other contributions by this IP under what user name this IP used to edit. --Paul Pieniezny 03:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I've deleted it five times and Rkowalke has added it in six times. He says that I am badgering him and I must produce Wikipedia policy showing that it is inappropriate or this will go on forever. Is there some explicit guideline wording that I can reference? Thanks, TallMagic 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be WP:PRIVACY, in particular the last sentence. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both SheffieldSteel and Paul, you both help make Wikipedia a friendly and professional place. Regards, TallMagic 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, it is considered a violation of WP:NPA policy. The user is singling out an individual(s) and posting personal information which has been proven to be a big no no by the arb committee. --Anon user FNA I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.204.13 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke has responded. While the response was refreshingly delightful because it was civil, I don't consider it positive, otherwise. [14] TallMagic 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:I already forgot

I_already_forgot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user with an otherwise unimpeachable contribution history, left this terribly inappropriate comment at this user's RfA. The nature of the comment (overtly sexual and subtly threatening in nature) is quite decidedly inappropriate, and would be seen as trolling from most any user, but, as noted, User:I already forgot hasn't done anything like this before, so there is a small chance the account could be compromised. Until he explains himself and accounts for his comment, I feel he should remained blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block. The comment is completely out of step of the user's other contributions. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 08:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To Catch a Predator? Block was justified. the_undertow ^talk 08:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I received email regarding the comment after I reverted it, but even then, while the intentions of the comment were explained, they were out of line. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that the edits have been explained (you may or may not disagree, but you know that the user hasn't gone batshit insane, and they haven't lost control of their account), can xe be unblocked? WODUP 08:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The user was likely responding (oddly and inappropriately) to this edit, in which I did say that I had no problems with pornography. However, in *this* case, my response would be akin to this, which is to say that an RfA is a completely inappropriate place to put something like that, as no one expects to see adult content in the middle of it. I support this block not because it was 'defending' me, but because there are places on Wikipedia where content of an adult nature is reasonable and to be expected (if, say, I searched for either of the terms he mentioned), and there are places where it is not. An RfA was not the place to pose the question so explicitly. --Thespian 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse the block wholeheartedly. There should be no place for trolls like him in Wikipedia. MaxSem 09:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• A pound says this is also Forgetaboutit4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Endorse, anyway. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you exhibit poor judgment as you are not even close. I'm sure a check user has been performed many times and has shown I only use my bot account and the I already forgot account. What makes you come up with such nonsense? Just because the other user has "forgot" in his/her name? Thats some pretty shallow detective work. Sorry for being pointed but the personal attacks are not warranted.I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• You guys really do not have a clue do you? Not only do you have a misunderstanding of what trolling is, you now accuse me of having sock accounts? I could insert a load of diffs to clue you in on to what is going on, but it's rather comical as I know most user cant or will not read past the first sentence. Also, please do not make completely and totally false accusation of me having sock accounts or being related to porn at all. It only makes you look more clueless as to what happen and to the other existing policies that would allow a person to ask for help with such articles. I could call up the anti censor crowed and cite WP:CENSOR(hello policy) to back me on this, but I'm neither pro or con censorship and would personally like to the image removed from the list of sex position article and the title "fist fuck" removed from the fisting article as well. Blocking me is fine, but don't make totally false slanderous accusations with out proof of such. I slandered no one, made no threats, and used wikipedia policy to ask a very controversial question whether you like it or not. Again, actually do some reading before speculating and try to make yourself informed and not so clueless. I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, when is the last time a troll sent a message to an admin informing them of their intentions? I suggest a few read up on trolling so they know exactly what it is and when to turn the mop into a billyclub. I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to mention this, but wouldn't it also be a good idea to block my bot and remove it's bot flag? I know how the system works better than any troll or vandal and could get away with a lot of damage as I can pretty much program anything you need done on wikipedia. If I am indeed a troll or even suspected, this should have been the first thing blocked. Just giving a heads up on how such issues should be handle by the blocking admins as I have no plan to abuse wikipedia but the bot should be blocked anyway to prevent potential abuse by a disgruntled user.I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't endorse an indef block on this account. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, etc, and it's highly unlikely that there will be an further disruption as a result. Having said that, his comment was disturbing in the extreme and totally uncalled-for regardless of the rationale. Like, seriously - Alison ^❤ 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the disturbing nature of the image but be aware that it is in one of our top 100 articles! The "fist ****" is in one of our articles as well! Disturbing or not, we have many user pushing for these type of pages and images and it has caused many grief in my vandal fighting. These things cannot be ignored and we need to know how admins will handle similar situations. --Anon user formely known as I already forgot70.6.66.144 19:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but messing around[15] on the same RfA that you posted the comment on, block evasion by socking, etc, etc is a deal-breaker for me. You've been blocked. Stand up address the root cause instead of fooling around. You've no regard for the rules you seem so concerned about - Alison ^❤ 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the length of the block. I was shocked by the inappropriate RfA comment too; both because it was replaced by the user when removed, and for the breathtaking inappropriateness of what was said. I think I understand what the user's intentions were, and those too are deeply inappropriate. RfA is not meant to be a trial by ordeal. I should note that I was just having a relatively civilised discussion with the user at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Keep or remove (part 2). In my opinion, I already forgot needs to learn better how we work here; if he shows any sign of appreciating what he has done wrong and undertakes not to repeat the offensive behaviour, I would support reducing the block to a week. So far I have not really seen any evidence of this, and the propensity to threaten, wikilawyer and bluster seen in the posts above make me think we would not be losing much by leaving the block in place. --John 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:68.26.178.226, for evading User:I already forgot's block, based on comments made here, at User talk:I already forgot, and, Thespian's RFA. I only blocked for 24 hours, as I assume we'll have this worked out by then. SQL^{Query me!} 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding right? You can block my account but you cant keep me from ever editing again (Hello account indef blocked). I had a feeling you where not completely ready for adminship... At least it must feel good for you to get some payback for me opposing your RFA right? No one has yet to provide a policy I violated (other than editing style), so my statements of admin abusing their powers are ringing through here. --anon user formerly known as I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.66.144 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So instead of fessing up to the fact that you made a mistake & apologizing, you'd rather play a game of whack-a-mole with the rest of us? Everyone has a momentary lapse of judgement, & does something wrong. If you understand why what you did was wrong, admit to having made a mistake, then this will all be over & we all can move forward & continue to improve this encyclopedia. However, if your pride is so important that you want to compound a moment's mistake with countless more -- such as this sockpuppetting foolishness -- it will only lead to the rest of us (who I bet are like me, who until now had no opinion about you good or bad) deciding to pitch in & making an indef block into a permanent community ban from Wikipedia. -- llywrch 20:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"...understand why what you did was wrong, admit to having made a mistake, then this will all be over"... Kind of reminds me of a movie where a rebel tells the dictator to F-off and then the rebel is tortured until he swears allegiance to the dictator. All the while the rebel could just apologize and bow down to the dictator and it would all be over. I will never apologize for asking (during an RFA or any other discussion) if the user would promote a controversial image and article named after a bad word to featured status. I did apologize for truncating the word "article", but that is the only mistake I made.--Anon user FNA I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.204.13 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this when I made my previous comment. I did notice a certain pointiness in my previous dealings with him, and a willingness to argue for argument's sake, rather than be guided by consensus. Although this user has made some good contributions and is clearly intelligent and knowledgeable, unless he is willing to abide by our core values (including consensus and civility), there is nothing here for him, and nothing lost in leaving the block in place. Continuing attempts to game the system just make that more inevitable. At this point the ball is firmly in I already forgot's court. I suggest they think seriously about the choices they make from here on, if they wish to continue to contribute here. --John 20:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that this has blown up into such an issue is rather ridiculous. Of course I already forgot could have displayed much more tact and courtesy in asking his question/testing Thespian, but are we permanently blocking members for one instance of inappropriate tone in 4000+ otherwise contributing edits? Block him for a few days at most, but a permanent block is unnecessary, especially given what's usually necessary for immediate permanent blocks (trolling or vandalism-only accounts, sockpuppets, etc.). This isn't a troll's first edits, but an otherwise good member of the community slipping up once. I'm not defending the style of I already forgot's question, but it isn't something to permaban someone over. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Yom that this user could have shown much more tact in the original question. And before I encountered a browser crash, my comment to this thread was along the lines of "You did something worse than harassing someone -- you were wrong." (And this response to his misbehavior didn't help the situation.) However, he came back with a couple of sockpuppets, claiming that we can't block him; that doesn't convince anyone he's been misunderstood, & is still a valuable contributor. Then again, I haven't seen any more posts from him, so maybe he understood what I was trying to say & took a break from Wikipedia to calm down, collect his thoughts, & will engage in some constructive dialogue. That would end the block pronto, & if he had done this in the first place, it would have been over in a few hours or less. I have no problem with letting him come back; as I wrote above, I don't have an opinion about him, good or bad. My comment above was more along the lines of advice, rather than a threat from some power-hungry Admin. -- llywrch 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something we have a good 'pedia builder who said one really inappropriate comment and is indefinitely blocked. I am not sure how this is consistent with the way some other cases are handled with destructive edit wars, reverts and ample swearing in edit summaries. Why is this not a 1 or 3 day block and be done with it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block was justified before the block evasion, and now is somewhat obvious. Addhoc 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

First I'm accused of being a vandal and a troll even though...

• I use POLICY to ask very valid and specific questions. Totally legitimate question on a controversial image that has been removed from an article by me and jimbo wells with both of us leaving it after other wikipedians used POLICY to keep it in the article even though the style was completely different from the other images. Not some of my best edits but I learned and grew tremendously over the issue and to work with different social standards [16].
• trolling does not include giving notice via email of ones intention.
• the questions are totally relevant to a topic (Pornography addiction) the potential admin had minor edit conflicts with [17]?
• ***A bad word*** has been a wikipedia article for some time now and asking "what is your opinion about" the article and if they would help make it a featured article (which I have no interest in doing) is a perfectly valid question.
• the question sounded a bit strange but a large portion of our user base are learning english or use english as a second language and nothing uncivil or threating was added in the question but was worded in a way that was less eloquent like a person using ESL. A potential admin should know that users are often accused of trolling or vandalism just for the simple fact they have a hard time with english. This was a valid way to ask a question during an RFA as nothing was uncivil or a violation of policy but would indicate how they handle poorly worded questions.

Then I'm accused of having a sockpuppet account [18] and being a child predator [19]. Which is totally uncivil and is slanderous given the fact that my identity is know by a few here on wikipedia. If any one of you was falsely accused of being a predator or creating a sock account, you would feel the same way... trust me. I did not make any threats about the slander and only gave notice that it's not right to make such accusations. Is this trolling or making threats, why am I accused of "the propensity to threaten, wikilawyer and bluster seen in the posts"? Another fire from the hip statement in my opinion.

So now I'm indef blocked ("significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy") and accept the fact that the User:I already forgot account is gone for good. No worries, I'm here for wikipedia and not to rack up an edit count. So I go ahead and communicate on the talk pages... no distributive edits, just communicating the issue at hand using an IP address instead of an account. Then an admin starts throwing blocks to the IP accounts I use even though though I have a right to invoke POLICY since my edits are not disruptive and are only meant to communicate and help wikipedia as stated in the policy. I also have a right to invoke POLICY because the indef block is not a ban but being interpreted as such and because the block is being used as punishment for using bad-words in an RFA which the policy is clear blocks are not to be used as punishment.

Then, since the account is indef blocked, I make the statement that I cannot be kept from ever editing again (and yes, I expect admins to know the difference from WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN) since the block is potentially forever, that I can still contribute constructively using an IP account. So with that statement I'm now taunting the block? No, I'm saying that since the account is blocked indefinitely and I'm not trying to get it back, that I can still contribute constructively without and account.

Well I guess thats another strike against me, because now I'm accused of creating sock accounts (which by definition is incorrect) even though no trolling, deception, or any type of vandalism has been done. Is this how the mop is used? Or is stating "adminship is no big deal" and acting as if they wield a mop instead of a billy club just part of the curtsy and walk down the isle of approval to adminship? I feel adminship is in fact a big deal depending on the user and should be looked at as a big deal during the RFA. Only after the RFA process should it be looked at as not a big deal. I know that my opinion goes against Jimbo's and consensus opinion on adminship, but I see how things are much different from a few years ago and how we must evolve with the changes. I hope this can be an example of how the admins can turn a mop into a rifle and fire from the hip with out knowing how to enforce policy or understanding the issues at hand. Yes I used bad-words, yes my RFA question was loaded and very complicated, but does that warrant firing from the hip??? Who knows??? I'm sure now I will be accused of attacking admins when all I'm trying to do is communicate that we have issues with admins pushing personal editing styles and using the mop as a billy club without true consensus. Take it as constructive communication or keep making accusations of trolling, either way, I'm not worried as I'm just a volunteer not looking for some sort of personal gratification other than losing a good encyclopedia. But on the bright side, I have hard copies that I should really get back to using anyway... Nothing can replace the smell of an old book and a silent keyboard. --User formerly known as I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.194.80 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've considered responding to this a few times, but I'm not sure quite what to say; I don't actually think that I almost forgot's issues are actually with me, or they weren't until they decided to start in on my RfA because the options here are 'admit you were wrong,' and 'stay the course, regardless.' Despite the block evasion and trolling, this has very little to do with me, but because it does involve my RfA, I feel like I should say something. I truly appreciate the work several admins have been doing to try and keep my RfA focused on the actual RfA, and not this. This has been tricky, because there've been a number of things that if this were over anyone else, I would be right there to help. I just wanted people to know that I've been hanging back because in this case, it is inappropriate for me to do otherwise. Ironically, I don't want my RfA to get bogged down in this drama. Really, I prefer my dramas to remain on the stage. --Thespian 07:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with you and is simply the luck of the draw. It is in fact %100 about your RFA as I've never crossed any of your edits (or if I did, I didn't take notice) and based my questions off your statements in the pornography addiction article and the statement that you are a wikignome. The comments in the pornography addiction article didn't come off as much of a content dispute but I could see how the discussion got you a tad bit irritated(for the lack of a better word) as you had to try and convince people of your stance and personal experience with the subject. I could totally relate to your situation so I decided to ask questions that I personally had conflicts with knowing that being a wikignome (I consider myself one as well so again I can relate... Well, actually more of a wikinomad), it's only a matter of time before you come across the same situation as I did. Personally, giving that you said you worked as a phone sex operator, I thought you would have said something along the lines of not having an issue with the image and article but would not personally help to make the articles (List of sex positions and ****) to featured status. Referencing a couple of featured articles that had sexual content and talking about how it caused a stir with community would have added extra points to my support. Obviously the alternative is what we are seing here... Poor administration actions, violation of policy, enforcing policy that doesn't exist, no understanding of trolling, incivility by administrators, and turning the mop into a billyclub for punishment. Right now I would give you a few support points for reading and tring to understand the issue, however I would still avoid full support being that you are not familiar with trolling and the policy surrounding this issue. Also, hanging back and letting other people answer a question asked on your RFA makes me sway more towards oppose. You need to be ready to answer your own questions even if the question may contain a bad word or two. You can take this as an attack or you can respect it as building consensus or giving an unpopular opinion on your RFA for the sake of preparation for the battle (trolling and vandalism). Anyway, its not about you personally and early congratulations on your RFA. Hopefully you can look at every situation from both sides and not follow the trend of making knee jerk decisions and firing from the hip. Follow policy the best you can and try to remain pro or con nothing and work with just the facts. --Anon user formely known as I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.90.254 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that User:I already forgot thought it would be a good idea to perform a behavioural research experiment by making a certain post in User:Thespian's RfA. This experiment was a success for all concerned, in that it enabled the wider community to learn a good deal about how Thespian deals with a crisis. So much for the good news. I'm sure User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson did not intend to perform an ironic counter-experiment, but the block sadly did produce a lot of data.(withdrawn as unhelpful; just read the post above) Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• All I'll add to this is that last time I checked, a block of an account that no other admin is willing to overturn constitutes a de facto ban. As such, the contributions of the individual behind the blocked account can be reverted on sight and the accounts/IPs used blocked. Other than that, I'd say it is time to close this thread and end the dramady; unless someone thinks User:I already forgot should be unblocked...--Isotope23 ^talk 18:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. Only after "no administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned". Which at that point, you would list my blocked account User:I already forgot and related bot accounts (User:JabbaTheBot and User:Alpha beta) at Wikipedia:List of banned users. --Anon user FNA I already forgot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.204.13 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat on the Helpdesk

Resolved

An IP user has just posted a rant on the helpdesk. [20] Among the text of the rant, which apparently blames Wikipedia for them not being able to access Google on their mobile, is a threat to contact the FCC. Now while I know that the FCC won't be able to do anything about it, I still believe it goes against WP:LEGAL. I would respond, but in these situations, I usually piss them off or make the situation worse in some other way. I believe that a sysop needs to take action. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. We have no place this kind of crap on Wikipedia. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 16:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

At least we can get a good laugh out of it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not bite a newbie. It is not a legal threat. I would have said "I am sorry that you feel that wikipedia is affecting your google access. If you have further information, please let me know. Your help in resolving this matter, even if it involves the FCC, is more productive than a potentially hostile complaint where you don't give us enough information to solve a potential problem." The user did not threaten to sue. That's a legal threat. Making an ordinary complaint is not a legal threat as much as complaining to ArbCom is not a legal threat. I would block only if the response was hostile. I do suspect this is a crank. Miesbu 18:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A "legal threat" isn't only a threat of a lawsuit. It can also be a threat to call the police, a threat to contact federal authorities (such as the FCC), etc. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is a six-month block really appropriate for an IP address? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• It varies by IP address; AOL IPs are blocked for less time because there is too high of a risk for collateral damage; open proxies are indef'd, as are some misbehaving static IPs (I believe we had an LTA page for a vandal who used a static IP?); average dynamic IPs get short blocks depending on the severity of the infraction. I've seen yearlong IP-blocks for school districts (in fact, most of my morning editing last year was done from school, and their IP was anonblocked). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Amir Abdul-Malik Ali

I've identified a number of single-purpose accounts used only to edit war for the last few months on Amir Abdul-Malik Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Sindbad4086 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mortimer Gleet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imhotep5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irydhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buster Friendly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.207.54.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For now, I've only protected the article, but am welcome to ideas on what, if anything, to do with the accounts. east.718 at 21:30, 11/3/2007

This page is not to be left move unprotected

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Admins should not ever set any protection expiry time for this page, even if they either change their protection level to [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] or [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]. 75.36.255.227 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad there's no way to protect from edits for a finite amount of time, but move protect indefinitely. Feature request? feature creep? –Crazy tales talk/desk 02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The page can be only manually removed semi-protection by admins after having been protected for a certain amount of time, but should indefinitely remain move protected. Setting an expiry will result the move protection to be automatically removed from the page, once the expiration has ended. 75.36.255.227 03:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to hardcode this warning into the page that admins see when changing the protection levels? This sounds like the sort of thing that could easily be forgotten. Carcharoth 12:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to leave a message for an administrator, who most recently move protected the page, on his talk page. 75.36.255.227 22:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely possible to add a note to the page that admins see, but I'm not sure how necessary it is. I agree that this page should never be unmove-protected, but adding a note doesn't just add it to the screen for this page; admins would see it no matter what page they are protecting. That in itself isn't a bad thing, as Special:Blockip has all kinds of notices and reminders. You'll just have to find the correct Mediawiki page. - auburnpilot talk 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Admins may see a protection log at the bottom of a MediaWiki interface, when they click a 'protect'/'unprotect' tab at the top of a page. Sometimes, they fail to check it before they set a different protection level with or without an expiry. I do not think an additional note for this kind of protection is necessary to be added to the page, not even the interface. 75.36.255.227 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate note to the interface. Seems un intrusive enough. Mercury 00:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's good to note, but it should also be noted that there have only ever been 3 page moves on this page, not exactly a critical situation. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:AS 001

I ask that someone look over the contributions for User:AS 001, who does not seem to be here for the purpooses of building the encyclopedia. All of the edits from this account have been either criticizing admins or opposing the nominations for adminbots. Community input requested. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging by this diff, I think Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) may be the person to ask. Viridae^Talk 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), right? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bah, I screwed that up twice. Viridae^Talk 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And based on this diff, he would appear to be a sock of banned user Bill Ayer (talk · contribs). He was also created 47 minutes after Bill's indef block. Someguy1221 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol I wondered why there was a banned and sock template. Viridae^Talk 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Bill Ayer claimed to be airline CEO Bill Ayer, and as I recall, was told he could create a new account as a privacy issue. However, he created two accounts AS 001 (talk · contribs) and AS 002 (talk · contribs). The first was to avoid a block the the Bill Ayer account, and the second to avoid a block on the AS 001 account. The contribs do make him look a bit sockish. - auburnpilot talk 14:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reblocked AS 001 indefinitely as a disruptive single-purpose account. On reviewing Bill Ayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s contributions, he doesn't seem new, either. I do not see any reason to think this user is making a good-faith encyclopedia-building effort. Comments welcome. Picaroon (t) 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

They're socks of banned user Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Picaroon (t) 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just a bunch of admin who have nothing better to do. Where's the disruption, the reason for blocking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AS 003 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, User:AS 003 has appeared, been blocked and appealed his block. I've reviewed and declined the unblock request. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Review of Mattisse's Talk page

Mattisse was recently blocked by the admin LessHeardVanU after LessHeardVanU viewed the posting to AN/I I made several days ago about Mattisse's treatment of another user. The block was for 24 hours. However, after viewing the user's Talk page [21], I believe the block should extend further and a review of the user's sockpuppets should be made if technically feasible. Much of the improper conduct is directed toward LessHeardVanU, but extends to other users as well, including myself. Though LessHeardVanU is willing to look the other way, at the same time he is ignoring years of misconduct by this user and her recent insults to other users. The administration should not turn a blind eye to this kind of conduct. - Cyborg Ninja 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Included is a threat to user Blueboar, who was originally the victim of the subject of the previously stated AN/I posting. [22]

Blueboar, you have no credibility with me. I will cause you endless misery if I am unblocked. Please make sure I am not. You are a hypocrite and I have no respect for you sanctimonious two-faced attitude. I did everything I could to get through to you to no avail. Pleaded with you for help.

Now I am saying, you better make sure I am blocked forever. I will never contribute anything constructive to Wikipedia again. It is in your interest to have me blocked forever. Remember that. So do it. --Mattisse 02:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyborg Ninja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) neglects to mention that I also blocked their account for violating a warning I gave in regard to harassing User:Mattisse by attempting to create disruption on articles and in user talkpages previously edited or interacted with by Mattisse. Cyborg Ninja also left this message on my talkpage regarding said block - I'm a little confused that I am now being used as an example by Cyborg Ninja in a complaint regarding Mattisse... My review and block of Mattisse, and Mattisse's subsequent posts in relation to it with me and other editors, is nothing to do with Cyborg Ninja; but serves as an indication of the level of obsession this editor seems to demonstrate with the other. Whatever problems I may think that Mattisse has with their interaction with some other contributors I recognise that they produce a lot of good quality content for the encyclopedia. I feel that Cyborg Ninja should be encouraged to turn their attention to help building the encyclopedia and to drop the matter of the edits of Mattisse. LessHeard vanU 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The specific edit in question is this one. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That comment was made in anger, after I blocked, and was later rescinded and removed with the help of another admin. LessHeard vanU 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be me I think, the two most inflammatory things are gone now... I'm not sure how this is all going to play out but I'd advise just waiting and seeing, for a while at least. Cyborg Ninja, if Less is cool, you should be too. Let's just everyone see what happens for now, eh? ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that an administrator such as you, LessHeard, would think that my actions are not in good faith. Anyone, frankly, can see how offensive and disturbing Mattisse's behavior is, and your attempt to claim that I'm somehow "obsessed" is not the type of behavior appropriate of an administrator. You yourself saw that my AN/I posting from several days ago about Mattisse's attack on Blueboar was legitimate, and yet you have never thanked me for notifying the administration it. Instead, you continued with your subsequent block of me to tell me to "use appropriate avenues." Apparently asking for an informal arbitration for Caisson (Asian architecture), and then a formal one, and then creating an AN/I posting after days of attempting to forgive, is evidence of "stalking" and "harassment" to you. You see, I believe that the stronger person ignores insults from others to them, but will not stand idly by when others are insulted and harassed. That is a quality of a strong, personable human being. Not an "obsessed" one. By the way, as for me leaving out how I was blocked, look DIRECTLY ABOVE YOU. - Cyborg Ninja 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this issue is not resolved until other administrators become involved due to your conflict of interest, which you yourself cited in a previous discussion about a week ago. Even if there were none, your judgment seems severely flawed here and I plead to other administrators to review Mattisse's history, including 18 known sockpuppet accounts (and more), multiple conflicts with other users besides myself, and current use of threats and vile insults before considering this matter resolved. Once again, the type of behavior visible on the user's talk page is not at all indicative of a worthy Wikipedian contributor, and bare in mind the majority of the user's edits consist of adding citation tags, up to the amount of 300+ a day. - Cyborg Ninja 03:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the {{resolved}} tag as neither party appears blocked - nor needs to be. This matter is still open. LessHeard vanU 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that Mattisse could definitely improve the approach taken but what I am seeing is that some attempt to improve things is already underway. Perhaps I'm too optimistic but I'm not sure that Cyborg Ninja's approach is the best way to go, I'd let this abide a while, as I said. Citation tags, if well placed, are helpful, they advance the improvement of the encyclopedia. We all do what we can to help. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who added the resolved tag, but I noticed that Mattisse mentioned she didn't know she was blocked originally for the 24-hour block, so maybe there's a bug. I don't really have an "approach" except to review Mattisse's treatment of other people through her contributions page because of the number of times I've seen other people have conflicts with her. There's a policy issue going on here with the administration -- and that problem lies with giving dozens of chances that aren't deserved. I'm all for forgiving people, but this is ridiculous. Mattisse had 18 known sockpuppet accounts, constantly fought with other users, said she'd vandalize and issued threats, was the subject of multiple AN/I's and RFC's, and repeatedly claims she'll leave Wikipedia in order to garner sympathy. It's very disturbing to me that the administration is unwilling to do any research. I have my own life obviously (hell, I just got laid last night), but even I'm willing to do more work and frankly a better job than LessHeard vanU here. I have tried to involve mediation in the Caisson article, which Mattisse rejected both times. I have tried to help on the drapetomania article, but due to Mattisse's pride was ignored. And yet, LessHeard vanU ignores this and believes that asking a question about old people on oil rigs is harassment.

Even though I tend to ignore insults to me by Mattisse and focus on her attacks of other people... One thing that is highly despicable about this entire thing is something she left on her talk page about how stupid she thinks my User page is. My User page describes my extensive, chronic and terminal illnesses. How could you possibly put my behavior, which has been entirely polite and civilized, on the same level? I was blocked for the same amount of time as Mattisse. If I said what she did, do you think I would expect not to be banned? Of course not! The vile words spewed after her block are not from just anger. They're from someone of unsound mind. The irony that she claims to be a psychiatrist is not lost on me. - Cyborg Ninja 05:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The resolved tag was added in error, which I confirmed with the editor concerned after I removed it, and nobody was indef blocked. LessHeard vanU 14:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

CN- diffs, please, of where she's had a go at your userpage. I think it was some of your other comments (maybe on your talkpage?) she said weren't worth answering. She's not a psychiatrist, but a PhD in psychology. I don't think she picked specifically on your userpage at all, she definitely didn't say anything definite about any details on it. But if someone were to, it certainly wouldn't be for your illnesses;) It is you who was by implication ageist and sexist, making personal comments about Mattisse's age and sex, which is why you were blocked, as the person blocking you explained to you.Merkinsmum 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour

I am being targeted with uncivil behaviour from Cyrus XIII.

I added templates to the Dir en grey article, as I feel the article needs minor adjustments to meet the Wikipedia guidelines.

Cyrus XIII has continued to vandalise my posts, which were meant to improve the article. The Dir en grey article has original research, misinterpreted citations, and is becoming a news release for the topic. The lead paragraph in-particular has a misinterpreted citation.

I requested the use of the talk page, and had to give a friendly warning to Cyrus XIII on his/her talk page, after they called my contribution "crap" and made ill-considered accusations.

I warned this user again, because they have since repeatedly made ill-considered accusations; by modifying my signature to make it seem like I am a different editor. I have asked Cyrus XIII to stop their uncivil behaviour, and directed them to various Wikipedia policies. This user has since vandalised the same article, and seems to want to cause an edit war.

I request that an admin please intervene, by imposing minor disciplinary action on Cyrus XIII if necessary, and to investigate my claims to improve the Dir en grey article to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Information can be found at [Dir en grey talk page] at the heading Unencyclopedic content. There are also warnings on Cyrus XIII's talk page. Update: This sentence in-particular "and are among the Japanese musicians who have enjoyed notable success in Europe and North America." in the lead paragraph; is unnecessary, and its references say nothing of the sort. 122.49.135.245 04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, 122.49.135.245. From the Dir en grey talk page, it seems that Cyrus XIII believes you are a user repeatedly blocked for three-revert rule violations and ban evasion through editing anonymously. What truth is there to that belief? Thanks, William Pietri 04:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A quick review of the article in question and the edit patterns of the involved parties shows that this anonymous editor is most likely an IP sock of Jun kaneko (talk · contribs · logs · block log). --Kralizec! (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

William Pietri, occasionally when I visit the Wikipedia, there will be a new message waiting. Mostly it is about a dispute I have no knowledge about, and in rare cases, I am even blocked from editing. In fact, I remember the first time I went to edit an article, my IP was blocked. That was early last year. Cyrus XIII was politely informed about making ill-considered accusations, as I don't appreciate being called a fraud, nor do I like my contributions being disregarded as "crap"

I also don't appreciate your post Kralizec, as you're making assumptions and assuming bad faith. 122.49.135.245 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

None of my contributions were disruptive, and I tried to improve the article to meet the Wikipedia guidelines, and for people visiting the article. 122.49.135.245 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So just to be sure, you are not Jun kaneko? If you are not, then you should go create an account, so that you are not mistaken for other people. Once you've done that, go to the talk page of the article in question and start fresh by politely suggesting one modest change. Once your fellow editors have reached consensus, then feel free to make the change. I'm sure it's upsetting to be mistaken for someone else, but Cyrus XIII has clearly had to deal with someone who has been very disruptive, so you should treat his very reasonable misunderstanding with sympathy, not with requests for punishment. Thanks, William Pietri 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually did not request for punishment, I requested that an admin look into my claims about the article, and carry out a "minor disciplinary action on Cyrus XIII if necessary"

The section "2007: The Marrow of a Bone" is becoming like a new release section.

The section "Style and subject matter" contains much original research.

The lead paragraph also contains original research, as well as sentences that are Unencyclopedic, as well as misinterpreted citations.

After recent disruptions, I feel the aid of an admin is the only way to correct the article if needed.

Mostly I only view the Wikipedia, I rarely edit articles. Mostly only to make it more encyclopedic, but I guess creating an account is a solid idea. 122.49.135.245 05:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence strongly suports that this is Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), based on historical editing patterns in the various articles involved, and on the his reactions today to the reverting by two editors of the inappropriate templates he added to two articles. His post here at AN/I shows that he is learning how to WP:GAME the system, however, his multiple reverts on Dir en gray and Visual kei today along with his typical harrassing warnings on my page and Cyrus' page today, show his identity.

In addition to the IP listed above, he edited today using: 122.49.156.30 (talk · contribs). This can be seen in the Visual kei revision history for today, here and here.

He also posted today on my talk page, accusing me of Wikistalking for reverting his changes, and he also placed warnings on Cyrus' talk page. These are actions he has done in the past, such as a month ago when he posted approximately 15 messages on my talk page from two of the IPs listed below, after I requested semi-protection of the page he was IP-vandalizing.

With at least two of the other IP's he's used, he signed his user name Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), in IP edits: here and here.

He has edited using these IPs in addition to the two listed above:

• 122.49.157.149 (talk · contribs)
• 172.203.23.174 (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.173.58 (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.175.210 (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.137.70 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.158.81 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.253.69 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.249.86 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.167.206 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.229.216 (talk · contribs)

Also please note:

• prior 3RR report resulting in blocks for user and IP

• prior block-evasion report an AN/I

• prior request for semi-protection due to IP edit warring

I hope that provides enough information. I understand the need to assume that an IP user from a dynamic IP range may not be the same as another person who has used that IP. But in this case, it would be a huge coincidence and very unlikely, that an unrelated user would immediately take up the same patterns of harassment and edit warring previously shown by another editor known to use the same IP range. This user has caused a lot of hassles for several articles and at least three editors, over a period of months. --Parsifal _Hello 05:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the type of harassment I am committing? My warnings were fare considering your actions, and the refusal to use the talk page.

How trying to improve the article, to be encyclopedic, and remove original research; disruptive?

It seems you have an issue with someone else, and are reverting my posts to be vendictiv, and/or protecting information on the page for personal reasons. 122.49.135.245 06:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To explain, if you have previously been banned from Wikipedia (which is different from blocking), then you can't edit at all, regardless of how good your edits are. JuJube 06:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I mostly just view articles. If there is something wrong with it, I try to fix it. (such as removing original research)

I have never even been blocked, and I'm quite disappointed in regards to how this simple matter is being handled. After reading the Dir en grey article, there were problems with it. That article linked me to the Visual Kei. Reading that article I found it became very repetitive, so I placed a template up informing people about that.

Parsifal removed the templates from the Dir en grey article, citing "vandalism" and then removed the templates from Visual Kei article, citing "vandalism"

How is that vandalism? read the Visual Kei article, it repeats itself, and the problems in the Dir en grey are evident. It seems these users have other motives for their edits. 122.49.135.245 06:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like someone to read the Visual Kei article, and notice how repetitive it is. Then check the history log, and notice Cyrus XIII's entry. Update: afterwards, please read the history log for Dir en grey and take note of their entry's. These two users seem to be quite disruptive with their edits, and appear to have other motives for their edits (as the templates are clearly evident to the articles) 122.49.135.245 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I am not going to argue with this user. He filed his report here about Cyrus, not about me. He didn't even mention my name in his report. After I provided evidence to help administrators here decide how to handle the situation, now he's complaining about me - what a surprise. And for someone who claims not to edit Wikipedia much, he knows a lot of abbreviations and policy terms, and how to find this noticeboard. I didn't even use the word "vandalism" in my edit summaries, I used the abbreviation: "RVV (IP - SPA))", because I recognized his behavior from the prior incidents. As far as I can see in the revision history, Cyrus also didn't use the word "vandalism" either. So, how did this inexperienced IP user know the meaning of RVV?

Suggestion. It seems to me, semi-protection of Dir en gray and Visual kei for a month or so would be helpful. --Parsifal _Hello 08:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My comments are directed at the admin's for assistance in cleaning up these articles, because it was obvious that it was the only way to get the situation solved.

I was hardly "complaining" about you, and to be frank, your contributions appear to have a different purpose. A question, how exactly am I inexperienced? Saguy1982 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you were not complaining about me. Now that you have an account, I will view your actions from here on with an open mind. I would be pleased to discover that you are not the same person we've been discussing, who caused so many problems. (Even if you are the same person, if you have now decided to change your ways and start over with an approach respectful of other editors, and without edit warring, that would be OK too, however unlikely that may be.)

Regarding my comment referring to you as an "inexperienced IP user", that was not intended as an insult and was based only on your statement above that you mostly view articles and don't edit them.

I'm willing to start with a clean slate with regard to your new user name and interact with you based on your current actions. Over time, if the old patterns re-emerge, that will be apparent.

Regarding the edits to the articles, I will not be much involved with those. Cyrus is knowledgeable on those topics and has been working on those articles along with a few others. My purpose there has been to help stop edit-warring and to vet references, at the request of some of the article editors who were seeking an uninvolved third party. I will still watch the articles for edit-warring, but I will mostly leave the content discussions to you and the others who are better informed on those topics. --Parsifal _Hello 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(PS. When you respond to comments on talk pages, please use colons : to indent your replies, so we can see the threading of the conversation, as I have done with my reply to you above). --Parsifal _Hello 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up. Ok, so now I've reviewed some of your edits, and while this will progress to a content dispute not specifically related to the AN/I report, I am entering this here "for the record". You need to review the Wikipedia policies WP:Verifiable and WP:Original research. In this diff of your edit to Dir en gray, you used this edit summary:

(Minor article fixes. Original research and nencyclopedic content removed. Two sections still need work. Note on talk page)

However, your edit removed three completely solid reliable sources that support the content of the text you removed. For example you removed this text from the section about their tour success: "'' Again, all shows sold out within days.", and you removed the Wired magazine news article footnote that clearly stated in detail how fast the shows sold out.

You removed this phrase from the intro of the article:

"As of 2007, they have released six full-length records."

Then, on the talk page you described that as "Unencyclopedic. That statement was directly supported by two reliable source references that you also removed, which is inappropriate. And what exactly is unencyclopedic about stating how many albums they've released?

To say the least, this is not a good start for your new account. You've removed reliable references that directly support content of the article text and then changed the text to remove the information supported by the references.

Your various other talk page complaints about the article are too complex for me to go into here. A few of your edits seem like they may be OK. But the removal of valid, reliable source references and the text they support, is a bad start, so please don't continue down that path.

If you think the references do not support what the text shows, then quote the reference on the talk page and show the editors there how you see the reference being misinterpreted. I've read those references myself and they seem correct. There is no reason to remove them. If you want to debate about that, do so on the talk page; but please do not remove sources without discussion.

I suggest you read and follow WP:CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. --Parsifal _Hello 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Parsifal has helped improved the article, and that this situation is pretty much resolved. As discussions are taking place on the articles talk page, which were refused before, apart from Cyrus XIII's rather abruptly rude comment. As I don't have much knowledge on the subject, I think its best for those that do, fix the issues remaining, either by reworking or providing references. Saguy1982 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

administrator attention needed, please

[posting this sub-section here, because it follows on to the comments just above - the next subsection below was posted prior to this subsection --Parsifal _Hello 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC) ]

Administrators, I know you are overloaded on this page, and this is a complicated report, but this needs your attention. As of now, I am disengaging, other than adding this sub-section to request that someone please review this situation.

The new account Saguy1982 (talk · contribs), has already shown the same disruptive edit-warring and uncivil user-attacking as Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), per the discussion in this report.

• The comment from Saguy1982 immediately above is not what he first wrote. He changed that comment after reading my comments on the talk page, and rethinking the fact that he had shown his true identity by impulsive actions I will explain here.

• His comment above is also simply false. The situation is not resolved. I do not believe he considers that I improved the article. He removed the sources I restored at least twice and has argued about it on the talk page.

• I went out of my way to show good faith when Saguy1982 created his new account. But his first edits were to remove solid reliable sources, that I had personally vetted by reading them. I reported that here, and then I did NOT revert all his changes, I only restored the references he had removed with related text I had personally confirmed was supported by the references. I added a note on the talk page, explaining my actions.

• His response was to post a vandalism warning on my talk page.

• This is exactly the same behavior as Jun kaneko (talk · contribs) has always done.

• He also replied on this page (above) and called my good-faith edit vandalism. He used an IP to post that note, and to place the vandalism warning on my page while logged out. Then he logged in and added his signature to the vandalism warning. Then after he saw my report here, he changed his mind and erased the vandalism warning from my page.

• He then continued his edit war and deleted the same reliable reference from the article a third time. How reliable is that reference? It's a report specifically about the topic, from the association that produces the Grammy awards!

Now, this new account has shown his true colors, he has shown that he is the same user that's been edit warring on this article all along. I really tried to accept his new approach with good faith, but we see the result. I don't listen to this band or this kind of music, and generally, I don't edit this kind of music article. I'm there because I was invited months ago, to help stop the edit-warring with consensus from an outside editor.

Saguy1982 has shown himself as a sockpuppet of Jun kaneko, based on showing identical edit-warring and uncivil user-warning, within his first few edits. It's very unlikely that's not the case, because he knew in advance what the problems were with Jun kaneko, from this report that goes into all of it in detail, yet he couldn't stop himself from doing the same behaviors again, multiple times.

What should be done? What's the usual response to this list of offenses: Extended-multiple-instances of IP- and user-account sockpuppetry, edit-warring, harrassment, and vandalism... ?

In addition to any actions on those accounts, Dir en gray and Visual kei should be semi-protected for one month as a cool-down period. Other articles may become targets after that, if they do, the same solution should be applied.

As I said in my initial comment here, he is learning to WP:GAME the system. Cyrus concurred about this in his comment below. While Saguy1982 has replied to my post on the article talk page, pretending politeness (right after posting a vandalism warning on my talk page), he has not addressed the actual concerns and he has specifically avoided my invitations to form consensus or to provide examples of the way in which the sources he removed don't fit. He's dodging the issues and trying to make up for his lapse in posting that vandalism notice and comment.

I can't continue working on this without backup. If there is no admin who is willing to look into this and either take action now, or issue some unambiguous warnings to this user (and follow up later to make sure they are abided), there's nothing more I can do, and I will withdraw from editing the articles or trying to save them from damage.

I should withdraw anyway, because he's harrassed me in the past and I don't want anything further to do with him.

So I guess at this point what I'm saying is - either someone monitoring this board will take this up as a project, or, this disruptive user will continue to disrupt. If an admin here does take up this project and has any questions, I'm happy to help if I can.

Thank you. --Parsifal _Hello 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

repeated request for a reply from an administator

Hello - would someone please reply?

If this report is too complicated, or if it's in the wrong place, please at least offer me the simple courtesy of an explanation.

I'm a long-time productive good-faith editor, and so is Cyrus, who also provided information in this report. I don't go to the trouble of providing detailed evidence without good reason.

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I formatted my request in a way that is not helpful for you. Ok, fine, so tell me what the problem is.

But complete silence, on a report where two established editors have alerted you to disruption by a known mutliple-blocked edit-warring vandal, and a likely IP sockpuppet...

what's up with that?

Would you rather that we simply ignore the disruption and move on to other articles?

I did not do this work to benefit myself, I'm trying to help Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia not want my help? Or is this noticeboard too overloaded and the system in need of some new procedures?

At this point, all I'm asking for is for someone to acknowledge this report, please.

--Parsifal _Hello 08:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

continued... comment/evidence added prior to above thread

I should probably comment here as well: First of all, I have to agree with Kralizec! and Parsifal, that the editing patterns and IP ranges (122.49.*.*/219.90.*.*) match way too closely, to leave any genuine scope for a "wrong guy" scenario. That being said, it is true that I have dismissed the latest edits by Jun kaneko (talk · contribs) to the Dir en grey article and talk page as "crap", owing to the fact, that when it comes to this character, my ability to assume good faith has long since fallen through.

It has been about three months now, since this alleged 40-year-old with "almost 20 years experience within the Japanese music scene" started to edit war his way through several articles (the ones I am aware of being Skin (Japanese band), Visual kei and more recently Free-Will and Dir en grey). His conduct is characterized by a general disregard of consensus, a highly rude and dismissive attitude of anyone who disagrees with his opinions and a penchant for making threats of "reporting" someone or wrongfully claiming to have done so (and by now, as we can all see here, actually doing it). He has violated the 3RR at least six times and was subsequently blocked on several occasions, included aforementioned case of block evasion, were he acknowledged his identity while operating under an IP.

Below, you will find a more extensive IP list, that was compiled by browsing through the histories of several of the aforementioned articles and some related talk pages. It is divided into IPs used before the Jun kaneko account was registered, as well as those used after it was abandoned and contains additional links to illustrate the events I have outlined in the previous paragraph.

It might not be elegant to state the following in a venue where my own conduct was called into question in the first place, but as Parsifal pointed out, Jun kaneko already knows a great deal about our ways, policies and procedures and still shows virtually no inclination to contribute to this project in a respectful and collaborative fashion. Hence I'm going to be as straightforward here as I can and suggest to block the guy for good, before he gets too proficient at gaming the system and evolves from a blunt, edit warring nuisance into a seasoned, opinion-pushing WikiLawyer.

- Cyrus XIII 15:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure one of the most used internet providers in South Australia has only a few users! Excuse my sarcasm.

You are ignoring the issue, this report was about cleaning up the articles. None of my contributions were disruptive, and unlike yourself, I have been civil in my discussions.

Your accusations are mind blowing, ignoring the fact that you persist that I am someone else (who appears to still have the right to edit) You seem to be excluding other people from editing, by mentioning the Wikipedia policies as "our ways". The Wikipedia is an open community for everyone. Saguy1982 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and fix the article myself, placing reasons in the talk page for each edit. I request an admin have a look, and comment on the changes. Saguy1982 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice to User:Jun kaneko and User:Saguy1982, there may be a simple solution to this - request checkuser. Having dealt with a similar case myself I understand that some editors reading this will be baffled by the sheer volume of work that has to be done to show edit patterns across multiple IPs and registered accounts that may belong to one user. In this case go to checkuser and look for a code B or code F - ban/block evasion. And use diffs to illustrate any edit pattern that is found--Cailil ^talk 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

new WP:AN report filed by the same disruptive user

The highly disruptive user who started this report has been continuing to cause trouble, edit-war repeatedly, and post personal attacks. Now, he has filed a new report:

on WP:AN here.

I'm linking that here for reference. --Parsifal _Hello 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please edit my edit summaries on 3 pages

Resolved

 – ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I accidentally put the wrong edit summary on my edits of these pages:

Grafting
Leeds Grammar School
Reception

I thought I had "Fixed link(s) to disambig page ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation|you can help!]])" in my paste buffer, but instead I had an URL. Can you please fix them that so that the URL is no longer in the edit summaries? Thanks. Auntof6 05:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You could just make a null edit (like adding a space) with a clarifying edit summary if this really bothers you, as admins can't change edit summaries anyway. And although I wouldn't be surprised if oversights could modify them, they generally reserve their superpowers for removing personal identification or contact information. Someguy1221 05:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing as Someguy1221. I don't think the edit summary leaks more information than a nosy person could guess, so I personally wouldn't worry about it. But if you're concerned, I think Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is the place to start. Regardless, thanks for being diligent about edit summaries. Thanks, William Pietri 05:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw this in some obscure policy somewhere, and what you should do is make a really trivial edit with an edit summary explaining your previous edit. Honestly, if it's a non-controversial edit I don't think anybody would care, and if it is you should be discussing it on the talk page. Cheers, east.718 at 05:31, 11/4/2007

I spoke too soon. Actually, if it's a mild privacy concern, any admin can delete the whole page and restore all but the edits in question. That would require you to re-do your edit, and admins would still be able to see the bad edit summary if they looked, though. Either way, just let us know. Thanks, William Pietri 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• The edits have been removed, per user's request. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

After a dispute regarding Tokelau Alice.S has followed me onto several other pages, attempting to start edit wars with me. She reverted my first edit to the page on Oct. 29[49]. She then followed me onto the Frank Gaffney article where she attempted to start a fight with me[50] and again here.[51] She left this highly uncivil comment on my talkpage.[52] She appears to have violated WP:OWN, WP:STALK, and WP:CIVIL. I'm not looking for a block. I'm looking for someone to notify her she's in the wrong. Perspicacite 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see that as uncivil at all, let alone "highly uncivil". At first glance, she's correct about the MOS issues; if you disagree you should discuss it with her either on the article talk page (which you haven't touched yet) or on your talk page (where she came to sort things out). As to the rest, turning up on one page does not a stalking make, and IMHO, it's a weak start to a claim of sockpuppeting. Note also that right at the top of the page it says that "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department". As it says in bold, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." You should try that first, and then proceed to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Thanks, William Pietri 06:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Virtually none of what you just said is correct. I did post on the talkpage. I already dealt with the MoS issue. She did not come to my talkpage to "sort things out." Nowhere in the above post do I accuse her of sockpuppeting. Did you not read what I posted? I also already posted on her talkpage, contrary to your statement. Thanks for your... input but I'd like another opinion. Perspicacite 06:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take those in order. You posted on the talk page of Tokelau only after making this complaint, and after my comment above. I'm glad you've dealt with the MoS issue; that suggests we are in agreement: the main thrust of her comment on your talk page was correct. From her behavior, I believe she did contact you on your talk page with the intention of resolving the dispute, but only she can really know that. Earlier on this page, you suggest an RFCU may be in order, which seemed to imply a sock-puppet allegation. Your comment on her talk page was only ten minutes before posting this; I still had your contribution history open from the discussion earlier on this page. Sorry for the error. However, that comment was only to menace her with coming here, so it's hardly the discussion of the disputed edits I was suggesting. As to the other opinion, I'm sure you'll get it, as I'm off to bed. And you're welcome for my... input. Any time. William Pietri 06:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done except that once again, you're wrong. The MoS issue was taken care of before any of your posts on this issue. The RFCU was clearly directed at the other user, not her, and nowhere is an RFCU mentioned in this post. Again, thanks for the 'input'. Perspicacite 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax, Perspicacite. I never suggested that the MOS issue wasn't taken care of, and I'm glad you did the right thing. Next time, feel free to mention that right out rather than hoping people find it in your edits. I brought it up because you were asking for her to be told that she was wrong, when it seemed like the main thrust of her concern was in fact right. That would also make it a concern worth answering politely, and not deleting. To my eyes, the RFCU comment was directed at both of them, coming, as it did, directly after a threat to get the two of them blocked. Sorry if I got that wrong. That it was not in this post is immaterial; admins are supposed to look at the whole issue when getting involved in something.

That out of the way, I'll remind you again that the way to get editorial disputes resolved is through dispute resolution. This is mainly a place to handle urgent issues requiring admin powers, not small issues of content and behavior. That road begins with civil discussion, something I'd encourage you to try more of. If that doesn't resolve the issue, then feel free to open an [[WP:RFC|RfC]. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 16:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On a point of information: (I am very new to WP so please chastise me if this is out of order). Is it permissible for Perspicacite to type uncorrected untruths?

He typed: "After a dispute regarding Tokelau Alice.S has followed me onto several other pages, attempting to start edit wars with me."

As far as I know I have not edited any other article page whatever that Perspicacite has also edited! (I did raise a question as to correct categorisation at the Discussion page of our article on Frank Gaffney but this was not particularly directed at Perspicacite until he chose to draw attention to himself there by personalising things again).

Am I entitled to insist that these untruths are withdrawn?

I have no wish to start any war with anyone and my peace offer has already been rejected out of hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlice.S&diff=169113629&oldid=169105522

What exactly is a "RFCU"? Alice.S 10:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. RFCU is a Request for Check User to see if one user might be a sockpuppet of another. --Kateshortforbob 10:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S's last statement is pretty much a blatant lie. She followed me to Frank Gaffney, here, and Economy of Australia. Since she continued to stalk after being warned she is up for a block. Perspicacite 11:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?!

1) I have never edited Frank Gaffney. If you wish to maintain otherwise, please provide the diff.

2) Are you really saying that I am unable to defend myself here? - it was you that rejected my peace offer. If I get e-mails from several users that you have also rubbed up the wrong way (by your uncollegiate and ignorant reverts) alerting me to this page, are you really saying that I should not draw editors' and administrators' attention to your habit of blanking questions/ comments/ your page rather than entering into constructive dialogue?

3) My contributions to Economy of Australia were after your untrue statements - not before - just check the timestamps.

4) Unless someone points me to some policy I am aware of, how does it constitute harassment of you to make the corrections I did at Economy of Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Australia&diff=169128603&oldid=169092129 ? (If it was indeed yourself that perpetrated these howlers then I see no need to apologise for correcting them. This is an encyclopedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice.S (talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and helpful explanation, forbob. I presume that he must really mean WP:RFC/U since not even he can be peddling that hoary old stereotype about all Asian women being dolls or puppets! Alice.S 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This above post clearly merits a 24 hour block for incivility. A longer block for stalking is also merited based on her stalking me onto the Frank Gaffney page[53][54][55], WP:AN/I,[56][57]. Perspicacite 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You should probably be careful here, Perspicacite. It is YOU that is in the wrong here, not Alice. I would encourage you to file an RfC on this, and see how it goes. You'll see very quickly where you have gone wrong, and that Alice has violated no policies in her actions regarding you. K. Scott Bailey 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The worst thing I can see in Alice's contributions is performing a revert that changed some Commonwealth English spellings to American English on Tokelau. Hardly block-worthy stuff. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If I did do that I am very sorry for my sloppiness. (I thought I had actually changed US spellings to Commonwealth spellings to keep the article spelling consistent and because the article topic had a strong national link (per WP:ENGVAR).

I think the basic point I would stress here is one made by User:Jimbo Wales recently: "I am running out of patience for incivility at Wikipedia,... Some people simply should not be contributing to an encyclopedia.... and note that all editors should always endeavor to treat each other with kindness, or else find another hobby. When we put up with this kind of behavior, we enable a hostile environment that drives away good people. We should be gentle, but firm: this kind of behavior is not allowed at Wikipedia." --Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [58]

If I have indeed been guilty of incivility towards User:Perspicacite (or anyone else) I most contritely apologise and genuinely promise to strive for higher standards in future.

Thank you everyone for your input.

PS: Will I be alerted automatically to where I can read my "RfC" ? Alice.S 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs)

Recently administrator Isotope23 unblocked EverybodyHatesChris with the summary "Per discussion with editor and blocking admin". EverybodyHatesChris has originally blocked on 5 June for harrassment of editors, and indef blocked on 11 June with block summary "Trolling, plain and simple". Since his indefinite block, EverybodyHatesChris has used over a dozen sockpuppets to continue his campaign of trolling, harassment, sub-par editing and other bad behavior, right up until his unblock by Isotope23.

Checkuser Jpgordon has previously confirmed the sockpuppetry, and the checkusers declined to run another check on those grounds. Still, the connection between the accounts is clear. The accounts all edit the same small subset of television articles in the same manner. Eagle 101 linked to an impressive list of overlap on the WP:RFCU case page, but that link seems to be broken at the moment.

I inquired about this unblock at Isotope's talk page, along with another user, and was told that "It happened because I spoke to the original blocking admin and the editor in question. The blocking admin had no objection, so I unblocked. The editor created multiple accounts because they were blocked; no block = no reason to edit through other accounts. Blocking is a preventative measure, not a punishment. As long as the user behaves themselves, there is no reason for them to be blocked." (diff) He suggested that I appeal to ANI with any further concerns.

This troll has been causing trouble non-stop since his original block. I am bewildered by the unblock. Why are we to condone this sort of behavior? (diff diff diff diff) It goes on an on. There's no reason to think that it won't continue. Can I get a reasonable explanation as to why this editor was unblocked to begin with, and why they shouldn't be reblocked along with the rest of their socks? Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have time right now to look into this in the detail it deserves, but I have one question that will probably occur to others: how has his behavior been since the unblock? Thanks, William Pietri 06:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the original blocking administrator, and for the past couple of months I had no idea why people kept coming to me about EverybodyHatesChris. When I blocked him, the past 200 edits he had were complaining about LessHeard than U (or however the name is spelled), and his activity during his block may have been deplorable, but Isotope23 believes that EverbodyHatesChris can edit constructively and act with some maturity other than why I had originally blocked him and how he acted during his block. If the community thinks he should be banned, then let that be decided. In this case, Isotope23 has lifted the administrators' ban, and my block and unblock cover that I agree with him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Might it be more convenient to refer to me as LHvU, and... he did, did he? Ho hum. LessHeard vanU 10:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Those edits while blocked are particularly concerning, and are remarkably uncivil. However if Ryulong and Isotope are prepared to put that down to frustration at being blocked, then I'll accept that, because I trust their judgment. I would think that EverybodyHatesChris will be given little leeway from now on, however. --bainer (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are not proven to be him, yet, as far as I can tell from the checkuser request. If he can act civil now that he is not actively being blocked at every turn, then let him edit. If he does act out of line, then he gets blocked, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with accepting your take on the situation, Ryulong (especially since I trust you to nail him to the wall if he steps out of line again). EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we should pay out more rope in this case, but there is always the chance, I suppose, that this user won't make the noose right away, and if people are prepared to watch him for repeats of the original problem then I guess little harm is done. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have Judge Judy on my watchlist, which EverybodyHatesChris frequently edits, and they've generally all been good, well-considered work. Looking at his history reveals similar edits to articles related to the show Everybody Hates Chris. He seems to have cleaned up his act. JuJube 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to stress that I absolutely, positively can not possibly be more sure that every one of the above listed accounts belong to the same person. I understand that the unblocking admin(s) were not aware of this when they unblocked (or at least not aware of the full extent of the problem), and I know that not every unblock warrants a full-blown investigation into socking since the block and other misbehavior. If any of you have any doubt of the fact that these socks all belong to the same editor, I ask you to comment on the request for checkuser that I filed; I was unsuccessful in convincing the checkusers to run a check, apparently on the grounds that a previous check had already been done a couple months ago, and revealed a lot of abuse before. I'm not very good at the whole checkuser thing apparently, and maybe someone can help me out there.

While I agree that EverybodyHatesChris's edits since his unblock have been constructive, he practices some serious article ownership. Mark my words, as soon as an editor attempts to correct one of his bad habits (gratuitous unfair use of fair-use images, for example), they will be reverted and subsequently harrased with EverybodyHatesChris's particular brand of immature vitriol. This editor was spouting obscenities and other nonsense at other editors just last week. ➪HiDrNick! 14:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser just came back  Confirmed, along with a couple of socks I had missed. Here are a few diffs from the ones I had missed: (diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff). Why should we condone this sort of behavior? ➪HiDrNick! 14:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I ran another check for you, the CU page has been updated. Yes, those accounts are all connected.

What some of the CUs are telling you is that you don't have to always ask for checks in every case. If the behaviour pattern is a close match, the CU is redundant, tag the suspected socks as just that and move on. If the behaviour pattern of a suspected sock is abusive, block that ID on behaviour. If this person does not straighten up and fly right, and if the pattern of behaviour continues to new IDs only then would it warrant blocking the IP or IPs where the socks originate from. That's all my view but I think it's fairly widely held... CU is not magic pixie dust, and it is to be used sparingly, when there are few or no other ways to determine what is going on. This seems pretty obvious to me (which means I don't agree with Ryulong on this one when he said he wasn't convinced it was the same underlying user).

As for the ownership and not taking criticism well issues... if you see new ownership, raise the matter with the underlying user, politely, respectfully, and in a neutral way, overlooking the past. If the user then reacts badly, let's address that at that point. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment about checkuser, for sure. I didn't need a checkuser to know that they were all the same editor, it's obvious. I just needed something to answer the people who don't take the time to look into the situation and then say "Those edits are not proven to be him, yet, as far as I can tell from the checkuser request." Some people do act like checkuser is the only answer. ➪HiDrNick! 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I was aware of the block evading accounts when I unblocked EverybodyHatesChris. I had a talk with the editor and Ryulong and after these conversations I felt that giving EverybodyHatesChris a second chance might not be a bad thing; indefinite != infinite. The block evasion accounts were not the correct way to deal with a block the editor felt was unfair, but we don't need to scarlet letter them over it. I've spoken to the editor about WP:OWN, WP:OR, and most importantly, containing their temper and staying civil, which is why they got blocked in the first place. I've made it clear that EverybodyHatesChris needs to follow policy and there won't be a third chance if they squander this one.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• As long as someone's prepared to watch EHC's edits, I see no pressing problem - a new block can be placed if there is a repeat. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Works for me too. Isotope23 knows where his towel is so if he's willing to mentor/monitor, awesome. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I am keeping an eye on the editor.--Isotope23 ^talk 23:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Eyrian

There doesn't seem to be a current discussion about this administrator as the last one seems to have been archived however a decision still has to be reached as to what to do with him. For those who haven't been following: During the Alkivar arbitration case it was noticed a new user named JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs) had appeared in support of editors Alkivar (talk · contribs) and Burntsauce (talk · contribs), nearly exactly following the MO of banned vandal JB196 (talk · contribs). As such JohnEMcClure was blocked as a sock of JB196 and that seemed to be the end of it. JohnEMcClure (as is the case of most socks) posted an unblock request consisting of:

"I'm nobody's sockpuppet; is it impossible to agree with someone else? I haven't violated any actual policies. I notice Durova didn't even bother to leave me a note; I find this highly inappropriate and would like to file a complaint on behalf of any other people who've been damaged by this. If you decline, then please add a link to the welcome message telling new users that they should be careful about agreeing with anyone, or coming to their defense if they're being unjustifiably attacked."

The request was declined by AGK (talk · contribs) on that even if the account was not a sockpuppet it had been incivil and disruptive.

This is when things got weird; admin Eyrian (talk · contribs) appeared on ANI posting Block review - JohnEMcClure in which he stated that JohnEMcClure was his disruptive sockpuppet much to the confusion of everyone. During the discussion Eyrian stated "I'm not really concerned whether the account was blocked or not; if I wanted to do so, I could do it myself." implying he was ready to use his admin tools to unblock his own indefblocked puppet. When called on this he stated "Indeed, I may not have been clear. The account was designed to be entirely disposable, I have no investment in it whatsoever. Its block status is immaterial." making things even more confusing considering the accounts hard attempt at being unblocked and loud proclamation it was not a sockpuppet. Soon after Eyrian disappeared deleting his userpages and some of JohnE's too.

Considering that JohnE was first considered a sockpuppet of a banned vandal, professing to not be a puppet of anyone, having an admin claim it's puppet, and still after that having some users thinking it may be someone else's sock the incident never was fully resolved to as to what to do with Eyrian even assuming he is not the puppet master.

Eyrian still possesses his admin and user status which is my main reason for posting this. Considering Eyrian's behaviour and discussion in Alkivar arbitration as to what relationship Eyrian has to Alkivar and Burntsauce, even if he has left wikipedia again, I feel that his admin status should be revoked post-haste as he implied during the block review his willingness to abuse admin tools as well as contravene and ignore policy and his account blocked for disruption (although that can wait for my current attempts to have JohnEMcClure checkusered). –– Lid^(Talk) 11:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we've already added all relevant evidence to the Alkivar RFAR evidence page. You might join the discussion on the Workshop page if you feel that the ArbComm needs to address this, or open a new RFAR case if they say they want to consider it as a separate case. (They are the only communally approved group that can decide to remove an admin's sysop rights without a resignation by the admin.) GRBerry 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem I say with the workshop is that the desysopping of Eyrian would need to be tacked on very later in the arbitration in a very very confusing circumstance. Chances are there is going to need to be a second ArbCom for Eyrian but the evidence list will pretty much only consist of what I just posted and I wanted to see if there was a uniform support for it. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My advice: Tack it on and hope for the best. I believe this issue has awareness among ArbCom already. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It was already tacked on however users have responded stating it is only related by chance and not be the arbitration so chances are the actions of Eyrian won't be judged in this case. –– Lid^(Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

During the discussion Eyrian stated "I'm not really concerned whether the account was blocked or not; if I wanted to do so, I could do it myself." implying he was ready to use his admin tools to unblock his own indefblocked puppet. No, that's not what he meant - don't twist his words. User:Veesicle 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It sure reads like that, to me. Corvus cornix 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Irpen

I would appreciate admin input on the following issue. Recently, I had something of a short conflict with an admin regarding his/her recent bout of single-rationale RfA !votes. Me and another user contacted the admin on their talk page, which led another user, Irpen, to react by removing a comment from the admin's talk[59], as well as comment there. This comment was about myself and confused me more than the afterwards removal of my message by the admin him/herself with the edit summary "rv person who knows they are unvelcome but persists trolling around my edits" (Needless to say, I don't think I was trolling. That comment was not even related to the conflict we had, it was just a regular notification like I send out on a regular basis when e.g. properly indenting someone's struck RfA comments etc. But nevermind.) In his comment, Irpen suggested bookmarking Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dorftrottel and told Mikkalai that "it seems to me that you are dealing with the "admin material" editor". Since I had (and still have) no idea what s/he might be talking about, I posted on their talk, asking for more info and providing some regarding myself. Just now, I realised that this thread has been removed with the edit summary "rm obnoxious rant". I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but I would welcome any input. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What administrative action do you wish to see applied? El_C 12:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I was going to notify Irpen of this thread right away, hoping s/he would respond here since asking myself is apparently not an option. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the venue for dispute resolution; we're trying to keep this board limited to incidents which require administrative attention. El_C 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is not about a content dispute. As of yet, I'm not at all sure what it really is about. If "asking with some added weight" counts as an admin action, that's what I'd appreciate. I'm not much interested in any other measures yet, but that may become relevant. For now, I'm willing to ignore the highly uncivil gesture of roundly removing my question calling it an "obnoxious rant" etc. But I don't think DR is the right venue, or is it? — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen does have a history of personal attacks and incivility. Will ^(talk) 13:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the present incident, but no, Will, Irpen really doesn't have such a history. I appeal to you and others to click on the diffs which supposedly exemplify those "personal attacks and incivility", in the RFAR finding you link to. Just click on them. Please. Bishonen | talk 13:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

If he didn't, the Arbitration Comittee wouldn't pass the finding of fact. If it's good enough for the AC, it's good enough for me. Will ^(talk) 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, of course, stick your head in the sand and let the arbcom do your thinking for you, Sceptre. That's good, too. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

If ArbCom pass a decision in a case, then that decision is official. I'm pretty sure Jimbo made that clear. Will ^(talk) 15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Jimbo Shmimbo. You should try empirical science sometime, Sceptre, it was invented more than 300 years ago. Before then, like in the Middle Ages, if they wanted to know about something in nature, they didn't look at it, they quoted what Aristotle had said about it and declared "It's official! The Man said it!" Just like you're doing now. It's almost enough to make me run for arbcom after all. If I do, and get in, you'll promise to believe everything I say, won't you ? Bishonen | talk 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

The weight attributed to ArbCom statements is well-known to largely depend on the convenience it affords for the quoting user. Remember the whole BADSITES quagmire? People received blocking warnings based on one specific ArbCom finding, quoted as if it were undisputable policy. It really depends. — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is about solving conflicts between users, so it very much applies. El_C 13:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll try there then. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a civility warning should be issued, at the very least. I have seen editors blocked for rude edit summaries in the past. However, one aspect of the initial post in this thread has me confused: Does Dorftrottel think Mikkalai is an admin? I can't see any evidence of that from his/her contribution log or user page. Jeffpw 13:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mikkalai is an admin: Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/G-O#M, [60] — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dorftrottel. Well then, sorry El C, but I do see an incident here. Shouldn't admins here, who are supposed to enforce policy about incivility, uphold the standard which they enforce? Those edit summaries, and the way Dorftrottel was rebuffed, are not what I expect to see in an admin here. Jeffpw 13:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What administrative action do you wish to see applied? El_C 13:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, El C, I think both users should be warned about civility. Yes, I could do it myself, but this thread has shown neither is amenable to the criticism of "average" users. That's why there is a board for admin help. Jeffpw 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you would benefit from leaving these editors alone. It seems that this started when you described Mikkalai's opposes to several RfAs as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point ([61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]), even though the rationale given (contribution to content) is, last time I checked, broadly considered to be an important factor in selecting admins. Mikkalai and Irpen seemed a bit snarky in their replies, but can you see how they were rubbed up the wrong way in the first place? Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is a fairly significant allegation to make, especially when you make it in eight places at once without discussing your concern with the user first. --bainer (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen does have a history of removing messages he deems "unsuitable" from the talk pages of other users. I've asked him not to do that or give an explanation [69] - when he removed message from Bishonen's talk page - but instead of reply, my question was removed as "rm trolling, rudeness and nosnense". He habitually does remove messages from talk pages of the others and apparently sees nothing wrong with it. -- Sander Säde 13:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sander Sade, are you saying that the diff above was not removing of "trolling. rudeness and nonsense"? I welcome everyone to actually check what it actually was [70] [71]. The authors of both entries are now banned for multiple abuse. Just that gives a good clue of what their entries were. --Irpen 17:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpen (talk • contribs)

So, what of those was my question - trolling. rudeness or nonsense? You have still not explained why do you think you are allowed to delete discussions from talk pages other then yourself. -- Sander Säde 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Those were all three: trolling, rudeness and nonsense. And the authors of these trollings, rudenesses and nonsenses are not with us anymore precisely for this activity. As for removing offensive comments from other people pages, I do it only in exceptional circumstances that warrant such action. Mainly, when those comments, if left untouched, would only escalate the situation further down. I was thanked for that by the affected users. Makes me think I have done the right thing. --Irpen 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That particular remark on Bishonen's talk page Irpen removed was by Digwuren, now banned, who was not only trolling, but also stalking Irpen. [72]. By the way, talking about stalking, could you explain ([73] this strange event?) Are you 100% sure that Finland does not qualify as Eastern Europe? --Paul Pieniezny 14:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren has not been stalking Irpen and you really shouldn't accuse someone stalking and trolling without any evidence - especially since the opposite seems to be true. Digwuren's message was a good faith attempt to start a dialog, I presume Irpen removed it as a constructive dialog would have been harmful to his cause to get Digwuren banned - so easier to censor and pretend nothing happened. As for your page, it was an accidental click on rollback button, I immediately reverted myself, see [74]. Sorry about that. -- Sander Säde 16:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, then. Let's see. Sander Sade, could you explain how you got to the page in Paul's userspace "[(to accidentally click the rollback button" in the first place? --Irpen 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, easily. For whatever reason I have Paul's talk on my watchlist - and there was a comment from Ezhiki about Paul's edit. As I wanted to see what the edit was, I looked at Paul's edit list - and saw that he had blanked a page about Finland. Being Finland's neighbor, I was naturally interested and went to look. I wonder what is your explanation for showing up everywhere immediately after edits by Martintg, Vecrumba and others? -- Sander Säde 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is not what you imply. I do not check the contributions of these and several other editors to save myself some stress. However, if their edits show up in my watchlist, or links to these pages are added to the pages that are on my watchlist, I may read what they say and comment. --Irpen 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation now raises a second question: how much time did you spend reading that Finland page before you restored it? It was a page I held in reserve in case the anonymous editor on the Continuation War who claimed Finland had delivered Belgian, Swiss and French volunteers from the Winter War into the hands of the Gestapo, restore that edit. I had found info contradicting this. Based on YOUR contribution list you had 99 seconds to check your watch list (and Ezhiki writing on my talk page cannot have been at the top, since he wrote it hours before and you had been putting Estonia templates on articles for some time, averaging as fast as one every 15 seconds), to read Ezhiki's comment (entitled Putin - yes right, a clear connection with Finland there, no one would ever think that referred to something that happened at Vladimir Putin) and then switch to my contribution list (luckily for you, Finland was on top) and that blanked page. Realistically, you cannot have read what I blanked before you restored it. Could the reason why you were so trigger happy with the restore after reading Ezhiki have been Digwuren? --Paul Pieniezny 13:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Stop acting paranoid and remember you are on Wikipedia. The whole page is available until an administrator deletes it (see here), there is no need to restore it for reading. I have said that repeatedly before - if you want to make edits that others cannot see, your place is not on Wikipedia. I have no problems whatsoever with others looking at my watchlist - in depth if they want to. Why? Because I do not make edits I should be ashamed of. In fact, my contributions have been thoroughly combed by quite several editors, most of them acting in bad faith - and one was uninvolved administrator I asked to look at my edits. And still no "bad" edits were found.

Oh, and your last sentence does not make any sense whatsoever. "after reading Ezhiki have been Digwuren"??! English, please.

-- Sander Säde 16:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So, you were not mentioned in The Digwuren Saga, but Irpen was? [75] (linking to Ghirla preceding you, because your umlaut does not work well on my computer). Of course, you had every right to read that "article". I just question your explanation for reading and reverting it. The sentence is good English, by the way, but a bit casual. Replace "Ezhiki" with "Ezhiki's words" and put commas or parentheses around "after reading Ezhiki's words" and it should be clear what I meant.--Paul Pieniezny 16:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Once more - very slowly this time. Estonia is a neighbor of Finland. Finnish language is very close to Estonian language. I live 80 km away from Helsinki, the capital of Finland. I used to speak fairly fluent Finnish - a bit rusty now because lack of use - but since the company I work for is expanding to Finland, I am fairly sure I will have to speak more of it soon. Several of my favourite books are written by Finnish authors. I know several Finns personally. I know Finnish history and culture. Now, can you guess why I just might be interested in Finland? You are making a saga out of simple wrong click. -- Sander Säde 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bainer: Agreed. I know I could've went more elegantly about it, which is why I completely disengaged. However, you may be interested in my rationale for tagging rather than reacting those comments here. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I--and other editors--have had the same issues with both Irpen and Mikka. Mikka blankets every RfA with opposes (I've yet to notice a support), using the same "police" rationale (or some variant thereof, now that s/he's been called on it) on every RfA. When the RfA discussion veered a bit off course, several editors tried to engage on Mikka's talk page. We had our comments summarily deleted, both by Mikka and Irpen, and were referred to as "bullies", "trolls", and "stalkers." That this was done by an admin, I think qualifies it for the AN/I. K. Scott Bailey 13:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I posted here with regard to Irpen's comment he made wrt to myself rather than Mikka's recent RfA participation which provides only the backdrop and seems to be resolved by now. Mikka has every right to provide input at RfA. (But yes, s/he should be prepared for comments regarding his/her own comments in turn and not instantly label those as wikistalking etc.) — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've seen Mikkalai support two RfA candidates. See [76] and [77]. --Iamunknown 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record: Follwing El_C's suggestion, I went to WP:DR and skipping the (already unsuccessfully attempted) steps 1 and 2, posted a request for editor assistance here. I'm not entirely sure that the issue is a matter that calls for dispute resolution. As I said above, I'm not even sure what the issue is, as of yet. — Dorftrottel⁠ 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had a good look at Dorftrottel's links and saw that all this started when Mikka supported a candidate: [78]--Paul Pieniezny 14:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. S/he had apparently signed with five tildes, so I simply added Mikkalai's username and notified him/her (as I would have done in any other case, I might add). Irpen then commented to that thread, and finally Mikka removed it altogether. Then followed my unsuccessful attempt at asking Irpen about that comment of his/hers. [79],[80] — Dorftrottel⁠ 14:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, Paul. That's ALL it was. One vote. Mikka was canvassing all RfA's with the same "police" reasoning, assuming bad faith on the part of the candidates. Several editors attempted to engage on this issue, and were treated extremely rudely, both by Mikka and Irpen. Stop creating a strawman of the issue. K. Scott Bailey 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Who did I treat "extremely rudely" here? There were plenty of thoughtful remarks above and I don't think anything is needed from my end at this point. I wish Dorftrottel and everyone good luck in turning this web-site into an even better reference full of good and encyclopedic content. --Irpen 17:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would reply to my initial question what this comment of yours was all about. That's all I'd like to know, and my according posting to your talk page was certainly not an "obnoxious rant". How hard can it be to answer a simple question? — Dorftrottel⁠ 17:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's my request for admin intervention. I would appreciate it if an admin would issue a civility warning towards Irpen regarding this repeated civility offence. Calling my good-faithed notification "obnoxious stuff" borders on a personal attack. He shows no signs whatsoever to deescalate the situation by answering my simple and justified question what his comment was about, and that does IMHO weigh against his entire behaviour. — Dorftrottel⁠ 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You, however, show repeated signs of trying to escalate the situation by going from page to page with your grievances and asking for other contributors to get whipped. There are some good advises above and you are by far better off to heed to them. --Irpen 17:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just answer my question, please. I'm just not eager to let this go unresolved. You appear to hold a big grudge against me for as yet undisclosed reasons I would like to learn about and understand for the precise purpose of improving my behaviour. So, please answer my question. What is so hard about that? — Dorftrottel⁠ 17:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Some people are Polish and wishing to see our articles reflect the glories of Poland. Some are Estonian and wish our articles to reflect the glories of Estonia. Some are Russian and want our articles to show the glories of Russia. In addition, some of these people wish us to not show the ignominies of said nations. Since these nations have tangled with each other repeatedly in the 20th century and are only now not entangled in one another's affairs, some of the "glories of Estonia" to some of the people mean "the horrors of Russia/Germany/Poland," etc. Now add to this potent mix a group of people who have always learned history reflecting excerpted or partisan accounts of the past, or dark rumors about excerpting, and you have a sure recipe for uncooperative editing in every possible respect. Then we have appeals to the audience of editors to take sides. Nothing could be a worse idea than to take sides. The "experts" are possibly tainted, the amateurs are possibly tainted, and the by-standers are blind, but the one thing that is sure, the one thing you can count on, is that anyone accusing anyone else of being impolite is hiding either the weakness of an argument or trying to pull a fast one on you. ArbCom's finding of fact on Irpen was not what it is reported, above. The diffs showing "incivility" didn't show incivility on his part. The polite people aren't virtuous for their politeness, and anyone who wants to take sides is, by virtue of ignorance, as culpable as the participants. If you want to act properly, look for neutral points of view (those that use "may have been" and "is a contentious name"), those that cite to sources that themselves generate multiple references, those that are willing to put in multiple "sides" of an event, if there is an impasse, those that do not come to AN/I to report, of all things, that a word is being uttered that should not be uttered. Geogre 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"...the one thing you can count on, is that anyone accusing anyone else of being impolite is hiding either the weakness of an argument or trying to pull a fast one on you." That is not always the case, and reasonable people who believe this unreasonable thing are precisely why decent editors don't go near the cesspools of incivility that are these articles, and those that do run away because of the constant rudeness. As long as people think like that and don't hand out civility-related blocks to all involved, ignoring edit counts and sysop bits, those are still going to be the filthy stains on WP's reputation that they are. Relata refero 12:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with every fucking word you said as far as I understood it. However, as far as I'm fucking concerned, the issue is fucking resolved. Irpen gave me a satisfactory answer, it's all I ever was interested in. He's right I should contribute more fucking encylopedic content. I shall try to. Everything else is just a matter of sexual frustration on everyone's part. And don't bullshit me on that one. I'm hung like a fucking seahorse and I know what the fuck I'm talking about. Beautiful fucking view now, isn't it. — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Best. AN/I. Reply. Ever. So I don't get roused on for just saying that, I shall inject my opinion - copy-pasting opposes to various RfAs looks like bad form, sounds like bad form... so I think the people against Mikkalai doing this had the best of intentions, whether their point was valid or not. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and personal attacks by single-purpose account

I've been working on improving the Steve Dahl article for some time and have made a lot of headway. However, I keep encountering problems with a single-purpose account Chicago1919 (talk · contribs). This person has never edited anything but the Dahl article, and continually inserts hyperbole, POV, weasel words, uncited claims (or claims that are cited but misleadingly stated), and deletes perfectly legitimate cited facts. For example, these edits [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]. Finally, after I've tried to be reasonable and fair, and explain that we can't use words like "shockingly" and "ill-fated" and other hyperbole in Wikipedia articles, and called attention to his insistence on inserting misleading information about "ratings dives", he made this totally absurd personal attack on me [86]. I've done nothing but try to make this article objective, while this other person has done nothing but insert POV, claims based on fuzzy math, etc. I've attempted to discuss, but I reallysuspect this is a single-purpose account, here to POV push on this one article and nothing more. Nobody of consequence 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Now he is blanking text with no explanation from the same article. [87] Nobody of consequence 22:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor does seem to use a somewhat more ... vigorous ... way of saying things than would be appropriate for an encyclopedia, and so a reminder about the style manual might need to be made (I'll take care of that in a minute). However, s/he seems to have retracted the personal attack you referenced, although you have since restored it. --Dynaflow babble 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since the most badly out-of-MOS edits date back to early March, I'll leave that be. I'm not sure exactly why this is being posted to ANI, as this seems to be mostly a contentious content dispute. This could be much more productively handled with the help of the editors at WP:RADIO, and possibly through initiating a more thorough review of the subject matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --Dynaflow babble 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Now there is an obvious sockpuppet blanking the same text Chicago 1919 was blanking. [88] This is more than a content dispute, this is about one person who keeps pushing POV into an article, won't listen to reason (from other editors as well, not just me), and now seems to have created a sock. I'd like to request a Checkuser, but that page instructs me to post this here. Nobody of consequence 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on A Perfect Circle

Resolved

 – A compromise of sorts has been reached, and the edit war seems to have stopped.

An anon, 68.252.94.153, is repeatedly vandalizing A Perfect Circle. This guy continues to change "was" to "is" on that article (they're not active right now) and is fond of claiming that their singer Maynard James Keenan said A Perfect Circle is actually coming back; as far as I know, there's no confirmed reunion on any news presses, their official website or by any member of the band besides Maynard. If this edit war continues, please block him. I'm getting tired of reverting what he's doing. Alex 18:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Down the hall, on the left: WP:AN3. There doesn't seem to have been enough revert-warring to zap anyone yet, but you should exercise caution on that front too. You would reach 3RR before s/he did if this continues. Based on that anon's (rather rude) Talk page contrib, this is a content dispute that should be resolved without resorting to revert-warring, blocking, or anything else use-of-forceish. Have you requested a cite for the anon's claims yet? --Dynaflow babble 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

i cited my "claims" the first time i edited the page to reflect REALITY. EDIT: define rude. and yes if "intransigence" means defending the truth, than i'm intransigent. 68.252.94.153 20:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That was in reference to your calling Alex101's view "retarded." Because things tend to "sound" much harsher in text over the Internet than they would, say, face to face, it's best to keep one's verbiage as civil as possible here. --Dynaflow babble 20:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

to be perfectly frank, insisting that a band will not get back together when their lead singer has stated that they will is quite retarded. but like i said earlier, i simply don't give a sh*t anymore (look i censored myself so that i'd give the illusion of trying to appear civil). it's just wikipedia, no one is dying over words on "teh intrawebs". i'm gunna go laugh @ darfur now k? cyalaterbuhbye.68.252.94.153 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the more it seems like a run of the mill content dispute, augmented by a good dosage of intransigence on both sides. I've given you both warnings for edit warring. Please stop. As the presumably more experienced Wikipedian of the disputants, I would suggest that you take the initiative and ask for a third opinion at WP:ROCK. Also, it's hard for me to see how the anon's (cited) information can't easily be integrated into the article. Aside from that, you're arguing over the tense of one verb, and is it really worth getting 3RR bocked over that? --Dynaflow babble 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate unreversible move with creating artificial history by user:Martintg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Martintg (talk · contribs) has moved the Estonian pirates into Estonian viking expeditions amidst the WP:RM discussion that did not seem to go his way.

To make a move irreversible, he made a three-step move:

1. he moves the page first
2. then blanks the page
3. and then restored the redirect, thus creating a redirect with an artificial history, a dirty trick known as AndriyK's trick by a user who invented it.

I hereby request the deletion of the redirect with the artificial history so that the article could be moved back and the proper discussion is allowed to ensue. Such action is specifically prescribed by ArbCom in cases like this.

In addition, please warn Martintg (talk · contribs) in no unclear terms to stop such repeated disruption. --Irpen 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see a pretty strong consensus for the move. A bit sloppy, true (fixing that now), but consensus non the less. — Edokter • Talk • 20:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, if you see a page move issue, you can simply post it at the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, where an admin will fix the issues. With content disputes, or page move disputes, those should be worked out on the article talk page, of course, but for the move history issues, the WP:SPLICE page is a good place to start. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 20:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPLICE is for cut and paste move fixing and history merges, to request a page be moved over a page with a history, WP:RM is the place to ask. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The WP:RM is ongoing! Don't you see? And in the middle of WP:RM the user moves the article and salts the earth. --Irpen 20:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, I'm just pointing out that WP:RM is the place to request repair of things like this, not WP:SPLICE. Mr.Z-man 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To second what Irpen was saying, the WP:RM just got going, no consensus is being formed, the result of no-consensus is the status quo, not the change. Additionally, along with interrupting the opinion forming, Martinq was performing the move by several steps, all designed not to be a cut-n-paste, but rather commensurate with techniques previously ruled against by ArbCom. Further, the RM itself is being conducted without a great deal of insight -- but that part, at least, is a content issue. Geogre 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've un-scorched it by deleting all but the last revision. Redirect scorching is a dirty trick and inherently disruptive. I've repeatedly gone on record threatening blocks for people who use it intentionally in move wars. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this was obviously an intentional trick to freeze the move. Oh, and could you also un-scorch this too? --Irpen 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Intentional or not, the talk page showed pretty much consensus over the new title, even more so because they couldn't agree between Estonian pirates and Estonian vikings. Should I move it back? — Edokter • Talk • 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody had the courtesy of informing me of this incident report so I can atleast have my say. Sorry I made a bit of a hash of the move, I couldn't decide between the different capitalisations of the title and messed things up a bit. The move itself was most certainly done in good faith, I was the one who followed process and initiated the move debate to begin with, there was very extensive discussions, many alternative names were discussed and a compromise title "Estonian Viking expeditions" was found that was acceptable to all involved in the discussion here Talk:Estonian_pirates#Estonian_Viking_Expeditions. Thus having found a compromise, I believed I did the correct thing to close the debate and move the article. Irpen was never a party to the debate, so I am somewhat puzzled at his late involvement after the apparent resolution of the debate, as well as post-debate inputs from Irpen's collegues Alex Bakharev and Paul Pieniezny after notification via this incident report here on WP:ANI, but who were never a part of the debate despite the fact that it was posted on WP:RM to canvass wider views. The whole thing is all rather odd. Looking at the time line:

• 18:54, 4 November 2007 - Apparent concensus achieved. [89]
• 19:05, 4 November 2007 - page moved according to concensus [90]
• 19:18, 4 November 2007 - Irpen posts incident on WP:ANI, claiming WP:RM is still ongoing
• 19:21, 4 November 2007 - Berig confirms agreement with new title [91]
• 00:08, 5 November 2007 - Alex Bakharev moves the page back, claiming WP:RM is ongoing [92]
• 00:12, 5 November 2007 - Alex Bakharev casts his vote [93], agreeing to move.
• 01:30, 5 November 2007 - Paul Pieniezny casts his vote after admitting he only became aware of the RM debate after reading this ANI and attempts to restart the debate [94], with apparent ignorance of the previous debate having moved beyond the initial title proposal.

--Martintg 11:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh great... another truckload of double redirects to clean up. I'm going to delete them all now to make way for a future move. If it's one thing I hate, it is the mess being left behind in move wars. — Edokter • Talk • 11:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the mess. I guess that is why the bucket and mop is the admin's icon :o). Martintg 11:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As everybody can clearly see, I voted against (so where is the consensus?) before this thing was closed at WP:RM. That one faction has worn Berig out, does not a consensus make: the argument also ran here. Note that my argument (the most recent book called "Estonian Vikings" talks about something completely different, so this title is ambiguous) is not taken into account. Martintg must have noticed this book, as he had obviously checked Google Books. As for the mess left behind in move wars, that was Martintg's doing: he is now being rewarded for it. --Paul Pieniezny 12:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest, instead of buying what Martin is saying about just "messing up the capitalization, but acting in good faith, to please take a look at the thread's start. Martin's post conveniently omits that he not just moved the page claiming the consensus but deliberately scorched the old redirect by blanking and restoring it after the move creating an artificial history. I repeat, he did not "correct" the original redirect to reflect the upper case second move, but blanked and restored it. Period. The mess with cAsEs followed later. Please red the thread at top. You would need to be an admin to see the deleted parts of the redirects history though. If he felt there was a consensus, he won't need to employ move tricks. Besides, there was nothing like a consensus in the first place and, most importantly, the devil is in details: the trick employed in the move, not even the move itself. --Irpen 14:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please stop this. It is plainly obvious that Martintg acted in good faith. I am totally uninvolved in the discussion - because, quite frankly, I don't care what the article is called - but reading through the move thread at least I had an impression that consensus to rename the article was reached. Oh, and can I remind you of another user doing exactly same as Martintg recently - moving a page and salting the original article - all that knowingly and without any consensus whatsoever. And he got justly blocked. Strangely you fled instantly to his help, leaving no stone unturned until he was unblocked. Double standards? -- Sander Säde 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reply. You cannot see what Martintg has done wrong, but he did something that someone else got rightly blocked for. And no, consensus has not been reached: one of the people who voted for the new name is now backing my opinion that the name is ambiguous:[95]. --Paul Pieniezny 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Martintg thought that the consensus was reached, acted in good faith and "salted" unknowingly. The other user - much, much more experienced - did not participate in discussion, just moved a highly controversial page and deliberately salted the redirect. See the difference in their actions? -- Sander Säde 17:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Salting "unknowingly" and "in good faith"? Well, help me understand how and why he blanked and restored the redirect "unknowingly". I can see the cAse correction as a possibility of the good-faithed salting but not blanking and restoring the original redirect. Look at the top post of this thread again! You cannot see diffs if you are not an admin but Martin knows that these diffs are exactly right. Martin certianly deliberately salted the redirect. If you claim otherwise, ask him first. --Irpen 18:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Martintg moved, blanked the redirect, and recreated precisely the same, all within one minute after moving, and he did the same thing, systematically, on two separate moved pages. That does look like he knew very well what he was doing, and it certainly had nothing to do with the confusion about capitalisation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say exactly that. --Irpen 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from assuming bad faith, what is your point? Dojarca did what you describe [96] when he moved Template_talk:Soviet_occupation to Template_talk:Soviet_occupation_zones, there was not even a peep out of you, Irpen or anyone else. Martintg 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And Dojarca got what he wanted, despite protests his one-sided move was not undone and still isn't. Considering the question here, I do think Martintg's move was according to consensus when he did it. Oth 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, are you sore at me for nominating Anti-Russian sentiment for deletion, is this what this is all about? User:Mikkalai agreed that the critisms of that article had merit. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, you know. Looking at the timeline above, you posted a compliant to ANI 13 minutes after I made the move, are you stalking me? Martintg 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sore? No. I did not even remember who nominated the article for deletion and was not thinking about it at all. And I am not stalking you. I do not click on your contributions. I suddenly saw an article on whose move proposal I voted under a strange name in my watch list and clicked to investigate how come. What I saw at the place of the original article's location was not a redirect but a redirect, followed in history by the blanked page and immediately followed by a revert, that is a redirect with a deliberately created history, a scorched page. See above what Fut.Perf. says as well.

Now, could you please answer in a clear way, why you did that? Why did you blank and restored the redirect immediately after your move? I do not mean the cAse confusion. I mean blanking and restoring, you know exactly what I am talking about. Are you saying that you did not deliberately scorch the earth? A straight yes or no would be appreciated. --Irpen 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Redux

• Now Irpen is reverting within 5 minutes after my attempt to close the debate [97], even though there is no reason in continuing with the original rename proposal. I did this also in good faith after a request from User:Termer [98]. So I don't understand what Irpen is trying to achieve by keeping a move proposal open after it is clearly dead. Can somebody please remind Irpen that Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It seems all rather pointlessly antagonistic and disruptive to me. Martintg 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • All I am requesting is that you, a highly involved in the debate, leave it to others to close it this or that way. Move debates are concluded and closed by uninvolved admins, not by users who initiated the move. --Irpen 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you provide a link to a policy or guideline that states admins are required to close a move debate, particularly when the proposal has clearly failed and the initiator wishes to withdraw it? There is no formal page like in XfD debates, it is all confined to the article talk page, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Martintg 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Irpen why exactly would you like to request that the article should be renamed Estonian Vikings? I mean, feel free to request it but why do you insist that it should be done under Martintg name as he has clearly withdrawn his request?--Termer 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I must say the whole thing what exactly is going on in here is very confusing for me. We worked hard to find a consensus on the talk page, it didn't come easy. Once we found the middle ground as far as I got it Martintg just went ahead and renamed the article. It seems he made a mess with the redirects? Is that the problem? So what's the big deal? The first time I moved an article on WP, I used the copy/paste method. So after that I knew how should it be done. Hope that Martintg learned something also with this.
One thing that might have confused the situation, it seems that Martintg forgot to close his requested move. After the consensus was met, it was no longer relevant and should have been closed by Martintg immediately. Now, am I getting this right, has Irpen reopened the requested move that was opened and closed by Martintg? If thats the case, it wouldn't make any sense to me. Why would anybody want to reopen a requested move that is no longer relevant and has been closed by the user who had opened it? --Termer 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Termer, Marting did not "unintentionally made a mess with the redirects". As explained ad naseum he made an intentional mess through scorching the original page to prevent his move from being reverted. This is a classical trick that even has a name given to it by its inventor. Martin knows that he did that and why. Before ever saying again about a "good faithed move" straighten it out with Martin and let him explain it to you why and how he made a page move. --Irpen 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you seemingly obsessed with my alledged wrong-doings? Do you have a personal issue with me? As I said, and others agree, I am telling you again, I moved the article in good faith believing there was a consensus at that time. Read the talk page. If you have an issue with "scotched earth" or "salt and peppering" or what ever it is called, why is it that we didn't hear a peep out of you when Dojarca did what you alledge I did [99] when he unilaterally moved Template_talk:Soviet_occupation to Template_talk:Soviet_occupation_zones, without any discussion, debate or even warning. Martintg 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen I accept this as your opinion. Until it's not explained, why would anybody in their right mind use any tricks for moving a page according to the reached consensus, your opinion is not going to make any sense to me.--Termer 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this still an issue? All the old redirects are deleted. This is now a plain content dispute with dead horses being thrown around. I'm closing this discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 01:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Template:Discussion:bottom

Dorftrottel blocked

I've blocked Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 31 hours for gross incivility [100] [101] and a blatant personal attack [102]. Picaroon (t) 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it by about a minute. Mr.Z-man 20:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked 87.78.154.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as evasion. I won't mess with the block myself on the main account. But if someone else sees fit, I would have no objection. Mercury 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to extend the block after this. Thoughts? Mr.Z-man 20:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor (that reads this age for a laugh), I'm a little concerned that Dorftrottel gets a block for incivility (deserved), when it was probably the incivility shown to him by Irpen (section a few above this one) that didn't have anything happen that set him off.

Honestly, having watched this and a few other Wiki policy pages recently, there does seem to be one rule for admins, and one rule for "normal" editors. Something that gets a editor blocked seems to get pushed under the carpet for (some) admins.

Just a view from a uninvolved editor. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As another uninvolved editor, I endorse Darkson's opinion here. Why is Irpen getting off scott free? Corvus cornix 20:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Extended to a week. I'll look into Irpen as well. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This block-shopping is getting tiresome. What is that Corvus cornix want from me? --Irpen 20:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Asking that you and Mikka be held accountable for calling good faith attempts at dialogue "trolling", "stalking", and "bullying" (I've lost track of which of the two of you used each specific insult in your edit summaries) is not "block-shopping." Dorf was WAY out of line in that last bit, and richly deserves his block, but that in no way excuses the two of you for your behavior previous. K. Scott Bailey 20:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like an explanation as to what makes this an "obnoxious rant". Corvus cornix 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So you don't remember which user it was, but you're sure that one or both needs to be blocked? Man! It's still up there, you know, and it seemed moderately accurate to me, but it required that a person read all the words and not hunt for magic terms. The "accusation" was that the user had trolled Irpen and the answer was that the user is not trolling Irpen. Those verb tenses are important. Innumerable "I am an uninvolved person and I think someone should be blocked" posts always leave me cold. Blocking is not mediation, and mediation is necessary if one thinks that the situation is users with a beef against one another. Blocks are for toddlers to play with. Geogre 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what leaves you cold. It matters what is or is not blockable. Is it acceptable to refer to good faith attempts to dialog as "trolling", "bullying", and "stalking" in edit summaries blanking these attempts? The diffs have been posted and reposted ad nauseum. As both editors were being abusive in their edit summaries, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of which was which. To my recollection, the editors who tried to make constructive contact with Mikka, regarding his opposes at RfA (at which point Irpen jumped in, blanking comments at Mikka's page), were Evula, myself, Dorf, and perhaps a couple of others. All were treated incredibly rudely, being called bullies, trolls, and stalkers. K. Scott Bailey 21:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What "incivility" warrants incivility? Once we start on the "he was mean" path, we never get off it until all are silent. Supposing, though, that there were such a thing as a "personal attack," and supposing again that it needed blocks to prevent (and both of those suppositions are incorrect), then we would never license one with another. The referee calls the penalty on the one who throws the punch, not the one who antagonized him. Finally, though, the issue, if there is one, is not "personal attacks" or "incivility," but being unable to engage in cooperative editing. That can call for a temporary block, if the people throwing the blocks also want to help defuse the situation.

Better yet, let's not block people for "personal attacks" and "incivility," and that way we don't have to put rudeness and politeness in a scale and try to see into the hearts of users. Instead, let's look at whether users can and will edit cooperatively, or if they are taking things personally and getting huffy about it. That is at least confined to behaviors, not feelings. Geogre 20:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(e/c x3)Number 1, Irpen isn't an admin. How does this show 2 separate rules? If you could provide some diffs, I'd review them. Number 2, being drunk or having uncivil comments made toward you does not excuse incivility. Mr.Z-man 20:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets not forget, the bad faithed troll edit was off the mark. Mercury 20:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Z-man, please stay close to a point. Where did I make any remarks whose incivility warrants the ANI discussion. Right one thread above you tell me to "calm down" with no reason. That is incivil. As for Dorftrottel, he was pestering me with strange questions and going 'round from board to board with his frivolous complaints. I am still not sure what he wanted from me. I do not endorse his block but I request editors to avoid conflating issue and not buy into this "Oh, let's block him too" nonsense. Let's just write articles instead. --Irpen 20:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Things like this. You jump on the slightest things. I made a comment that only served to correct where to report the page move issues, it had nothing to do really with the specific issue at hand and then you reply to it with: The WP:RM is ongoing! Don't you see? - I wasn't commenting on the specific issue, so no, I did not see. You seemed very agitated, so I asked you to calm down. Now here you tell me to stay close to a point, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was replying to the comments above (Darkson's) about why Dorftrottel was blocked and you weren't, about Dorftrottel's incivility being related to incivil comments that you might have made, and about there being 2 rules for admins and other users. I don't know why you are focusing on me all of a sudden. I simply asked for diffs that showed where you might be incivil, how is that anything but assuming good faith? I didn't say to block you at all. Mr.Z-man 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"You seem very agitated", "Calm down", etc. is civil by your book, Z-man. All right, I will remember that. Now, to the issue. Your pointing towards WP:RM just showed lack of thoroughness in investigating the complaints. The user moved the article and scorched the redirect. This is bad conduct, plain and simple. Abusive too. And this needs to be dealt with precisely at this board where the complaint was brought. I suggest you quit teaching editors how to behave. Such recommendations are needed much less than some are keen to give them. --Irpen 21:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite civil, I'm sure other users would agree as well. I told you I was not investigating the specific complaints, but rather explaining that WP:SPLICE was the wrong place to report such issues. "I suggest you quit teaching editors how to behave." I would suggest the same to you. (If anything I have said today is uncivil, it would be that, but I'm getting rather tired of trying to argue). Mr.Z-man 21:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we then disagree on what constitutes civility, Z-man. Unwarranted insulting remarks to calm down are uncivil. Inserting the opinions unrelated to the matter into the charged thread is unhelpful and persisting on nothing being with that is further unhelpful. I posted a specific complaint and all there was there was a dirty trick in a page move and it was reported to the right place. It would be best if threads were narrowly concentrated at the issues they are devoted to. --Irpen 23:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with your assessment that your comments have been quite civil and restrained. I also fully understand how difficult it can be to remain so when dealing with persistent accusations of bad faith and other things. K. Scott Bailey 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• 31 hours for "drunk in charge of an edit button" seems reasonable to me :o) Guy (Help!) 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone want to explain this? Kwsn (Ni!) 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can explain that. Tit_for_tat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Subversive_element (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kncyu38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Aldebaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all (by their own admission I think) the same user. Maybe we've had enough of this game? Guy (Help!) 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

... and can we have some proof that that? Kwsn (Ni!) 21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it looks like Aldebaer and Kncyu38 both seem to redirect to Dorf's page. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• And [103] establishes another link. It's all one individual. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Without commenting on Tit for Tat and Subversive Element, Kncyu38 was renamed Aldebaer who was renamed Dorftrottel. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Guy, that link only works for admins. Does it establish a link between TfT+SE on the one hand and Knc+AB+Dorf on the other? I rather feel sorry for the guy. His last post on my talk page was very civil, I guess the alcohol was not fully working yet... --Paul Pieniezny 14:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologys for confusing Irpen with another editor (who's an admin). I honestly thought I recognized Irpen's name from an admin action somewhere, but I was obviously mistaken. Still doesn't explain to me why one set on incivility get's off scot-free, and another get's a block (deserved or not), but there you go. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What's with all the reanmings? I, for one, would have appreciated knowing I was speaking to Aldebaer. El_C 22:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You would have known had you ever bothered to actually look at the diffs I presented above instead of only reverting my good-faithed (if alcohol-tuned) edits from user talk pages. See here. But you're doing just great as an admin.

Oh, and JzG: Ah, well, nevermind. 87.78.155.210 00:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

At that point, I had figured it out. Irpen asked you not to edit his talk page any further, and yet you kept doing it. You are doing so right now, even though you are supposed to be blocked. Again, please stop block evading. El_C 01:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. The funny thing is, I knew beforehand that nothing was going to come off me posting here. Irpen doesn't get as much as a warning. Because it is clear that I never contributed anything. And JzG is not a cabal-member. He's just your friendly next-door admin. Yes. Exactly. Sort of. On the other hand, I do agree with the block and it's extension to a week. May I suggest extending it to a month? That would be perfect. 87.78.155.210 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

With all of your socking, a month may actually be appropriate. You need to stop evading your block please. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deal. 87.78.146.190 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Heard it before. Mercury 01:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* - [104] Mr.Z-man 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Progressive vs Reform Judaism

In discussion at WP:JUDAISM and Progressive Judaism, there's been a dispute over "Progressive" vs "Reform" terminology and related articles. Specifically, there is a disagreement about whether the editing of Progressive Judaism has been covering the same ground as Reform Judaism and, as a result, turning into a POV fork on the same Jewish branch/movement.

Meanwhile, advocates for the "Progressive" POV created German Reform movement (Judaism) by removing content from Reform Judaism and prefacing the content in terms of the "progressive movement." I've filed an AfD on the article and a Wikiquette alert on the dispute. Now I realize that they've created another fork/spin-off Reform Judaism (United States). I don't want to chase after these folks all day! Instead of filing another AfD, I'm appealling here for help.

Would an uninvolved admin please step in and look at this situation? Is there a way to ensure that the "Progressive" folks work through consensus-building Discussion, at WP:JUDAISM or wherever, before making further massive changes to a core Judaism article like Reform Judaism? Thanks very much! HG | Talk 20:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Some evidence you may wish to review, showing the POV intent of the fork, at least as far as I can tell. Again, eyes from an uninvolved party would help. thanks! HG | Talk 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no POV fork. The new articles created are just a straightforward start at moving to "summary style" for article Reform Judaism. There are some very valid reasons for "summary style" there:

• The article was considerably over-length, so summary style is recommended.
• Summary style allows the Reform Judaism article to move much more quickly to where things are at today, as WP articles on religious movements should do, rather than many many screens of history first.
• Having a separate article on German Reform movement (Judaism) is a good idea in its own right, as there are a lot of articles on e.g. German reformers which can now link to the appropriate subject matter directly.
• This is entirely orthogonal to any question of whether to call anything "Progressive" or "Reform". Creating German Reform movement (Judaism) makes sense in its own right. Jheald —Preceding comment was added at 20:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• And this needs an admin because?.... Guy (Help!) 21:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

... because if it's the creation of multiple POV forks, then admin can play a constructive role to minimize the disruptive editing. On the other hand, if there's no need for admin intervention, then an admin could help inform the parties about how to proceed. Thanks! HG | Talk 21:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that any level-headed editor can help out. I'm not sure if I'd use the term POV fork, but there is certainly significant overlap. It's not something easily fixed, though, or anything where an obvious block or deletion will make progress. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This might be a case where WP:dispute resolution is appropriate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did raise it to a Wikiquette alert. But when I noticed the second spinoff/fork, it seemed like my efforts to discuss & resolve were inadequate. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The creation of these articles is legitimate at this time when there are active editors who wish to expand and research the articles. There is no need to raise the decibels here. Let everyone get on with editing and writing. Thanks, 02:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)IZAK

Accusations of copyright violations and legal threats on Talk:Catiline

Resolved

 – User blocked.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Inopibus (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed material from this page, replacing it with "Do not revert. Don't play tyrant with license to publish this has been revoked." This user also alleges that someone is harassing him/her online and has threatened to contact the FBI (here). Several editors (including myself) have undone this user's edits to this page but another, anonymous user (150.131.86.163 (talk · contribs)) reverts those changes, calling them vandalism. I'm not sure exactly what's going on here but I figured it would be best to draw attention to it. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've added warnings about legal threats to the users talkpage and the article talkpage. There seems to be a revert war going on the Talk page of this article which I'm loath to get involved in - suggest an admin has a look. Exxolon 23:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm being harrassed there. My writings are copyrighted. Everyone concerned has had the opportunity to follow the argument, but you may not publish my writings any longer than I say you can. I've deleted some material which is going to be used after the argument has been refined and edited in another document.

In addition to that someone you are calling an editor is an internet stalker. That individual is the one starting an undo/revert war.Inopibus 00:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can you clarify please? If you're referring to text you've contributed to Wikipedia under the GFDL then you can't revoke your permission to publish it. If someone is copying text you've written elsewhere then we can and will delete it for you. Exxolon 00:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW: This individual started this by publishing personal information about me as well.Inopibus 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• If that's correct it's a violation of Wikipedia:Privacy and can be dealt with as well. Exxolon 00:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Any admin willing to look at this lot? I'm really not sure exactly what the problems are here. Exxolon 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• The text that you removed from the talk page appears to be from a 2006/07 article by E.H. Campbell. The full text is available online but is copyrighted, meaning that it should not have been published in Wikipedia. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Ye gods what a mess this appears to be. Legal threats, copyright violations, stalking and privacy violation accusations, anonymous Ips and a new user and possible language barriers too. We could really use some admin oversight here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exxolon (talk • contribs) 00:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Morven and I are trying to sort it out. Good times... --Haemo 01:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at it and frankly User:Inopibus seems incapable of comporting himself appropriately on Wikipedia. I have placed him under an indefinite block for disruption, legal threats and sockpuppeting. Please inform me if you disagree with this block. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Morven, if the blocked user is still having issues with the copyright matters, send him to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright so we can sort it out at WP:OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good block, and Zscout, there's nothing we can do. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, although I feel that the content he posted himself on the talk page and then withdrew could be deleted, since we don't really need it and there's no point in antagonizing him further. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT campaign by anonymous IP editor/sockpuppet

Following an extremely hostile and bitter AfD debate, an Earthlink user with one sockpuppet account has been engaging in a WP:POINT edit/revert war over articles I edit or create. I'm getting tired of having everything I work on being immediately attacked to "remove flowery language" or "cut unnecessary section", having <<citation needed>> stuck into the middle of perfectly well sourced paragraphs, and templates about fiction, original research, and NPOV stuck into every section. User will not negotiate with me, claims that vandalism from his addresses(es) are just "another user" on the same Earthlink IP every time, uses said addresses to avoid 3RR violations, and has shown zero good faith in his editing habits (so far I've been accused of being a "fanboy", illiterate, deliberately using "peacock" terms to upset the NPOV of an article I've created, and intentionally uploading copyvio content. These accusations are plainly garbage.

User edits primarily on the following IP addresses, and also has one registered sockpuppet account: GundamsRus (talk · contribs), which he claims is not actually his (and often attempts to defend his right to edit anonymously from it, ho ho).

• 207.69.137.42 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.7 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.10 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.29 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.27 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.28 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.36 (talk · contribs) note: this account has now been blocked for one year due to vandalism
• 4.158.222.133 (talk · contribs)

Current edit war is ongoing on the article here. Since creating and publishing this page at 13:59 today, the user has made 10 unconstructive and questionable edits without any sort of prior discourse or discussion, then used one of his anonymous addresses to defend them and avoid 3RR violation from his sockpuppet account. This is more or less the gold standard this user participates in (he must be watching my contributions page like a hawk). The article was up for less than an hour before he got to work.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of having to babysit every article I create or work on. This user believes his edits are wholly correct, not open for negotiation, and that I am being disruptive by reverting him. As of now, this user has yet to actually contribute any content or material to any of the articles in question, and that's really starting to get to me. He won't discuss his edits, he fills my talk page with rubbish and accusations of every policy violation under the sun (including vandalism), and at the current rate of things, my edits reverting him are going to eclipse the constructive ones I've made (like actually editing or creating articles, for one...). Is there anything that can be done about this? MalikCarr 23:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a clash over content that is threatening to go nuclear. I protected it for 24 hours in the hope that both parties will try to talk reasonably to each other. Review of my act welcomed, & if it appears both parties are beginning to play nice the protection can be shortened. -- llywrch 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to protect a bunch of related articles the other day; frankly I wish I could cash in my rouge points and protect the lot of them indefinitely until the parties figure something out. east.718 at 22:38, 11/5/2007

There is an ongoing RFM here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam but it started before this explosion of a "fourth/fifth" (I'm officially listed as a party, though I have not edited the articles that the RFM lists) party. hbdragon88 01:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request review needed at User talk:Vintagekits

An unblock request that should receive prompt attention is pending at User talk:Vintagekits. Review should preferably be by administrators who have not had previous dealings with the disputes addressed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. My own current thoughts about the block are on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason? 1 != 2 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with Alison and Newyorkbrad comments on Vintagekits' talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion, Newyorkbrad, is that any uninvolved appears to become an involved admin at Vk's behest. I was originally asked to intervene because I was entirely uninvolved, now because I have blocked Vk a few times and drew his ire, he now wishes to paint me as involved. This is not the first time Vk has tried this tactic, the point is to marginalise those admins who are familiar with the full extent of his record of disrputive behaviour. The warning I left for him [105] was in response to a clear repetition of the behaviour ArbCom ruled on and was a clear breach of the terms of his probation. It was in the response to this warning that earned him the block per his civility parole. [106] [107] [108] Personally, I don't care what Vk says about me and would not have blocked him for that myself, but I am concerned that he appears to be able to convince people that an admin who took actions against him in the past becomes "involved" and thus should not interact with him again. That said, If other admins wish to actively ensure Vk adheres to the terms of his probation, I am more than happy to walk away and let them do so, but no-one appears willing to do so. I do not consider it appropriate to ignore ongoing disruptive editing simply because the editor in question wishes to paint any admin he interacts with as having a vendetta against him, especially one that has been blocked by 10 different admins in the past. At this rate there will not be anyone left "uninvolved." Rockpocket 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"but no-one appears willing to do so" - really? - Alison ^❤ 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unwilling, or simply unaware of it. You said yourself "this was the first time the Arb provisions were invoked and he was caught out. You get to do that once (the plead ignorance bit) then no more. He's had his chance now". I'm in total agreement with that, but he wouldn't know he had his chance unless he was warned and directed to the terms of the probation, which was what I did. Did you noticed that he had revert warred and were you planning to warn him? Was anyone else? Perhaps someone would like to be the go-to-guy in future? Rockpocket 01:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as an arbitration clerk (not nominally assigned to this particular case, but I followed it closely and helped with the implementation notes at the end), the wording of the proposed decision was a complete mess for awhile as the case appeared ready to close with some paragraphs of the proposed decision passing and others not, but containing cross-references to the paragraphs that didn't pass, and thus making no sense. As a result, there may have been some legitimate confusion as to exactly what the decision meant, until the arbitrators were consulted and we got it cleaned up just before it was announced. Therefore, claims that Vintagekits was not sure as to the exact status of his probation may have been legitimate in this one instance. That excuse would, of course, not be available in the future. Newyorkbrad 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, which was why I made the decision to warn Vk that he was breaching his probation, rather than issue a block. I was left with a quandary: do I ignore it and permit him to continue to edit-war counter to ArbCom's ruling, do I warn him by posting on his talk page, even though I am aware he does not welcome me there, or do I block? I don't see the point of having ArbCom if we are not going to enforce its rulings, and I thought a warning would be fairer than a block, so did so and told him to feel free to remove the notice at his pleasure. Do you have a suggestion for which course of action would have been preferable, Brad? Rockpocket 01:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I find his claim to have been unaware that he was under a last warning about edit-warring and incivility on NI-related articles to be rather disingenuous, given that he was informed of the outcome. I thought Tyrenius' block was a good one, and was disappointed to see an unblock request couched in such uncivil language ("Rockpocket was the main editor that attempt to get me indefinately blocked during the Arbcom for that reason I would prefer not to deal with him because of his agenda to get me blocked") was honoured for such a problematic user. However, moving onwards, it might be helpful if we agreed here who will block Vk the next time he edit-wars or abuses other users. If we are to give Vk a last chance, it needs to be monitored. If those admins (and there are now eleven of us, I think) who have previously found it necessary to block him are recused from enforcing the terms of his probation, who will be able to block in future, and who is monitoring this? --John 02:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been assured Vk's talk page is now "crawling" with admins, so I can only assume at least some of them will notice him violating his parole rather than wait until he makes an unblock request before commenting. Its also noted that, Newyorkbrad excepted, all those admins who appeared to unblock Vk didn't see a problem with leaving this, added to his page in response to a perfectly justified warning. Maybe they didn't notice it, but one would have thought if you were willing to endorse an unblocking you might check to see whether there was a good reason for it in the first place. How encouraging that "uninvolved" admins have things under control. I think we risk setting a very dangerous precedent in assuming that admins who provide evidence to ArbCom justifying their prior admin actions automatically become an "involved" party and must recuse themselves from enforcing ArbCom's rulings. That appears to be what is being suggested here. Like John, I await advice about who exactly is ensuring the probation is adhered to. Rockpocket 07:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits was previously indefinitely blocked because of his abusive language to other editors. This block was lifted by ArbCom, by whom he was placed on probation, the terms of which were one revert per week on certain subjects, as well as "may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility." He breached the first condition. He could have been blocked, but Rockpocket leniently warned him instead. Vintagekits removed the warning (as he is entitled to do) but with the edit summary, "GET OFF AND STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE 1. THAT WAS NOT A CONDITION OF MY RETURN 2. YOU CAN NOT ACT ON ME AS YOU ARE AN INVOLVED ADMIN - trot on - I feel your pain from here!" He posted to User talk:Rockpocket under a heading, "Get off and stay off my talk page", saying, "You are not welcome there and its is a just pure provikation that you are posting there - DONT DO IT AGAIN", "you - who I consider a disgraceful excuse for an admin", "please use your bitterness in a more constructive manner", "control your endless rage", "You sound like you are going to cry, you really are obsessed with me, it's sad really", "It must kill you that you just can ban me doesnt it". All of this is quite unjustified and a clear breach of the second probation condition. Again he could have been blocked, but I gave him a warning to desist from such attacks. His response was to refer to "[Rockpocket's] twisted and bitter agenda". Clearly Vintagekits is violating the second ArbCom probation condition and showed no signs of relenting, which was why I blocked him. I fail to see why he was unblocked.

None of the admins in the ArbCom case received censure, nor were any prohibited from applying the ArbCom sanctions (unless involved in a specific edit dispute). Vintagekits has no grounds for banning any admin, including Rockpocket, from doing so or from posting on his talk page.

Tyrenius 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is my understanding of the situation also, Tyr. Of course, in his unblock request, Vk declined to mention all that, preferring to suggest he was blocked for removing content from his talk page or requesting others do not post there. I can't comment on whether the unblocking admin made of the situation, as he he declined to elaborate. Perhaps he would be willing to invest the time to oversee the terms of this probation, since he appears to be familiar enough with it to unblock? Rockpocket 23:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is exactly as you have previously pointed out, namely that admins fresh on the scene will not see the whole picture and those familiar with the situation will be accused of bias, persecution, obsession, being involved or whatever to try to prevent them from acting or to drive them away from sheer exhaustion. Tyrenius 23:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that any admin that needs to do so to carry out the business of the wiki should feel free to post wherever and whenever needful, including on pages of users they had unpleasant interactions with in the past, unless there are specific extenuating reasons why not. I also agree that it would set a bad precedent to say that we need a new, previously uninvolved admin, every single time that we deal with a user. But I'm not sure what's being accomplished now. Wasn't VK blocked for a while for this comment? Do we have reason to believe that the behaviour (which I do agree was incivil) is going to recur if VK remains unblocked? The recent contribs log seems pretty benign. I would hope that VK gets the message that he can't carry on this way without consequences but we know that forcing apologies doesn't work very well. If this recurs, block again, but if not, perhaps let it go? See Meatball:ForgiveAndForget. I think a lot of people are trying very hard, and it's not easy. This is a difficult situation. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, unfortunately, does not seem to be making the effort needed to take advantage of no longer being indefinitely blocked. He is continuing his aggressive behaviour. The unblocking is just an encouragement that he can continue to get away with it. It is very much not in his interest that he should be allowed such a perception. The inevitable is an eventual indef block all over again. There is no point in the ArbCom ruling unless it is enforced. Tyrenius 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Here [109] are VK's contributions since returning from his unblocking, which ones are the problem? Giano 23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all described above and can be found on User talk:Vintagekits (with Rockpocket's warning in the history) and on User talk:Rockpocket. Do you need all the diffs? Tyrenius 23:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you not all just leave him alone, to sort himself out. He is making some valuable and good edits. You appear to be just looking for trouble and hounding him into a corner and I'm sure you know what happens when you corner an angry person. Is that what you want? Giano 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "some valuable and good edits" means those that violate ArbCom's probation conditions should be overlooked? Rockpocket 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that you appear to be too involved and too heated. Why not ask an Arbcom member to review the situation. Or else let him find his feet. Do you seriously imagine you are helping the situation at the moment? Giano 00:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:beh-nam

Moved from WP:AIV

beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please be advised that I've been monitoring Beh-nam and he is still harrasing other users [110] [111] after he was warned by several admins and was blocked very recently for the same behaviour.[112] He should not have been unblocked from indef to one week because he continues to vandalise pages and curse other users with no regrets. He is using IPs to spread ethnic hate, hate speaches, racial discrimination, ethnic wars, [113] accusing others for vandalising pages but in reality he is the one vandalising and leaving very offensive remarks on other people's talk pages. [114], [115],[116] I don't understand why is this person allowed to continue with such bad behaviour? Please ban this vandal, seems like he comes online just for edit-war because that's all he does everyday, he will not learn. I believe he is a meatpuppet of Anoshirawan, they both changing the correct word "Afghan" to a false "Afghanistani" name everyday, everywhere they come across it.[117], [118] NOTE: I just provided several of his hate posts, there are many more if you slowly go through his history. His history does not show any such good contribution, they are all related to race and ethnic wars.Khan1982 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

reset to indef block, obviously not learned his lesson. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, did you even check the contributions? All but one of the offending links given above are from before the previous block. The only marginally problematic new edit is the one about User:Maria Tahoo ([119]). Is that enough for an indef? (Incidentally, he may actually be right about that accusation). Where he's certainly also right is in saying that this Khan1982 is a banned sock, edits like [120] are his signature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: Fut. Perf. blocked Khan1982 for being a sockpuppet shortly after posting the above. -- llywrch 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I looked at the contribs, but based on the Khan1982 info immediately above, I'm unblocking beh-nam. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rbkl

Resolved

 – My thoughts exactly.

This user was blocked for making legal threats. In my unblock decline I indicated that users with outstanding threats will be blocked. The user has since indicated that they are withdrawing the threat. I don't think I've ever seen a user blocked for legal threats actually claim to withdraw the threat, so I'm not entirely sure of the action to take here. There were other reasons for the block, so I'm leaning toward shortening the block but not unblocking outright, but at the same time I question whether or not we need more potentially problem user. Could another admin or 2 take a look at this situation? I don't have the time to look at the situation in-depth right now. Mr.Z-man 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I looked at User_talk:Rbkl and did not perceive a hint of remorse, or any idea that it was unwise to threaten legal action. The administrators who (thus far) have declined to lift the block seem to be following common sense. If you have any doubts, a short conversation with him about the doings on Scottish clan might well convince you. Looks to me that he had already been courteously informed on his own Talk page that his edits to Scottish clan didn't make sense. For example here and in the five following comments. The Scottish clan page is supposed to have a pre-existing article for every clan entry, which his new additions definitely didn't have. He got all steamed up when his edits were reverted, eventually as vandalism, and this led to his legal threat. EdJohnston 03:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

His legal threat has not been rescinded. I've protected the page due to abuse of the unblock template. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another view after looking through the edit history, I agree with the block and page protection. Gnangarra 03:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As the initial blocking admin, I'd also like to point out that "Prince Richard I" had been phenomenally incivil to RepublicanJacobite and had also been revert-warring. - Alison ^❤ 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass-deletion of maintenance tags from Family Guy articles

Resolved

68.101.73.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a history of deleting maintenance tags. Today's campaign is removing {{Fictioncruft}} from Family Guy articles. As usual, no Talk page discussion; while I only commented about this incident on the user's Talk page only minutes ago, this editor has never replied to anything and is unlikely to be talked into reverting their changes.

I think this could use a rollback. / edg ☺ ★ 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - final warning given. - KrakatoaKatie 07:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! / edg ☺ ★ 07:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the rollback was appropriate. This is not an incident but rather a content issue that is a normal part of the consensus process. Administrative tools should not be used to favor one content position over another. The articles were all tagged at the same time for the same reason, which is arguably incorrect. It therefore makes sense and is a consensus matter for someone to remove them all at the same time. Those who support the tag make the obvious assertion that the material is a form of trivia. However, the party that removed them argues that popular culture references are the very subject of the cartoon series. Covering the references made in an episode is akin to summarizing the plot, or the notable features of a product. A tag having to do with sourcing might be more appropriate - some of the claims ought to be sourced, clearly a tedious project. Whatever the outcome, deciding which tag to use if any is not an issue to settle on a case-by-case basis in each article, and I don't think it should be settled by administrative intervention.Wikidemo 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It was mass editing without discussion, rollback is completely appropriate. Admins need to address disruptive editing, and the rollback button exists for a reason. It is not a content dispute if the person will not discuss it, it is just stubborn editing. The tag simply calls for more investigation and attention, it is not a condemnation of an article. 1 != 2 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two positions, one to add the tags and one to delete the tags. Deleting them is no more disruptive than adding them. If added in a batch they can just as easily be deleted in a batch. Those particular tags do not simply invite people to review; they condemn the content as deletable and ask people to remove it. Both the proponent of the tags and the one who removed the tags made brief comments in the edit summary. Is there any real indication of a refusal to discuss? They can't be discussed on a case by case basis so the discussion would have to be at a central place. Again, fodder for consensus discussion, not administrators taking sides.Wikidemo 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock alert

Resolved

Judging from how it's signing its comments, User:Thatsafactjack appears to be a sock of User:Daddy Kindsoul, who's been causing a fair amount of annoyance lately. Might be a good idea to shut it down quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Passes WP:DUCK with flying colors. Blocked, and notified Yamla. east.718 at 07:26, 11/5/2007

Thanks, everyone. --Yamla 15:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements pretending to encyclopedia articles

Please check SqlSpec. I have noticed that advertisement for company, product etc is written in such a professional way that it looks like encyclopedia article. If this continue companies will hire wikipedians who has in depth experience of writing wikipedia article and advertise their products. As the article looks encyclopedia article and new page patroller, administrators has constant pressure due to volume of new articles created, such advertisements may go unnoticed. I request all admins to remain alert and not get fooled by professional wikipedians. Thanks. abhih 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Will? It's already happened. If you happen to see another professional advert-like article in the future, please do as you've done and either open a case on WP:COIN or alert an admin. Thanks! east.718 at 07:25, 11/5/2007

Another one Total Recorder. I just wonder how can new user write article in perfectly professional way in his first edit on wikipedia. I am really concerned about this. abhih 08:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting encyclopedic content on a competitor is also a common commercial tactic. Why this deletion but leaving 16 others that have articles, and several more that don't? I suggest that Total Recorder be restored if your only complaint is that it is written too well. Add a sourced encyclopedic problem with the product if NPOV is the issue. We don't delete because articles are not yet perfect. All of wikipedia is unfinished. WAS 4.250 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I got the meaning of your message on my talk page. We need to aply logic to understand what is advertisement. There are companies which are far far bigger than wikipedia. These companies, like my company, do not need wikipedia for publicity. My company will not even care about what is being written on wikipedia about my company. There are millions on internet to write about my comany and revert vandalism. Even small employee of my company will not interfare. But there are some small companies who want to be on first page of google results for publicity of their product. I am talking about such companies who want to use wikipedia for publicity. Same things apply to bio. Stephen Hawking will not attempt to write his own bio on wikipedia. But there are others who want to use wikipedia and google to be famous. I hope you got the meaning. abhih 18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia used tags that kept articles from hitting the top on search results under certain circumstances. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft paid a person to edit wikipedia articles on its products. Deleting the competition to large companies' products is an unacceptable POV bias in wikipedia coverage. So long as there exists reliable published unbiased data on a product, we should have an article on it. There exists reliable published unbiased data on Total Recorder. WAS 4.250 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article. There's nothing in the article which seems to be blatant puffery - in fact it's written in remarkably neutral terms. It does explain clearly what the product does, its shareware limitations and avoids marketingspeak. Improve it, don't delete it. FCYTravis 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

this would be a case for WP:COIN rather than this noticeboard. There is no problem with companies paying people to write Wikipedia articles. The same guidelines apply for paid and unpaid editors, and I think we all know that just because somebody is unpaid doesn't mean they are automatically unbiased... dab (𒁳) 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:T3Smile

During a current DRV T3Smile (talk · contribs) made what I consider a personal attack against Smashville (talk · contribs) here. User:T3smile has now approach another editor and listed a number of article on Swerdnaneb (talk · contribs) talk page here. These are all articles that Smashville has either edited recently or created. I feel that independent admins should appraise themselves of the situation and comment as they see appropriate.

For the record I have also commented on the DRV and instigated WP:SSP#User:Achidiac after finding too many similarities between edits. Gnangarra 07:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gnagarra, in my travels I found these articles. It is perfectly OK to ask an admin as my opinion on notability has changed and some other articles should not make the cut either as the quality is Lo-Fi (noting one or more of these articles have been previously marked for deletion) - thanking you as inspiration to such. Are you of aboriginal origin? Or do you have a lot of time on your hands? cheers T --T3Smile 07:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would my ancestory be of any importance to this discussion execpt as an implied racial attack Gnangarra 07:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gnagarra, I wasnt flashing a race card I was asking if you were, because you act as if you are not, and you have an aboriginal name here. Its just like assuming a guy named Yacob is of Jewish origin. Too Much Time methinks T.--T3Smile 08:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Thanking (Gnangarra) as inspiration" for finding articles created by an editor who opposed your views, then making a veiled threat to send them to AFD? That sounds very pointy, and if you do send any of them to AFD I would consider it disruptive. Now you have an admin's opinion. - KrakatoaKatie 08:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow...um...hmm...I never expected that much attention...those are about as bad faith noms as it comes...two Breeders Cup Champs, a European Champ, two Triple Crown winners...I stand by my comment in the DRV. Mr. Chidiac admitted in one edit that he had supplied someone with a shoebox of info so that he may have an article written about himself. - Smashville 15:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

They havent been nominated yet, user Swerdnaneb acting in good faith has just given T3Smile instructions on how to do it diff. Gnangarra 15:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware...no issue whatsoever with Swerdnaneb. It's good info to have if someone decides to be a productive editor. Smashville 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Australian federal election, 2007

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_federal_election%2C_2007#Images_of_Leaders Brendan is reverting good faith image additions, and in the process is achieving imbalance with an two leader images for one party, and one leader image for the other. Per archive talk, he refuses to allow consensus to form in the community before engaging in a revert war. This time I will not break 3RR, I am at 2RR, I would appreciate some intervention this time. Thankyou. Timeshift 08:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I reject any allegation that I have obstructed consensus. Far from it. All editors are encouraged to join the talkpage discussion so that consensus can be allowed to unfold. "Good faith" is not a criterion for content inclusion and consensus is formed by discussion, not by inserting content and guarding it against all comers. --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been very little discussion so I suggest just continuing discussion on the talk page. I don't see any reason for a post here--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:EasyTarget

The whole situation started a few days ago, when an IP Complication caused a picture of Jean Charles De Menezes with the word "Own3d" to be uploaded under my name, and a peice of text edited to say "Jean Charles De Menezes was A brazilian National Living in britain who was OWNED by police" under my name.
Following this, I received two messages - one from User:193.166.18.55 and another from user:EasyTarget- here.
In one of the messages left by EasyTarget, I was called a "troll", and "Hard of thinking", when I responded to this, I was likened to a "Criminal", and easyTarget wen't so far as to state that I personally shot him.
I don't know where to go from here. This is Zanusi 10:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the upload (it looks bad that it is on your account, but cookie reassigning is close to impossible because of Wikipedia hashes on cookies, even if IPs are reassigned - but it may be possible to check if an account is compromised via checkuser), but I do think that EasyTarget's comments were inappropriate. (Non-admin) x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you post any explination/proof/evidence over this "IP Complication". Are you not responsible for the security of your own account? Its what you are suggesting happened is completely impossible.--58.111.134.238 11:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Zanusi uploads an image of Jean Charles De Menezes, with the word "OWN3D" written across his face. Zanusi then gets upset when accused of being a troll. The actions were trolling, and accusing Zanusi of being "hard of thinking" is quite reasonable, as it really was a stupid thing to do. I've indef blocked Zanusi. I'll tell him on his talk page that I'll consider reducing the block if he apologises and promises not to troll again. I don't think anyone would believe the account had been compromised (but if it had been, that's as good a reason for it to be blocked). Neil ☎ 12:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I am "blackmailing him into apologising", so he is refusing to admit he uploaded the image, despite the upload logs showing he in fact did. He can stay blocked, as far as I am concerned. Neil ☎ 12:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've explained to the user regarding cookies and IPs. The user has made some good faith edits in the past (amongst other not-so-good ones, but we are never fully innocent), and I think that even though this is a fairly serious BLP offence, it suggests an account that hasn't been logged out in all public places. I hope that if he apologises, he can have a reduced block. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it isn't a BLP problem. The Metropolitan Police saw to that. Relata refero 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Zanusi, following an apology and a promise to be more careful when editing from public computers. Any further naughtyness from this account and the block may be reapplied. Neil ☎ 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User Dbromage, suspected sockpuppetry, voting fraud, COI and self awarding of Barnstar

Resolved

 – Discussion is at WP:SSP. GRBerry 23:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have listed my concerns in both the Administrators and COI notice board as I believe there has been abuse and COI. User:Dbromage behavior warrants an investigation. If my allegations are judged to have basis, it goes a long way in explaining the editing warring, sock/meat puppetry, and general un-civility, which has occurred in Railpage article over the past year.

Having entered into a good faith discussion with a editor who admits a COI with the Railpage article (see 3-4th November 2007) [121], I've finally become sick and tired of this user Dbromage and his sock and meat puppets.

User:Dbromage I suspect is using multiple sock puppets Thin Arthur, The Null Device and possibly two other IP addresses (see end) to edit, vote and discuss changes to the Railpage article and many other articles (refer evidence) here at Wikipedia.

Reading the Railpage article the name Dbromage seems to match as the subjects founder - David Bromage .

I’m particularly disturbed that the user has awarded himself and an Administrator [122] a Barnstar using his Thin Arthur sockpuppet (a first on Wikipedia?). [123]

The user has also given false and misleading information to an Administrator User:Durova in order to conceal his identity. [124] [125]

This user has used the Thin Arthur and Null Device sock puppets and has not disclosed his conflict of interest when discussing Railpage article content. [126] [127] [128]

User:Dbromage would have a difficult case against ignorance of COI guidelines as he has advised others on the issue using the Thin Arthur sock puppet. [129]

And I consider the be the more serious, voting against its deletion and making comments against the articles deletion. Afd #2, Afd #3, #4.

The user has also attempted to take action against myself when there is disputed content on numerous occasions without disclosing his/her conflict of interest in the Railpage article. [130][131] [132]

I also suspect that the user is also responsible for meat puppetry using names such as FailpageMustGo, “DFC free Oz” and “Fundie Busters” using throw away IP addresses in a deliberate attempt to stymie debate and discredit any further nominations for the article’s deletion. Look at the timing of the nomination of Afd #4, user:The Null Device and 59.167.77.190.

If these allegations are proven, how will it affect the status of the Railpage Article? as Dbromage through his sock puppets have heavily edited the article. See 23rd July 2007 [133]

Evidence to support my allegations

Please look at this; [134] I consider Thin Arthur and 150.203.56.19 to be the same. IP 150.203.56.19 seems to be an in adverted error of not logging into Wikipedia by user:Dbromage.

If you agree then, please consider this Revision history of Deborah Lawrie

The article was created by Dbromage and then was amazingly edited on the same day by 150.203.56.19. It would be shear stroke of luck that another user with as much knowledge on a remote subject would stumble over it within a matter of hours, and providing finishing references to Dbromage edits. True, there is a two-hour break between edits. It looks as though the same editor is at work.

Please refer to the following link where one user corrects the other. Again, it looks as though the same editor is at work [135]

If your are still unsure, there is more evidence linking 150.203.56.19 to User:Thin Arthur. These are just a few, there are some more in no particular order which I’ve put on my talk page. If you fancy yourself as a Wikisleuth, you can start here [136]

Edits made within minutes

• Afd Political Change

• Wikiquette alerts

Evidence linking Thin Arthur, 150.203.56.19 to Dbromage

• 20 min gap List_of_notable_rail_transport_modellers - Thin Arthur was rather fortunate having those references on hand!!
• Bilevel_car
• 10 min gap Fred_Smith

Some other examples

• The_Omar_Khayyam_Show
• Son_of_Fred

Thin Arthur supporting Dbromage’s vote in an Afd - there are more on my talk page

• Victorian_general_election

Thin Arthur, edits Dbromage's contribution.

• WikiProject_Australia

Now look at user Thin Arthur’s edits with The Null device

• Scott_McGregor&action

Null Device and Dbromage

• Talk:Hush_%28song

It seems to me the same user editing in the same manner, circumstantial evidence, maybe, but based on the link between Dbromage and Thin Arthur it is surely enough to warrant a check user request against The Null Device.

Based on the above evidence I believe it would be worthwhile the following user names for check user.

• Dbromage
• Thin Arthur
• The Null Device
• 150.203.56.19

And based upon the edit made here [137] & [138], and user who admitted to having these IP addresses, but was reluctant to disclose his user name to Administrator [139]

• 59.167.77.190
• 59.167.89.251

Thank you.Tezza1 14:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not function very well with long involved investigations, in part because inactive topics are archived in about 24 hours, and also because it is so high-traffick. If you are convinced that there are sockpuppets, I would suggest posting at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets; if you think there are outstanding COI issues, try Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --Iamunknown 16:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done Tezza1 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Tmoney2677

Resolved

New account used only for vandalism. Gwen Gale 14:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've issued them a {{uw-vandalism4}}. In the future, you can report this kind of simple vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks, Satori Son 14:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for telling me about it. Gwen Gale 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unclaimed socks

I've blocked CBOrgatrope (talk · contribs) and Shrinklefarm (talk · contribs) as suspected sockpuppets, but I'm not really sure whose socks they are. Before I blanked CBOrgatrope's talk page, it was an exact copy of my talk page from early October, except he changed all of my signatures to his. Also before blanking, his user page had pieces of multiple pages, including Moe Epsilon's user page and HiDrNick's talk page. CBOrgatrope's talk page archives all belonged to Kurykh (talk · contribs) and were set up by Shrinklefarm (talk · contribs) (all now deleted). The weird thing is that CBOrgatrope appeared to be editing constructively before the block, so I'm bringing this here for input. - auburnpilot talk 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

From your description only and not doing any further research, you should immediately unblock CBOrangetrope. That user (according to your description) is editing constructively but is mischevous with his/her own talk page. By blocking, you are damaging the encyclopedia Wikipedia. The talk pages are just support of the encyclopedia, not the reference materials themselves. If you are bothered by the weird behavior, discuss it. As far as Shrinklefarm, you didn't say what is going on. I suggest immediate unblocking of the CBOrgange and discussion.

If CBOranges mainspace edits are good (that's a big IF), I suggest blocking of administrator auburnpilot for a short period because he/she is damaging WP unnecessarily as well as giving CBOrange a talk. Blocking is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, not because you think someone's talk page is "weird" (auburnpilot's complaint) Miesbu 16:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no foundation for your suggestion that we should block an administrator because of disagreement with a block he imposed on somebody else. This would serve no useful purpose and we do not engage in such practice, particular when the administrator has voluntarily brought the matter here for review and comments. Newyorkbrad 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Miesbu (talk · contribs) is a self declared sock and his/her comments thus far are a bit absurd. As stated above, I welcome input on these blocks. - auburnpilot talk 16:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a wiki-lynching term to call someone "nigger". Yes, they may be black but you are not AGF and launching personal attacks on me. All my comments make sense. In the US South, a nigger is an excuse to lynch them and hang them. You seem very aggressive calling CBOrange names and calling me names. Stop this!Miesbu 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My favorite is his snarky comment complaining about John Reaves unblocking himself when he blocked himself accidentally. That's the sign of a good-faith contributor to the encyclopedia.  ;) (Oh, and I've reverted the trolling section title back to the original.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a bystander who happened to read this, but it seems to me rather disruptive for a non-admin's user page to state that s/he's an admin and be included in the "Wikipedia administrators" cat (as CBOrangetrope's copypasted page did before it was blanked). Whether that deserves a block, I don't know, but it appears to be more than being "mischevous with his/her own talk page." Deor 16:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was a little thrown off by the trolled title - "Why in the world does AuburnPilot think he needs a block on himself?" Anyway, re: CBOrgatrope, could he have just copied bits of talkpages for notetaking or other reasons, and accidentally dumped them on his own talkpage rather than on a sandbox page? Also, why IS Miesbu using 2+ accounts? Should that be investigated?  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Checking a few logs, it seems CBOrgange was created by I.1 (talk · contribs). [140] - auburnpilot talk 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering Miesbu's most recent post on my talk page accuses me of using the word "sock" in the same manner that the word "nigger" is used in the US South, I'm fighting the urge to issue another block. During an edit conflict, he/she has posted the same nonsense above. - auburnpilot talk 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What?! I've never heard that before, and I am from the South (North Carolina, born and raised). It's off the current topic, but you're right, AP - Miesbu DOES say that he has a "main" account, making User:Miesbu a sockpuppet, at least in my book.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for coming on so strong, but the real question is if CBOrange has constructive edits. If so, he/she needs to be part of a discussion that others are bothered by the talk pages, not immediate blockingMiesbu 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser appears to show quite a sock farm in use. I'll be issuing some blocks a bit later (don't have the time right now) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that trolling from one of the now-blocked socks touched off the recent BADSITES drama around Robert Black (professor), I heartily approve the block. Thanks for taking the time. William Pietri 20:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I've gone through and blocked a large number of them. This appears to be some long-standing troublemaker; I'm not familiar with their signature obsessions enough to be sure which one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Need A User Banned, More

Resolved

User:Russellmba has had a long history of vandalism which I don't feel like rehashing again, but actions were recently taken against him for repeated vandalism of one particular article. I'm back now asking for a full user ban based on his newest escalation of vandalism.

1. He is now editing what other editors have written to him on his user talk page, including tampering with the warning messages he's been given.[141] He changed what I wrote and signed, which makes it look like I wrote that message, which is clearly more vandalism.
2. He is making (juvenile) personal attacks against other editors.[142].

This user has been nothing but disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fife Club (talk • contribs)

He has already been indefblocked (as of 2 November). Are you asking for his talk page to be protected too? пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - talk page protected. Neil ☎ 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Alledge personal attack on WT:SPOILER

A minor edit war has just erupted on WT:SPOILER over whether Milomedes comments[143] are personal attacks against Tony Sidaway.[144][145][146][147]

My opinion, Milomedes comments are boarder line PA, but this is par for the course for him during this entire discussion. He has frequently accessed others he disagrees with of bad faith in the past and this accusation is no different. Which is one of the reasons I quite participating in the discussion. --Farix (Talk) 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I could understand it being removed as off-topic, they need to take their petty bickering to their respective talk pages. -- John Reaves 21:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my single revert has provoked an edit war. If removing doesn't work then the best thing to do with that kind of comment is, I think, to ignore it. --Tony Sidaway 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of T3Smile, Achidiac and Rdpaperclip

Brief summary -

• Legal threats by Achidiac, one of three closely connected single purpose accounts. [148]
• Apparent intent being to somehow force an "A. Chidiac" article to exist despite 2 AFDs, a DRV, and 3 SPEEDY deletions of recreations of the newly AFD'ed material.
• Apparent spurious accusations of bad conduct, couldn't see evidence to warrant this. (I have requested that if this is wrong, to inform me).

Detailed history, diffs and rationale - User_talk:Achidiac#Recent_disputes.

A SOCK inquiry closed at WP:SSP with the recommendation "These accounts are the same person, or several people in collusion. I recommend indef blocking all of them for abusive sockpuppetry". [149]

Cleanup of Chidiac-related images and links needed.

It's been a long, long day today. Can someone double-check that everything's fair and proper to best standards, that the deletions done were correct and none overlooked, and so on? It should be ok but I'd like a double-check on it since a block is involved. Thanks :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• After a look through the contributions and related AFD, this looks like a completely correct block. ELIMINATORJR 19:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Having seen this one unfold for a while, I also endorse this. Orderinchaos 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Anblik

Summary: This user keeps recreating LesTout.com, even after it has been speedied many times for violating copyright, and as an advertisement.

Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Page is now salted and cannot be re-created. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IP editor and caste articles

[relocated from WP:AN]

User:123.176.40.195 is repeatedly vandalising the articles.Pls ban the ip adresss from further editing wikipedia. Thanks John Rambo 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. But while you're here, the IP's edits don't appear to be vandalism. -- John Reaves 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is. 123.176.40.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be editing articles related to certain castes in India. Most of what it's doing doesn't look like blatant vandalism, so I'm presuming the IP is either adding subtle disinformation that I and others not familiar with the subject matter are not able to detect, or it is adding information that Rambo4u just doesn't like. Can someone who's familiar with this stuff take a look? This was probably meant for ANI. --Dynaflow babble 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, he needs to try and talk to the other editor first (i.e. something other than "stop vandalizing, you will be banned). -- John Reaves 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's just how some folks say, "Hello." I would like to know why Rambo4u believes the IP's edits to be vandalism. First, though, I'd like to move this thread en masse to ANI, if there are no objections. --Dynaflow babble 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Hal Cross

Per an analysis of editing patterns and Checkuser data, I have indefinitely blocked the above user as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user. I note this here in case an unblock request claims that I am an involved party, as I have occasionally interacted with this user on Talk:American Family Association in recent weeks. If an unblock request is submitted, a dealing admin may email me for details. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

[150]. This user has also edited as DetectiveStan (talk · contribs) and 217.169.54.253 (talk · contribs). I'm just letting y'all know. Someguy1221 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty obvious sock. I've blocked the main account indefinitely per WP:NLT, this will also shut down his IPs for 24 hours. east.718 at 23:29, 11/5/2007

Block and protection review

I'd like some input from other users regarding a block I made of 74.162.173.6. Originally, they made this vandal edit to Stargate, which was reverted. Then, they made this edit to Christina Aguilera, which I rolled back as vandalism, but in that edit, they added a source too. The IP then posted on my talk page about in I liked incorrect information in the Christina Aguilera article, and what my problem with capital letters was. They also trolled their own talk page in this time. [151][152][153] In the end, I semi-protected their talk page for the trolling, and blocked the user to prevent more possible disruption. I think I may have been a little hasty with the block and protection though, hence my request for a review. Opinions on whether my protection and block were appropriate? Acalamari 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

While all of this might have been the reaction of a newbie upset over seeing his good faith edit reverted entirely (disregarding the initial vandalism), I don't see any problem blocking someone who responds with the maturity of a 7-year-old. Someguy1221 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're asking if you did right by blocking a vandal who happened to know how to add a ref to his disruptive edit (which another editor would have had to clean up even if the ref was kept), then made the cyber equivalent of scrawling graffiti on a bathroom wall? Yes, Acalamari, you did right, both on the block and protecting the page to stop further disruption. As a quick aside, I thank the IP for alerting me to the breaking Christina Aguilera news. I would have preferred a Britney story, but this will have to do. Jeffpw 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll see if anyone else comments, but I'm relieved to know that my protection and block were justified. Acalamari 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Block Vandalizing Editor

Please block Elephante3333 for vandalism. This individual has engaged in vandalism before and has been duly warned on his or her Talk Page about the consequences of continuing such behavior. This editor's latest act of vandalism can be seen here: [154]. ~ Homologeo 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinately [155] (actually a minute before you posted here). You can bring similar reports to WP:AIV in the future, where the response is generally faster than it is here. Someguy1221 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The user Malkouri is a vandal, and has been vandalising articles since atleast march and should be blocked, sorry im new to this, someone please format this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboenigmaster (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromised account?

In addition to my request for a review above, I have another request for a review. While I was writing my posting above, a user called Inseeisyou vandalized my user page. However, upon looking at the user's userpage and previous edits, they don't appear to be a vandal, and they haven't edited for months, leading me to believe this might be a compromised account. I was tempted to block, but decided not to. Does anyone else think this might be a compromised account? Acalamari 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This was my first impression when reverting the vandalism to your page, I checked the contribution history before I issued a notice about it, to determine the history of the editor. Oddly enough, their efforts in the past seem to be centered around removing vandalism, and I had not found anywhere they'd run in to Acalamari before, so I thought it strange they targeted his userpage. Based on the nature of the edit, I decided to use a template even though they were established, but it did cross my mind if this was somehow an account that was being used by someone other than it had been in the past. Family member, perhaps? Ariel♥Gold 00:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP resolves to Raleigh, North Carolina, the same state where User:Inseeisyou claims to be from (or in), so I think family member might be a good bet (or Inseeisyou just fell off his rocker). Someguy1221 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism from the IP mentioned above, and by this user, are very similar. I thought it was odd when I saw that registered user do that type of edit. Acalamari 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is a family member, I'm tempted to block the account, as that's normally the standard procedure for accounts that might be compromised. Also, if it is a family member, shared accounts are against policy anyway. Thoughts? Acalamari 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't prove it was compromised, they were warned, and didn't repeat any other nonconstructive edits, correct? I would probably take a more lenient route, and drop a note on the talk page, asking if there was some sort of mix up, or if perhaps they left a minor unattended (who knows, lol). Maybe I'm too forgiving, but I'm not sure I'd jump to a block as of now. (Feel free to completely discount my non-admin opinion on this, however. ) Ariel♥Gold 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Baseballfan789

Baseballfan789 (talk · contribs) has taken a notice he received on his user talk page regarding an attack page he created that was speedy deleted, and altered it to read like a death threat.[156] I don't see this as a valid use of a user talk page, and it circumvents the attack page policy as well. I reported this on AIV, but it was removed with the message that the edit was "benign". Since it has been reverted yet again, I feel as though I should report it here. This shouldn't be acceptable. JuJube 00:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:XusSatyrtn, disruptive edits, possible sock of blocked user

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. TigerShark 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about XusSatyrtn (talk · contribs). His/her editing pattern consists of adding phrases using nonsense words beginning with "ba-" to articles. For example, he/she describes the fictional characters of Barney Fife (from The Andy Griffith Show), Jon Arbuckle (Garfield), and Bert (Sesame Street) as "doing ba-limp", with no explanation of what that means and insistent reversions when the information is removed ("leave it here and quit wasting my time").

(For the record, even Urban Dictionary has no idea what "ba-limp" means, so it apparently isn't even a protologism.)

I left a message on his/her talk page but then I discovered the editing pattern was similar to that of blocked user Tip Ipp Ipp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 63.164.47.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also has similar edits. I have no conclusive proof, but if XusSatyrtn is Tip Ipp Ipp, he's circumventing his/her block and probably vandalizing to boot.

-- Powers ^T 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the evidence, it seems very likely that the user is a sockpuppet of User:Tip Ipp Ipp. I have idefinitely blocked the account. TigerShark 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article bullying (moved from WP:AN)

In regards to the Dir en grey article, certain users continue to bully this article. Looking at this articles history, it appears Notjake13 and Cyrus XIII, appear to have a history of bullying this article, and refuse to accept other peoples input. As soon as the article was updated to more encyclopedic, and I mentioned on the talk page that I don't see any further input was needed by me, the article was immediately vandalised and replaced with unencyclopedic content. User Parsifal also included information on the lead section which does not belong there. My efforts to move this information to a more suitable area were met with vandalism, and hostility. Their contributions have not been constructive, and I consider their edits to not be in a neutral point of view, or encyclopedic. Looking at the history log, I'm disgusted in the manner these users have treated many other editors contributions, and I have become disgruntled. They are bullying this article to reach an outcome that only they consent upon. I no longer have a desire to improve this article, as I don't care about the subject. However it still tarnishes the Wikipedias credibility as an encyclopedia. These few users have been bullying that article, and need to be stopped. Saguy1982 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: Notified users of involvement in WP:ANI. EoL talk 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This same highly disruptive user previously filed a report on AN/I that is still on this page, here: Uncivil behavior. That report has extensive evidence added by myself and Cyrus XIII of ongoing problems caused by this user who until yesterday was editing through multiple dynamic IPs and strongly appears to be a sockpuppet of Jun kaneko (talk · contribs · logs · block log), who has also used many IP address to evade blocks and harrass established editors with the same kinds of behaviors.

Now that he has posted his report on WP:AN too, and it's been moved here, I hope the additional attention will help to unravel the ongoing and very difficult problems he's caused and is still causing.

Since the last time I posted details on the prior report, he has continually edit-warred contrary to consensus against multiple established productive good faith editors.

I will be offline for a while, but if anyone needs any information beyond what's already provided in the previous report, I will try to help. --Parsifal _Hello 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up. I should add a bit more context to assist with reviewing the very long report above. Here is the sequence of recent events (not including his past blocks and IP-block evasion):

• He edit-warred using dynamic IPs
• His vandalism was reverted by various editors
• He posted his report above, accusing Cyrus of incivility due to the vandalism reversions
• I and Cyrus posted evidence to the above report
• He was convinced to make a new user name and did so, to "prove" he's not the same guy
• I wrote that I would assume good faith and would respond only to edits under his new user name, to see if he does not continue the past disruptions
• His first edit with the new user name was vandalism that removed valid references
• I reverted, and he posted a vandalism warning on my talk page
• He escalated his edit-warring with multiple editors and it became more and more clear that he is a sockpuppet as suspected
• After various talk page discussions, his vandalism was reverted by three editors on Dir en grey
• I'm pretty sure he violated 3RR, though I have not had time to count in detail
• When he saw that he was outnumbered by the consensus good-faith editors, he posted his WP:POINT report on WP:AN

That's the short story. The long story is quite long. I'm offline for a while now, and will be around later if there are questions. Full details are in the original report above, other than the new edit-warring he's been doing today, that's in the article history and talk page.

Thanks for your help with this. --Parsifal _Hello 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is shame that none of those claims hold any ground, Parsifal. I have already stated I have no desire to edit this article again, but I ask an admin please look into that articles talk page. The bully tactics of these users is quite evident, and it is an affront to the English version of the Wikipedia. I have already been contacted with support by another user about the situation (who I assume is an admin) and welcomed their suggestion, although decided upon it before their input. As stated, they have a history of bully tactics, and refusing to consent with other users, which is evident in the history logs and talk page. Parsifal also seems to contradict himself, by stating before he has no knowledge on this article, yet he seems to know much about it. I'm not wasting my time any further with such childish behaviour. That article needs minor adjustments to be encyclopedic, but it can not be done with childish bully tactics by certain users. Thats all there is to it. Saguy1982 01:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)