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)
WP:HARASS states that "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behaviour that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely."
User:RichSatan and these IPs (which all resolve to the same company on the same street, in the same town, in the same county in the UK) has been making ad hominem and generally harassing trolling comments on Talk:Games Workshop. The purpose of these remarks is to remove User:Cailil from the discussion.
RichSatan (a confirmed Sockpuppeteer[1] and a user with a history of ad hominem attacks[2][3]) blames me for the policy based removal of unsourced and unsourcable "comments and Criticism" from the Games Workshop article[4]. A number of IPs from Exeter, in Devon (UK), have over a period of nearly a year made the same trolling remarks a) about me and b)insisting on the reinclusion of unsourced original research. If RichSatan had not used sock puppets this would be a content dispute but it is now a behavioural issue and in my view a case of harrassment.
Both RichSatan and these IPs claim I am on a "one man crusade" to remove criticism from this page for reasons other than site policy. This is not the case. The material is OR and unsourced. Also consensus has been reached a number of times. An RFC[5] was opened specifically in the matter and previous to that Sir Fozzie was ask for a sysop review of my behaviour[6]. On both occasions the community has pointed out to RichSatan and these Exeter IPs that my behaviour is proper and defined by site policy. (For those wishing to verify the content issue see here This is also a direct link to the unsourced comments and criticism these IPs and RichSatan demand be reinstated into the article)
Yesterday IP 91.84.95.68 (from Exter) made the same RichSatan comments to Talk:Games Workshop. I opened an RFCU case to identify whether RichSatan was a sockpuppeteer or note. It confirmed that Byaahahaha is a RichSatan sock-puppet, but made no comment on the IPs (see here).
As far as I can see this is a case of WP:DUCK - all these IPs are making RichSatan's comments. All the IPs come from the same ISP in the same location. The problem is that 91.84.95.68 claims that it has never read the page before. Yet like all the other IPs it has made no other contributions to WP. RichSatan and these IPs have engaged in the same behaviour - trying to discredit, intimidate and undermine my editing, demanding that I do not edit the page and stop my "constant involvement". For the record I have not edited Games Workshop in 2008. In fact in the period August 2007 - March 2008 I have made 2 edits to the page. 1 removing link spam (September 2007)[14] the other (on December 10th)[15] in accordance with the findings of the RFC.
User:Byaahahaha was blocked indef blocked (on Feb 21st[25]) as a vandalism only account and a probable sock of RichSatan. The User:RichSatan is dormant but as yet unblocked for disruption or sockpuppetry (his last edit was Feb 21st[26]). The current Exeter IP is active (User:91.84.95.68) and engaging in the same ad hominem attacks on me and claims of no consensus on Talk:Games Workshop[[27]][28][29]. I'm requesting uninvolved sysop overview and intervention as I think this is a simple case of WP:DUCK - these IPs are probable RichSatan socks and are engaged in a campaign of harassment against me.
Apologies for the length of this post.--Caililtalk 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also it might help if a sysop examined whether the main sockpuppeteer account (User:RichSatan) should be blocked and to generally keep an extra pair (or pairs) of uninvolved eyes on the page--Caililtalk 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was on from 91.84.95.68 yesterday (I may still be, for that matter). I am not RichSatan. I am based just outside northeast London. Probably my IP looks up to Exeter because that's where Eclipse Internet, my ISP, are based. I wish to repeat and reinforce my objections to Cailil's content edits - there are sourced comments in the referenced section. Notice that my objections are to his edits, not to him personally, and I object to the characterisation of this as ad-hominem. I consider that Cailil is using the ad-hominem rules to defend questionable edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.98 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same user starts a section called "Cailil's constant involvement here"[30] - which claims I'm on a "one-man" crusade" and now they describe it as not being an ad hominem attack? This ANI posting is not about the content - its about the fact that one user - always from the same ISP and same ISP location has been making these same claims and demands since February-March 2007. Using multiple IPs is discouraged. Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is also against site policy. This person has claimed that they only read the page days ago[31], yet their dynamic IP range (91.84.95.68, 82.152.17x.xx and 82.152.1xx.xx) has made the exact same contributions - attacks on me[32][33][34], demands I don't edit the page[35], and insistence on the reinsertion of unsourced and improperly sourced material[36][37]. A carbon copy of User:RichSatan's (again a confirmed sock puppeteer) contributions to the page[38]. This is about sock-puppetry (or perhaps meat-puppetry) not content--Caililtalk 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am not a "sock puppet", it is not about sock-puppetry - more than one person is questioning you, and you are attempting to dismiss criticism by claiming they're all the same. Again you are attempting to change the subject and attack me until the point where I cannot ignore it. I will ignore it again in the interests of amity but I say again: you cannot expect to continue to act in bad faith and attack me, then make counterclaims in defence. From where I sit, you are making ad-hominem attacks, you are using admin involvement as a threat, you are making questionable edits and you are acting in bad faith. If you continue to do this, I will suggest that you are investigated on suspicion of breaking the rules - not me. Let's make this extremely crystal clear: your abysmal behaviour is being indulged in the interests of amity. I am not under scrutiny here because I have made no edits to the article in question. You are under scruitiny and it is for you to justify your edits. I am the plaintiff here, not the suspect. I will make further comments on the edits in question on the relevant talk page, but I will not be made a victim here. For the record, I have no control over the IP I'm assigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.98 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having been involved with this from the start, I have this to say. I find it likely that the IP's are RichSatan who has been caught sock-puppeting previously, especially with your first edits to the talk page being an attack on the editor who has edited their only a few times in the last six months, and hadn't edited the article at all since December. However without checkuser level proof, I have to Assume Good Faith and leave off things unless there's a a problem. However, I suggest that you leave off attacking Calil, who has been more then fair with regards to the situation. He has correctly applied Wikipedia's core policies (of Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and Notability especially), and asked for WP:DR via 3rd Opinion and RfC when others would have edit-warred. Please consider yourself warned as to the consequences of your attacks. Discuss the content, not the contributor. SirFozzie (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? I'm willing to undertake any reasonable procedure to verify my identity, but even in that case I can't really prove that I'm not someone you think I am - you're asking me to prove a negative proposition. As such you can warn me all you like, since I am powerless to either obey or disobey. What concerns me about this is that I have offered no attacks upon Cailil whatsoever beyond questioning his edits. If this is a "personal attack" then it is de jure impossible for anyone to ever discuss someone's edits without being accused in this way. Do you not appreciate the problem here? And what on earth do you mean by "discuss the content not the contributor" - doing exactly that (to me!) been Cailil's only contribution here - and I'm the bad guy?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During the time that I've worked with Cailil (over a year now), his conduct has consistently met all of Wikipedia's conduct and content standards. Indeed, he is so scrupulously patient and courteous when dealing with incorrigible POV-pushers and sockpuppeteers that I wish he would let me nominate him for adminship. I have checked into the IP editor's very serious allegations, and in my opinion they are spurious. Based upon RFCU results and the IP conduct, I recommend a block. DurovaCharge! 00:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call immediately leaping to complain about me on this page courteous or patient, but I had no personal problem with the guy before it happened. It's difficult to express what it's like to turn up fresh to an article, question something that's been done (note - not dive in and start editing!), and immediately be accused of sockpuppetry, but regardless of whather you consider me genuine or not, spare a half-second's thought to how this looks from my perspective. The operative point here is that the admin's review of the removed material does not support summary removal of all of it, a position that is incorrect and will remain incorrect regardless of what you think of me or how much of a reference Cailil is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that you've only just found that page. These diffs and the public IP information proves otherwise. The same demand to include the same original research was made over a year ago by the same ISP from the same location (82.153.198.246[39][40] in March 2007 and 91.84.70.216[41] in March 2008). Every time you come back to the Talk:Games Workshop since June 2007 (after I removed the unverifiable and synthesized section[42]) you have started by attacking me, in the same manner. The only other account that has done this is a proven sock-puppeteer. For the record I asked you to desist from the assumption of bad faith on March 12[43]. But your behaviour continued[44][45][46]. Only then, and only on advice, did I bring the issue here--Caililtalk 13:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A further small note. The admin who overviewed the section was Sir Fozzie. If he thought my edits were not supported by his analysis I'm sure he would have corrected me himself. Whereas he has explained to you that the removal of that content is defined by WP's policies (WP:NOR, WP:V)[47]. Secondly consensus was sought and found for its removal, twice--Caililtalk 15:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"These diffs and the public IP information proves otherwise" - well, obviously they don't, because I am not RichSatan. Your thesis is self-justifying. I am willing to consider any verification mechanism you find acceptable, but since you are asking me to prove a negative proposition there is probably nothing I can do at this point other restate: I am not he. If I wanted to sockpuppet, I'd walk a hundred yards down the road to the cybercafe and do it from there. The problem we now have is that you have created an atmosphere wherein any future pointing-out of these erroneous edits will be treated as further sockpuppetry, something for which we can all decry RichSatan. This is now a vicious circle which will allow you to dismiss any future support of my position, regardless of the source, on the basis of it being a sockpuppet. In any case, I do not particularly agree with RichSatan. His position is that known fact should be included regardless of verifiability which is quite correctly against site policy; mine is that you have removed verifiable content. Some of it was recently reinserted by someone other than me - are you going to suggest THAT user is RichSatan as well?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 March 2008
Please don't misrepresent my position by setting-up a straw man 91.84.70.216. "You claim that you've only just found that page. These diffs and the public IP information proves otherwise." The diffs and information above doesn't prove you are RichSatan - it refutes your claim to have read that article for the first time on March 12th 2008. It proves you have been making these demands for the addition of OR for a year. It's proof that this is not the first time you have attacked me personally.
It's your behaviour that is indicative of a RichSatan sock-puppet. No-one else has claimed or could claim that I have been "constantly involved" on that page - it's just not borne out by the facts. I made 2 edits in 6 months to the Games Workshop article.
Even if I am wrong about you being a RichSatan sockpuppet you are still harassing me. You have still attacked me and are continuing to do so[48][49][50]. You have never rectified your misleading and incorrect statements - that my editing is "widely criticized". You have never apologized for your demands that I stop editing an article that I have not edited this year--Caililtalk 19:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"it refutes your claim to have read that article for the first time on March 12th 2008" - how? Since I really, seriously did read that article for the first time a few days ago, I'd love to see your argument for this. You're just branching off into ever more creative insanity. And I really do resent the comparison: RichSatan was asking for unverified claims to be inserted. I am not. As for attacks, good grief, look at what you are saying to me. Your arrogant presumptiveness is just breathtaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if an uninvolved sysop would give this evidence a quick review - in regard to my continued harassment. It seems to me to be a case of WP:DUCK as regards sock-puppetry. And if not that a simple case of WP:NOT#BATTLE and WP:HARRASS. The IPs in question are listed above.
This current IP user claims not to have read Games Workshop article before March 12th, and is now demanding the reinsertion of OR about prices. As above the same IP range made the same demands and the same personal attacks on me since June 2007. And similarly RichSatan (a blocked sock-puppeteer) displayed the same behaviour.
The level of incivility I have had to endure from this IP since June 2007 is incredible; I have been accused of COI, I have been repeatedly and personally attacked - culminating yesterday with being called "insane". This IP has made no contributions to wikipedia beyond inserting OR to Games Workshop[51] and making these harassing talk page comments.
Please note a correction to my earlier statements the IPs actually resolve to London as can be seen in their WHOIS information. The ISP is in Exeter
Behaviour of this dynamic IP range since March 12th 2008
Within one week the person using the Eclipse dynamic IPs has
Demanded the reinsertion of OR that they admit to writing[60] - using a synthesis of old prices and http://www.statistics.gov.uk to prove a price rise above inflation [61]
Harassing users is simply unacceptable. While these IPs are dynamic, efforts should be taken to minimize their ability to behave disruptively. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What d'you want me to do - respond point by point? Well, OK. Personal attacks against me - I would list all the ways you've attacked and insulted me, but it would take too long. Two wrongs not making a right, let's overlook this and move on. Inferred that I have a COI - Well, you seem to be a fan of WP:DUCK, which I think applies here. Demanded that I do not edit the article - I have not demanded it, I have extremely politely suggested it would make life easier. I have accepted such suggestions myself in the past. My implication here is that for whatever reason you are simply too personally invested in the content of the article to edit it dispassionately, and therefore should not. It's not a criticism, it's just a suggestion. We're all human. Claimed that I was alone in disputing the inclusion of the OR - I have never supported the insertion of OR; I've supported the insertion of good, well-researched content, which has actually since been reinserted by people other than me. Claimed that I have manipulated site policy - Yes. Wikipedia usually calls it WP:GAME - I had no idea there was actually a page on it. I'm sorry if you find this personally insulting but I speak as I find - you can't hide behind "you're being nasty to me!" rules as an excuse for misusing the system in this way. If this were the case, nobody would ever be able to call out bad editing. Again, I reiterate that it seems to me Cailil is trying to misuse the rules to defend questionable edits. I mean, what d'you expect me to do - the only way to refer to the problem is to describe it, and if it's OK for Cailil to bat these criticisms aside as being "ad-hominem" then there's no way to discuss them at all. And yes, I'm damned tired of being accused of sockpuppetry. I've made every concession I can but at some point I'm not going to go and change my ISP because Cailil says so - and it wouldn't prove a thing if I did. Regardless of this Cailil is also required to WP:AGF and has not been subject to admin censure despite his repeated use of this higly ad-hominem argument. One rule for him, one rule for everyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to look at this MZMcBride. 91.84.70.216 diffs speak for themselves. If you have a specific complaint about me (which you can evidence) please ask a sysop, any sysop, to review it - go to WP:ADMIN and take your pick. And on a point of order I have never asked you to change your ISP--Caililtalk 13:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "a sysop - any sysop" can't see what the problem is from this exchange, it really is beyond my powers of explanation to elucidate. You seem to have an unlimited licence to lie, falsely incriminate, insult, question and criticise people. There's nothing I can do about this other than to point out that under your rules, I should be claiming that MZMcBride is a "sockpuppet" of yours. You seem immune to the irony of this situation, and for that, you will always have my deepest pity. You must be a bloody awful person to work with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't lied about anything 91.84.70.216. Please show us the diff where I lied. All I have done is shown is how your dynamic Ip is the same IP that has made the same comments, the same accusations, and the same attacks for over a year. A behavioural pattern replicated by a known sock-puppeteer. Again if you actually have concerns about my edits please take them to any admin--Caililtalk 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with revert, block, ignore is that he's receiving encouragement from Martinphi. Example: one of Davkal's socks inserted the same comment (targeting an old antagonist) 4 times in rapid succession ([70], [71], [72], [73]). He was reverted each time, as a banned user. After the 4th incident, Martinphi adopted the questions as his own [74]. He was well aware at the time that this was a sock of a banned user ([75]). Martinphi defends Davkal's comments as "useful" and "helpful", despite objections from the moderator, among others, that they are simply argumentative. I raised the issue on Martinphi's talk page here; Martin's response was that Davkal is "behaving well" and "deserves to be heard" ([76]).
Davkal is, quite properly, banned. Banned users are not welcome to contribute. If the input truly was helpful for the encyclopedia, that might be one thing, but it's simply argumentation and pursuance of one of Davkal's old grudges. He's not "behaving well" at all. While Martinphi may find Davkal's input "useful", I think Martin has crossed a line in terms of enabling and encouraging Davkal to continue to evade his ban and pursue his old grudges, which is inappropriate behavior for an established user.
Martinphi is already under ArbCom sanction for "a variety of disruptive behavior". I'm not asking for any administrative action at this point other than some feedback about this issue. We should be reverting Davkal on sight as a banned sockpuppeteer. Martin isn't obligated to revert him and enforce the ban personally, but he can at least resist the temptation to enable and support Davkal's abuse. MastCellTalk 21:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Martinphi should be warned for disruption with specific diffs and citation to the relevant policy and arbitration case. If the behavior continues, then report to WP:AE or block, as appropriate. Proxy editing for a banned use is not allowed. JehochmanTalk 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you, or any other outside admins, be willing to oversee this? I have enough involvement with Martinphi that it would be inappropriate for me to block him or use the tools under pretty much any circumstances. Also, his ArbCom remedy allows for banning him from pages he disrupts - it wouldn't make much sense to ban him from his interview page, so if any remedies are appropriate they would be outside the letter of the ArbCom decision. MastCellTalk 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sakes, the problem has already been solved. I re-inserted some of the stuff Davkal contributed because I thought the content was good, and because I personally was willing to take responsibility for that content. I wasn't enabling a specific editor. Since then, I agreed not to do that, but merely -if the occasion arises- to take his ideas and insert them as my own. Thus, the appearance of my "enabling" him would be eliminated. Though, why his good edits shouldn't be enabled, I'm not completely sure.
In other words, I said I'd do as MastCell asked, except that I don't want good ideas to be rejected merely because of the source. So, if it comes up again, I'll take the source's ideas and insert them in my own words, without reference to the source. There isn't anything wrong with that. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interview? Is this an encyclopedia or it is Crossfire (TV series)? If a deliberately dramatic clash of POVs is stage-managed then what do you expect but drama? <shakes head>. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL at colonel Warden. Anyway, tThey're not really inflammatory questions. The first one asks about ScienceApologist's dismissal and misrepresentation of a central tenet of scientific skepticism (according to CSI); and the second asks for some explanation of the fact that a professor of biological sciences (Curtis Clark) recently referred to ScienceApologist and others as "fundamentalists" and only took consolation in the fact that while his edits could be edit warred out by the "fundies" at least he would know that he had acted as a scholar. In the context of the interview at hand these are highly pertinent questions and it is little wonder than martin would feel they should be addressed.
Colonel Warden, (-: Well, quite so, and actually in this case drama is actually somewhat constructive (entertaining, and also instructive). Anyway, I don't know why MastCell reported this, when I already said I was going to do things differently. I don't happen to know the rules as apply to banned users, never came up against this before. I thought it would be just fine as long as I took the responsibility for the content. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, people can be blocked for proxying for a banned user. Cardamon (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly dare say it, but Davkal is right that they weren't really inflammatory questions. See what I mean about his having good ideas? ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, you're not doing things differently but continuing to encourage him. If Davkal wants to fix errors in the Wittgenstein article, I doubt anyone would notice or care. The objection is to continuing to pursue a pet grudge which led, in part, to Davkal's banning. Anyone else? MastCellTalk 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a highly unusual case, and from a moral POV, one could argue Davkal has a right to be in on it, since as you say he was banned partly through contact with SA. But I'm not making that argument. Since I already said I wasn't going to do what you asked me not to (encourage Davkal by putting his material back into the interview page), I don't understand why you continue to persue this? ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I pursue it because when I addressed the issue directly with you on your talk page, you repeatedly asserted that you would continue encouraging Davkal's input if you found it "useful" and "helpful". I appreciate that he often echoes your arguments, but I don't see that as an acceptable approach to handling a disruptive banned user. So I came here. For outside input. MastCellTalk 22:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but what I really said was that I'd use his ideas as my own if I wanted to (if they were good), but not insert his own edits, nor give him credit. You already had what you wanted. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds almost as if you are saying that you intend to continue proxying for Davkal, but that in the future you will be careful not to get caught at it. If that isn't what you mean, what do you mean? Cardamon (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if we get a good idea from someone blocked or banned, we should repress it? Frankly, I find this rather scary. I think I might need to set some watches, it's almost midnight. I don't think that some understand the principle that we are responsible for what we write here, regardless of where we got it. And we can report what a banned user has said elsewhere, if this benefits the project; we are responsible for making that decision. So if a banned user says that so-and-so, a user here, is a total jerk, that wouldn't be proper to report. But if the banned user makes a possibly useful suggestion, that can be reported and attributed, and if there is policy otherwise, I'd like to see it. That is not "proxying," which is passing on without filtering. --Abd (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, I think that, if you compare the diffs [77] and [78], you will find that Martinphi copied Davkal's questions verbatim. In my book, that means that there was no filtering. Also, there was nothing helpful or useful about the question "Given that SA portrays himself as a staunch advocate of scientific skepticism, my question is this: did he deliberately misrepresent the central status this idea has within scientific skepticism, or did he genuinely not know about it?". Its structure is that of the classic sleazy prosecutorial question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" in that it makes an accusatorial assumption (which does imply that SA is a total jerk) and then demands that he choose between two different ways of admitting it. If I understand your criteria correctly then, even by your criteria, Martinphi was indeed proxying. Cardamon (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, Davkal has no right to be in it, either personally or by proxy, because he is banned. If he wants to ask ArbCom for a temporary lifting of the ban then he can do so, but while he is banned he is not welcome. Editing on behalf of a banned user is forbidden. Don't do it. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, the policy is more nuanced than your take on it. If an editor believes that the contributions of a banned editor have merit, they may inlcude them. Thus, the rule for editing on behalf of banned users says "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." [Emphasis added.] Similarly, after such edits are reverted the policy says "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." In other words, there are times when it is acceptable to reinstate edits made by a banned user. Once someone has done so, they are no longer the contribution of the banned user. For interview questions, verifiability is only relevant to whether the assumptions underlying the questions are correct. (I.e. in a question "why did you X", what should be verified is that X was done by the questionee..) The interview exists because SA and Martinphi are perceived to be leading representatives of two battling points of view, and thus we all know that Martinphi has adequate reasons for wanting the best possible questions posed to SA. Martinphi is completely correct in being supported by policy on this. (I happen to think the whole interview is a poor idea, but that is another issue entirely, and certainly not Martinphi's fault.) GRBerry 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response below, but briefly, to allow a banned user to continue pursuing a grudge and agenda which led to his banning, so long as his sockpuppet's removed posts are repeated verbatim by another editor who shares the same grudge and agenda, seems to contravene both the spirit and probably the letter of the banning policy. MastCellTalk 21:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this complaint being forum shopped? Forum shopping is not appropriate behavior. GRBerry 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what other forum(s) has this complaint been made? I just had a look, and couldn't find any. Cardamon (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue directly with Martinphi on his talk page. Finding his response there unsatisfactory, I brought it here for outside input. Could you clarify what you mean by "forum-shopping"? Thanks. MastCellTalk 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was probably confused then; I knew I'd seen it somewhere else, but didn't realize it was only on Martinphi's talk. Sorry about that. GRBerry 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell states that he is too involved for it to be appropriate for him to intervene in this case. With that in mind, I would be interested in seeing the input of an uninvolved admin (i.e., not GRBerry, who has staked out positions on Martinphi's behaviour elsewhere). Antelantalk 07:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GRBerry brings up a very good point, one that I think needs to be clearly addressed. The Banning policy editing on behalf of banned users states "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them.". Two questions on that, did Martin have independent reasons for making the edits, or was he "directed" to do so by Davkal? If there were independent reasons, as Martin states, then GRBerry is absolutely correct, there is no violation of policy. As far as "filtering" goes, which I assume is a shorthand way of interpreting the statement that says the "changes are verifiable", what exactly wasn't "filtered" that so violates this portion of policy? this edit was used as evidence of the lack of filtering, but the question seems to be a viable one considering the statement above it. And if this is indeed a lack of filtering, is it a truly disruptive and blockable event? From the above statements, it appears that Martin has agreed to follow that particular aspect of the policy in the future. So what is the issue? Dreadstar† 19:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That portion of the policy appears to be aimed specifically at articlespace: it states that edits may be made at the suggestion of a banned user if they are "verifiable", and verifiability has no meaning outside articlespace. For instance, if Davkal suggested we correct the Wittgenstein article, and Martin did so, that would not be a problem. I don't see anything in the letter or spirit of the banning policy that indicates it's OK to assist a banned user in pursuing his meta-agenda of targeting and criticizing another editor, especially when Davkal's pursuit of this agenda was a major factor in his banning and he's hardly become more civil or less disruptive in his sockpuppet incarnations. All I'm asking is that Martin not actively encourage and enable Davkal to evade his ban. If he's OK with that, then there is no more issue. MastCellTalk 21:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but verifiability (not WP:V but the general concept of verification), can certainly be applied to the content of talk pages or RfC and ArbCom cases - so I don't know that it's aimed specifically at articlespace content. For instance if SA said he never called someone a "crank" and Davkal posted a diff showing that SA did in fact do such a thing, and it was removed, then since the diff can be verified and someone agreed with it, then it could be re-posted. Apparently, Martin has agreed to what you asked, or do you think he needs to make a clearer statement? Dreadstar† 22:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Davkal is banned. He has absolutely no place inserting himself into a dispute involving ScienceApologist (one of his old nemeses) or anyone else for that matter, in any context. I'm asking only that Martinphi respect this. If Martin has agreed to do so, then I don't think there's any more that needs to be said or done. MastCellTalk 04:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, we got the Davkal is banned part, I think. That's why we referenced the section of the policy regarding editing on behalf of banned users, which was the very point of this entire ANI discussion - or should I say accusation against Martin - that he was editing "on behalf of a banned user." I personally hope it never happens again, but the policy does read that "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." It's that unless part that we were looking at in more detail. I'd recommend to Martin, that if this type of thing happens again, that he contact a neutral admin and ask for assistance instead of just re-posting what a banned user has posted - no matter how relevant and insightful the post's content is. Dreadstar† 19:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about insightful and relevant commentary here. We're talking about a banned user baiting one of his old adversaries ([79], [80]), and I'd rather we don't encourage that. Since I've gotten feedback from a couple of uninvolved admins and editors above and the problem hasn't repeated itself thus far, we can probably close this. MastCellTalk 20:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not going to argue the merits or shortcomings of what was being pointed out in those particular diffs, sometimes insight and relevance is in the eye of the beholder. I totally agree that we shouldn't be encouraging baiting or incivility of any kind. Anyway, glad it's over. Dreadstar† 20:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Obuibo Mbstpo
I know there is already a thread above, but taking a glance at the user page of this user, he/she admits to being a sock of several indefinitely blocked socks of User:Ron Duvall. Obuibo's first contrib to create his/her own userpage uses the edit summary ban has apparently been lifted. linking to previous accounts. Was there a ban, and has it been lifted, or should we be blocking this latest reincarnation of a disruptive user? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, Jehochman (talk·contribs) has agreed to unblock them, so long as they agree only to use this account. The issues with the previous account was poor serial account identification, so this account stating all prior accounts is a step in the right direction. MBisanztalk 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This User_talk:Obuibo_Mbstpo#New_account gives the history of the matter. Don't see a need to block this new account unless there are SSP issues I'm not aware of.MBisanztalk 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I needed to know! Thanks, I couldn't find the history amidst the myriad of block logs....I won't be blocking. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user was never guilty of sock puppetry, and he wasn't blocked for sock puppetry, he was blocked, on the face of it, for insulting an administrator. However, he did not protest this through standard means, because he had abandoned the account, having scrambled the password. Following proper early dispute resolution (discussion with the blocking administrator), an unblock was negotiated. The notices on the various accounts are incorrect. Here is the relevant history.
This user edited under a prior name or names, and those accounts were abandoned. After a lapse of months, the user returned as User:Sarsaparilla. As can be seen, this user nominated me for administrator, prematurely. As part of that process, he played a prank: he went to another RfA, that was snowing Support -- so it was irrelevant -- and offered to trade votes. If the other nominee voted for me, he'd vote for the other nominee. As soon as I found out about this, I went to that RfA, read it, and voted for that nominee, and repudiated any connection with this action of Sarsaparilla. Something has changed with this user. I've reviewed old account history, and, if this new phenomenon is there, I've not seen it. He questions the edges of Wikipedia policy. He does things that are not clearly prohibited, such as offer to vote-trade in an RfA. He did this in the full light of open edits, in a very visible place. If he had actually wanted to vote trade, he'd have inquired secretly, through email. Anyway, shortly after this, he abandoned that account and opened up the new account, Ron Duvall. This was the only account move that was marginally improper, because there were open discussions that Sarsaparilla had participated in -- such as the creation of WP:PRX, and then Ron Duvall was saying basically the same thing. Some protested that this created an appearance of more support than was actually present. However, there was no evidence that he intended this appearance, and he certainly did nothing to conceal it; he continued discussing the same issues with me, on my Talk page, under the new name. And, indeed, it was quickly noticed and an SSP report filed for Sarsaparilla and Ron Duvall. This process also dug up his old user name, which was irrelevant. There was no abuse, or charges of abuse that I've seen, on that account, clean block log except for an admin error quickly corrected. Because of this, I requested that the SSP report be deleted, which was done. This user has real-world reasons for not wanting his old user name be obvious; from my point of view, it would be much better if it was open, he was a long-time and very productive editor. So this time he created another user name, Absidy, and noted the connection immediately with the user registration. In no case that I've been able to find did one account edit after the creation of a new one. There were no multiple !votes; the only situations were the appearance of more comment on a few talk pages. This is not violation of WP:SOCK. He later stated that he did not realize certain possible interpretations of policy on changing accounts. However, in all this, as far as I've seen, there is only one minor violation, quickly corrected, of even that, the rapid shift from Sarsaparilla to Ron Duvall. Everything else in recent history has been completely open. This sock puppetry charge is repeated over and over. Those claims should be removed from his old user pages. It's enough that they point to his present user page. It's a continuing account, not a sock puppet. Given the notice above from Keeper76, and the likelihood that this concern will be raised again, definitely, the sock charges should be removed from those pages.--Abd (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've only come across this editor for the first time today and I cannot say I'm overly impressed - look here where he is "fighting the power" here, here, here, here and here. Does anyone consider that a useful contribution to the AFD process, because I don't. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a radical inclusionist and proponent of WP:PWD, and don't believe in deleting anything other than what we're legally required to remove. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so in order to make your point about that, you disrupt the current process? You're not helping. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No; in a system in which the political question of where, exactly, Wikipedia should stand on the subject of notability, etc. is decided through deletion debates, rather than policy debates, there is little choice but to push one's agenda via that designated forum. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mbstpo is, unfortunately, correct. There seems to be a growing realization that deletion process based on notability issues, in the absence of clear standards approved by true consensus, is inherently contentious and divisive, and it's clear to me that it is damaging the project. A user reads "the sum of all human knowledge, the encyclopedia everyone can edit," and they assume that if they know something, they have friends to who know it, it's "human knowledge," and they can spend hours writing an article, and they are shocked to find that it's gone when they come back a few weeks later, even if it was sourced and could be verified. This happens, in fact, to experts, not just to random users, and there is a growing number of unhappy people out there as a result. Frankly, I don't understand the strong deletionist position, I can see no harm whatever to the project from having articles that aren't notable if they are verifiable. People not interested in those subjects never see the article, unless they press Random Article. What does harm the reputation of the encyclopedia is unverified -- and false or POV -- information in kept articles, and this is what we should be putting increased effort into, not attacking cruft and grammar schools and garage bands. We gain nothing but wasted effort by deleting the latter. I'm recommending that Mbstpo, if he wants to continue to address this issue, put his efforts into the relevant policy and guideline pages, I'm sure he'll have quite enough trouble there. On the other hand, what he did was allowed, in principle in my opinion, though he did it in a provocative way, which is unfortunate (and which isn't allowed, hence I asked him to stop, and he did). Unless something shifts, expect to see more argument about notability policy in AfDs, not less. This is the price of unclear guidelines, or, just as bad, guidelines that deviate from what is intuitive for common editors.--Abd (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that I did not refer to the user in question this time as being involved in sockpuppetry and actually defended his right to edit... MBisanztalk 23:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that. The alleged sock puppetry was mentioned with the original report here, and is commonly mentioned elsewhere. I'd appreciate it if an administrator would remove those notices, given that there was never a determination of "sock puppetry," only a confirmation of what already was both obvious and openly acknowledged, that the accounts were the same user, and there was no "abuse of sock puppets," only a single instance of possible unclarity, immediately rectified, with no signs of deceptive intent.--Abd (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets can be disruptive even if there was no deliberate intent to deceive about their identity. I grant that it's possible that Obuibo only demonstrated extremely poor judgement and that he didn't have a fully-formed plan in his head that 'Yes, I'm going to try to fool these people'. Nevertheless, the effect was the same—his use of alternate accounts represented a disruptive nuisance, and was a misuse of multiple accounts.
During the course of the discussions of his 'delegable proxy' proposal, he used at least six different accounts to edit Wikipedia.
While the community is generally quite open to editors renaming their accounts, we have a recommended process for that; we also discourage editors from changing names as frequently as they change their...socks. Changing one's username once – even twice – in a year is sometimes seen, and usually goes unremarked. Changing username on average twice a week, for three weeks, while embroiled in a controversial proposal, while engaged in disruptive and sometimes obnoxious conduct, is decidedly beyond accepted norms.
He regularly and repeatedly participated in discussions without explicitly identifying his own interests or previous participation. Take, for example, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy. He comments on the discussion as Obuibo Mbstpo (voting 'Keep', obviously) without noting that he is the creator of the template (as Sarsaparilla)—despite the fact that earlier in the discussion his habit of accumulating usernames had been mentioned. We expect editors to be responsible enough to identify their conflicts of interest.
On Wikipedia talk:Delegable proxy, he began using Ron Duvall (to support his own proposal, created as Sarsaparilla) without noting his previous identity on his user page, talk page, or in any discussion. (On the 'poor judgement' tally, one of his first edits with the Ron Duvall account was to suggest resurrecting Esperanza: [81].)
For no apparent reason, he created a third account for the same discussion, Absidy, where he did at least identify his previous identity as Ron Duvall on User:Absidy. Readers at the delegable proxy talk page, however, were left in the dark for some time—again, a third party had to point out the conflict of interest.
Thespian Seagull was created after his earlier accounts had been blocked for trolling and deceptive use of multiple accounts. Again, he dives into the delegable proxy talk page ([82]), referring to himself in the third person.
Take You There was created to continue a discussion started by Sarsaparilla on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Take You There refers to himself (under the Sarsaparilla name) in the third person in that discussion, and was never identified by Obuibo/Sarsaparilla/et al. as an alternate account. Take You There made edits between edits made by the Thespian Seagull account. Both Thespian Seagull and Take You There were identified via Checkuser, as neither had named themselves replacement accounts.
I fear that Abd must not be entirely familiar with Obuibo's history if he sees "only a single instance of possible unclarity" or if he finds no sign of "deceptive intent". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Most of the information above about account sequence (I think maybe a fact or two is new) was placed by me on the Absidy talk page. I really wonder why so much effort is going into this. There was an old account, not named, abandoned and not used for a lapse of months. Then came Sarsaparilla, Ron Duvall, and Absidy. Absidy was blocked, and an extensive discussion was going on about him, he then used temporary, throwaway accounts to respond with apologies, and some other odd edits. The guy has been editing Wikipedia since 2004, and, as far back as I've seen the record (2005) had no problems, until very, very recently, when he started to have, shall we say, ideas about how to improve the place. In any case, I negotiated with Jehochman, who agreed to unblock. Now. If you want to call editing by a blocked user "disruptive," that's certainly something you can say with a straight face. However, what if the block wasn't legitimate? What he was actually blocked for would normally result in a warning, and a block only if continued, which it was not. And if there was a blcck, it would have been, first offense, 24 hours. He did not edit for well beyond 24 hours, and he had scrambled the password for the old account, so he could not even request unblock on the Talk page for that account. Sock puppetry originally meant a single user pretending to be multiple users. We now use it, technically, to refer to accounts set up to continue a blocked account, concealing their connection. Generally the Absidy socks created in the interim, while blocked, made hardly any effort to conceal. He made some sarcastic statements, and in any case those accounts were immediately identified. If TenOfAllTrades, who has been involved in content disputes with Mbstpo, thinks that the ongoing conduct of this user is worthy of some sanction, then I'd encourage him, as has Mbstpo, to follow process with an RfC. There were no overlaps of the accounts, i.e., he never started up a new account while keeping an old one. The appearance of multiple editors in a few articles was, I'm quite sure, inadvertent, and it was very easy to connect these accounts, they were blatantly the same user (and it was immediately acknowledged when questioned). Abisdy was created with an explicit connection from the beginning, as was Mbstpo. Obviously, the temporary block socks weren't so labeled. I know the history of this user very, very well, I often check his contributions, and I talk with him on the phone fairly often. If he had deceptive intent, he sure was lousy at keeping up the deception! One user, Sarsaparilla, was very, very active on WP:PRX. Suddenly no edits from that user. Suddenly many edits from Ron Duvall. Who is this? Look at contribs, same interests, same many-edits to my Talk page, same discussions. I'm quite confident that a careful review of this would conclude, no deceptive intent. Further, a proposal is not better if three editors are proposing it instead of two. Why was it even relevant that this was the same user? Look, we have socks crawling out of the woodwork here, user accounts created to do nothing but disrupt anything politically inconvenient, and nothing is done. And all the above effort goes into a user who thinks he has the right to change his user name? And doesn't conceal it? Sure, he did not always immediately announce it, which was an error, but certainly not a blockable offense, and not sock puppetry, which implies deception. (The exception is block avoidance. He did edit Wikipedia while blocked, though not extensively.) Now, question: should I pursue DR process with TenOfAllTrades for violating WP:AGF, a basic policy? I'd rather not. Instead, I'll visit his Talk page. This does not belong on WP:AN/I. None of it.--Abd (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that you won the battle of words through attrition. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. (1) Wikipedia is not a battleground. (2) Silence is not consent. The argument Mbstpo just made is a fallacious one that actually does a great deal of damage. If someone waxes eloquent -- or spouts nonsense, doesn't matter -- if silence is considered consent, then, of course, someone must answer it. But what we say here, in a discussion, isn't binding on anyone. You can cheerfully ignore it unless some specific action is suggested that is threatening. And, given this context, we can't assume that anyone in particular is watching, so even warnings placed here, if not accompanied by notice to a user Talk page, can be ignored. So, folks, if you don't like what I wrote, I have a very, very simple suggestion: Don't read it! I do have some sympathy for closing administrators in deletion debates, who are somewhat obligated to read what I've written, which is why I'm usually far more brief there. If I were trying to write polemic, designed to convince, I'd write differently. I'm not. There is no sharp point. I'm providing a point of view, so that depth perception can arise in those who care about that. Usually.--Abd (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is currently being mentioned up and down this page, so it might be useful to bring this all together. Yesterday we had problems here, here, here, here and here . today we have this,this, this, this, this, this, this, this. Whatever his motivations, his actions are WP:POINT and disruptive. --Fredrick day 18:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This case is nothing like any of the examples at WP:POINT, and for good reason. Once you start prohibiting users from voting a straight ticket, you open it up to all kinds of witch hunts in which people can say, "Hey, you're voting to keep on everything." For similar reasons, Kurt Weber's negative votes against admin self-noms were allowed at the RfC. I'll vote the way I want, and you can vote the way you want. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with OM; he does seem to be trying to make a point, but I don't honestly see how he's disrupting Wikipedia in order to do so. If I was an admin closing one of those MfDs (this is hypothetical; I don't close MfDs), I'd give his arguments very close to zero weight, but I don't really see a problem with letting him make them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is doing good work on parliamentary procedure (helping to create an article set that we need very badly) in mainspace, and is being a significant pain in the neck everywhere else. I wish he would take my suggestion on his talkpage that he could usefully do the former but not the latter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I get the impression that the community's attitude is, "We'll let you contribute your expertise and labor, but don't try to influence the politics of this system." In most organizations, when you pay your dues, you get the privileges that come with membership, such as the right to vote and speak in debate. As long as you don't abuse those rights (e.g. by voting more than once), you are allowed an equal right to exercise them. I pay my dues in productive edits, and I am sticking to one account, so I think I should be able to voice my opinion.
It think it's only partially correct to claim that xfD's (especially MfDs) are not a vote. The criteria are often so subjective that it's really just a matter of people's general opinions on notability policy. I happen to have very extremist views on the subject, being a radical inclusionist, and thus I vote a straight ticket. Is that a bad thing? I am also a proponent of WP:PWD. I really do think that all the articles should be kept (although some can be blanked, if need be).
I have also pointed out in essays such as WP:PQ, User:Obuibo Mbstpo/What kind of system is this?, WP:PARL, etc. that although in some cases there is a sufficient body of policy such that xfDs and so on can be made simply by applying policy, in other cases it has been left up to the xfDs to settle these policy issues and set the boundaries of what we should and shouldn't keep here. If it's going to be subjective, then I believe I should be able to vote on my own subjective beliefs of what is best for the encyclopedia.
Theoretically, we can affect policy through discussion and proposals, but as WP:POLICY notes, that route very seldom succeeds. It takes a supermajority to enact anything of that nature. So we end up with a pseudoconsensus not to have policy on certain issues at all. In my opinion, my activity, as well as the departure of those who simply give up rather than trying to influence the system in ways that certain members of the community will frown upon, could be viewed as a rational response to a flawed governance system. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of the above, as well; I think the only reason that this is considered disruptive is that the policy viewpoints that he advocates are, when compared to those of the community mainstream, outlandish. I think the question is whether we allow editors who are making good mainspace contributions to try to push weird policy proposals; is anybody prepared to argue that the answer is no? I should note, incidentally, that I'm no fan of most of OM's policy ideas, this one included. I would certainly prefer that he stop suggesting policy changes that are unlikely to gain consensus. But if we start sanctioning editors for trying to change policy through proper channels just because we think the changes they're trying to effect are dumb, that, unlike most of what gets the label around here, actually is a form of censorship. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you include in the "community maintstream" all those long-time editors who have gone away, his positions start to seem not quite so outlandish. I've been suggesting the same thing to him: the status quo is, precisely, the status quo, and if we want to change it, major confrontation is not the way. Rather, Wikipedia does contain the seeds of its future, and we can nurture them. There are strong censoring forces at work here, but by no means do they always succeed; they only manage to crush relatively naive editors, when the processes used don't attract the attention of more mature Wikipedians. Consider Mbstpo's proposal WP:PRX. This actually wasn't properly a proposal at all. It suggested no policy changes, and, contrary to what was said about it, it did not involve proxy voting. In the end, it was simply intended as an experiment to see what happened if Wikipedians, those who cared to participate, were to name another Wikipedian as one whose judgment they would trust to be reasonably correct if they could not themselves participate in some process. It was not suggested -- and it would have been impossible -- that one user could actually vote for another. All that was done was to set up some file formats that did the job, allowing recovery of proxy assignment data. It was promptly Rejected, actually before it was even completed. I removed that tag as premature, and there was discussion for a few days, then it was tagged Rejected again and nobody challenged that. That wasn't enough, though. An MfD was filed to delete it, which would be quite unusual for a project page like that. It attracted many editors who voted Delete, and then a long time, very respected editor, formerly an administrator who gave up the bit (and could have it back at any time), closed it as Keep as Rejected, based on precedent. Even though the proper remedy would have been renomination, the same ser also closed that, which was improper (because of the conflict of interest, having closed the MfD itself, though the whole process was out of whack). The MfD was reopened and closed again a few days later. Same result. Keep as Rejected. This was a *huge* fuss over nothing, and then there is an MfD over the associated files with WP:PRX, more and more time wasted, and none of this improves the encyclopedia one bit. Is Mbstpo disruptive? Well, he's a catalyst. He shows his face, some people get angry. The energy released, he did not create, and that energy is continually doing damage to this project, with or without him. Sooner or later, we must confront it. I just want to do it in an orderly fashion, soberly, following all our policies and guidelines, which are excellent, and which are breaking down for lack of coherent structure. (*not* bureaucracy!).
Comment. I have seen Obuibo Mbstpo around. When it comes to his ideas about the system and potential alternatives, I very often disagree (and in fact, even think that many of them are Very Bad Ideas). However, I've not seen Obuibo Mbstpo being disruptive, engaging in personal attacks or otherwise doing things that should result in warnings and/or blocks. "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Vassyana (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I don't get to AfD much, but at MfD these will get zero consideration. They are kind of pointy in that they are intentionally annoying, but they are essentially null comments. They won't actually affect anything, so they aren't really be disruptive.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have advised Mbstpo to stay away from provocative actions, whether or not they can be justified in the abstract (generally they can). I must note, however, that simply ignoring his !votes in MfDs, etc., takes far, far less effort than to compile all the diffs given above. I see many, many !votes in these deletion discussions which cannot be distinguished from a quick, knee-jerk response. And, in fact, I pinned an administrator in his RfA for having voted "per nom" in an AfD without verifying what the nominator had claimed (which was false). (He apologized, so I voted for him. Oops! I mean I commented "Support." Oops! they actually do count those and so it's a vote not a !vote. Confused? No wonder.) AN/I was intended, originally, for emergency use, to get the attention of an administrator where it is needed quickly to avoid damage to the project. What, exactly, is the damage here? Yes, these discussions are damage, but who is causing the damage? A user exercising his right to express an opinion, civilly, in a deletion discussion? Or someone flipping out because it doesn't match their expectations of what a not-vote is supposed to be? I wish Mbstpo would stop, but, damn! not only does he have a right, he is often right as well. If he is actually doing something wrong, there is RfC. He's on a bit of a short leash because of prior problems, but ... he was actually treated quite unfairly in that prior situation, and I helped negotiate a return to avoid having to confront all that with DR, which wastes even more time. It was done simply by talking about it. I'd really hate to have to open that whole can of worms.--Abd (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a joke here that I am missing. User:Obuibo Mbstpo, according to his user page, is also the following Users: User:Sarsaparilla, User:Ron Duvall, User:Absidy and User:Thespian Seagull. All of these Users have been indef banned -and still are banned, as far as I can tell- for various roles of disruptive sock puppetry. I have gathered that no one seems to take sock-puppet banning very seriously anymore, but why is this user being allowed such blatant defiance, especially by way of participating in deletion reviews? Is there some new policy I can be linked to on this? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at all the diffs above for today. I voted in each (I make a practice, generally, of voting when I take the time to look at a deletion debate). Mbstpo was right, that is, in my opinion, in every case the proper outcome was not Delete, it was some kind of Keep. He has indeed made a point here, not a disruptive one. There are many MfDs that are pure time-wasters; the ones I've seen shouldn't have been MfD'd. PROD is not being used, for starters. Then in some cases userfying a proposal or whatever makes more sense than delete.--Abd (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD can't be used on anything that can go to MFD; it's only for articles and, in certain narrow circumstances, userspace. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind! TSeriously, there is a reason why PROD isn't for project space, etc. I think it is because deletion is rarely appropriate there, userfying, for example, is better. And PROD can be used in user space (as noted, narrow circumstances). I just find it odd that every MfD I looked at seemed to be a waste of time, a waste of the time of the nominator, a waste of the time of those commenting, with no returned value, not even saved disk space, since it remains in the database anyway (generally). Yes, we should have the process, but it is being way overused.--Abd (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's believed to be necessary to whack people over the head with an MfD in order to deter their creation of pages that seem to violate WP:NOT. MfD is also sometimes used as a punishment for unrelated misbehavior. Once you're branded a troll/abusive/whatever, anything you've done is fair game, but especially stuff in the Wikipedia or User namespaces. It's not enough to redirect or something; it has to be completely deleted or they might not take the hint. Hence the notice I used to have on my userpage, "Please do not disrupt this user to illustrate a point." I believe the following quote from WP:POINT applies equally well to such MfDs: "In general, such edits are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Many readers consider such techniques spiteful and unencyclopedic, as passers-by are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to your specific charge of improper MfD'ing at the particular entry I nominated. In summary, your assertion that PROD was the proper method and MfD was not, is not only incorrect, but actually runs counter to the goal you wish to achieve (presumably that of keeping the content in a different form or namespace). While I see no need to spill the individual MfD discussion over to AN/I, and hope you will refrain from doing so, blanket statements of impropriety should not go unanswered. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, like all species of the genus deletion, prod is problematic. Now Template:Prob, that's another story! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling OM's actions "disruptive" is, quite frankly, patently ludicrous. More and more, "disruptive" has become merely an equivocation for "IDONTLIKEIT". Even if one buys into the (absolutely false) idea that "policy" has any normative weight at all, too many people misunderstand WP:POINT as a prohibition on simply making a point. This has got to stop. EVERYTHING we do in our discussions involves making a point--that's the whole, well, point.
That said, I am quite heartened by the fact that the community has learned from past experience, and I'm glad to see that OM has not been absolutely railroaded like I was. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 03:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←This user isn't a problem because of his views, but because of the manner in which he goes about them. He makes proposals on top of each other and in multiple places. That's pretty much the very definition of trolling. The next time that happens, by the way, I'm deleting all but the earliest iteration. He creates templates, in the template space, for processes he proposes, and when one was deleted, he actually removed that CSD criteria that allowed for the deletion. The notion that changes happen slowly is quite lost on this person. And with all those banned sockpuppets I don't quite understand why this particular account is allowed to remain. Equazcion•✗/C •03:45, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
There may be a lot that Equazcion doesn't understand. No problem, that's where we all start out. The user in question has never been banned. He was blocked. Once. From the record, it is obvious why he was blocked: an offense that might be laughed off by one administrator (I'd have laughed, I'm sure, there was no risk to the project), and result in a block from another. A 24 hour block. Unless you really tick off the administrator by not showing proper respect for his badge and weapon, in which case we would see a nuclear block, call in checkuser twice a day, and don't you dare unblock unless you talk to me first. He moves too quickly? Too quickly for what? To quickly for immediate change, yes. However, I haven't noticed anything that he has broken. Remember what we tell newcomers? You can't break Wikipedia. Last time I saw an admin think that he had to block quickly or the encyclopedia would be broken, he lost his bit. Of course, it was an administrator he blocked. Had it been some ordinary user, we'd have never heard about it. Now, as to deleting things, be our guest. Just don't violate policy, okay? Remember, Mbstpo is just one person. OMG, I just had a thought. He's really smart, and really active. What if he is actually several people? That would explain a lot. The sudden shifts in personality, from patient, plodding article creation to bursts of reform activity, wild things like nominating me for Admin when I clearly didn't have enough edits, canvassing. Not just ordinary canvassing, he canvassed for participation in a procedure that did not exist, and he canvassed the entire Arbitration Committee plus a couple of administrators besides. I think I'm onto something. Now, how can we checkuser this? How many peple is he?--Abd (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you think I don't understand. What you might not understand is that "change happens slowly" doesn't mean the user "moves too quickly", but that he acts expecting everyone else to move quickly. He advocated a move to allow canvassing and it appears he already is doing it, or at least some form of it -- and canvassing, while not "quick" unto itself, is the best way to affect a quick change. As I said, he makes loads of proposals on top of each other and posts them in multiple places. All the proposals also follow the same ideal -- abandon or reverse those policies that are not common with, or rather "more restrictive than" real-world practices. This seems to be the goal. I won't argue with your admin-bashing as I've engaged in lots of that myself -- although I will say that the body of admins is almost as diverse as the body of editors, so sweeping generalizations based on the most problematic ones are probably misleading. I admittedly don't know anything about this user's sock case and I have no idea what the sarcasm in the latter half of your response was actually meant to be saying. But I'm sure it was nice, whatever it was. Equazcion•✗/C •04:49, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Good start. If Mbstpo expects "everyone else to move quickly," which might be true, so what? We don't have to move quickly. It only takes one editor to counter the hasty moves of another. Not the entire administrative community, called like the calvary to deal with the "outrageous abuse" (not necessarily an exact quote) of a user actually following guidance and policy about how to change things. Wikipedia was designed to allow people like him to propose change, efficiently. Don't like it? Revert it and discuss it. It's called WP:BRD. And if one editor -- not a mob -- does this, and Mbstpo insists, he is edit warring and that can be dealt with. I don't know if you've noticed, but he doesn't edit war. He's an old-time Wikipedian, and he knows full well not to do that. He simply makes bold proposals. Often incomplete, not worked out in detail, requiring further work. Which, if we are following policy and tradition, will happen gradually. There is a reason why many earlier Wikipedians are gone. And we are seeing it, repeating, over and over. Esperanza Hope was crushed by a mob. Did it deserve it? Perhaps. Perhaps not.--Abd (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was it actually speedy deleted? I thought it was just nominated for TFD and the CSD criterion was mentioned during the debate? Mr.Z-man 04:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way the same point still applies. Equazcion•✗/C •04:03, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
And yes, anyway, it was speedied under T2 -- see the summary at template:canvassing. At which point, OM removed T2 [83]. Equazcion•✗/C •04:07, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Good for him! Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah good for him. Whenever anyone's page gets speedied they should just remove the criteria that made it possible. Novel idea. Someone pat that man on the back. What a trailblazer. Hoorah. Equazcion•✗/C •04:34, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because all speedying, for anything except spam, copyvio, slander, or blatant nonsense (and by that I mean not merely making nonsensical claims, but actual unintelligible gibberish along the lines of "kldajfskl;djfakl;jrklejaklejtrewk") is wrong and illegitimate.Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 04:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion, but policy and consensus would disagree with you. Jonneroo (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then policy and consensus are wrong, aren't they? Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 04:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Equazcion•✗/C •10:35, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I was thinking of {{prob}}. Mr.Z-man 04:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newbie question here. Why would someone opt to blank an article as opposed to deleting it? Jonneroo (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's called Pure Wiki Deletion. Any editor can blank an article, only admins can delete. Deletion does not actually remove the article from the database, and administrators can still see it. It only removes it from the view of ordinary users. If the article has some possible redeeming value, but ordinary users can't see it, they can't improve it. Even though in theory a deleted article can be brought back, in practice when articles come back, they have been rewritten, a waste of time. Having this elite deletion process isn't the wiki way, it made sense when all users had admin tools, thus all users could read deleted content, they merely had to read it a different way, but ... I don't know the local history. In any case, blanking with redirect can have the same effect, from the point of view of unsophisticated users (i.e., the general readership) as deletion, but it can be done without any special process, debate, at all, other than ordinary editorial debate, which proceeds at a very different pace than AfD. Pure Wiki Deletion is really simply a different way of looking at what I've been proposing, which is categorization of content, not deletion (aside from legal requirements to delete, which don't require AfD anyway.) Essentially, what is being said is that we don't need AfD at all. On the other hand -- I always have several other hands around -- what would we do without all the wikidrama? Work on verifying articles? Naaahhh.... too boring.--Abd (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Deletion is elitist... That's one I never heard before. And I thought I was the top complainer about elitism. This one I'll keep short because I think it's especially ridiculous and has virtually no support. Page blanking is temporary, as all history revisions are kept, and encourages recreation of the removed article with little or no change. Deletion itself, once it's performed, might be considered "elitist", I suppose, since only admins can see deleted articles, but the deletion process isn't elitist. You say rewriting articles is a waste of time... but of course we're talking about articles that the community decided must be deleted, so I'm not sure why you'd think anything less would be necessary. If there's a discussion and consensus that an article needs to be removed, either because its content is just that bad, or because the topic is just that undeserving of an article, I see no reason to keep it around in some form for anyone to copy and restore. Just because there are mechanisms in place to prevent people from doing certain things, does not "elitism" make. Any such open system, especially one that's meant to produce something semi-serious and semi-of-quality, will need such safeguards. Equazcion•✗/C •10:35, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
The reason for posting in multiple places is as follows. In accordance with WP:BRD, I will typically make the change to the policy in question. Sometimes it is reverted, in which case I begin a discussion on the policy talk page. Then the opposing editor demands that it be brought to Village Pump. I do so, and then people begin putting templates up for deletion, and the discussion branches off to there. And then you complain that it's showing up in too many places. By the way, I wouldn't suggest deleting other people's comments. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_commentsObuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, you posted the same proposal in multiple places but it's not your fault. Interesting. You don't need to do anything anyone "demands" of you. Changes to policy can be discussed on that policy's talk page and if you need more comments you post an RFC. If you do end up taking a discussion somewhere else, post a link back to the old one so people know you're not just duplicating the same proposal in a different location. Finally I'd really like to see this demand, if you could please provide a diff. Thanks. Equazcion•✗/C •23:43, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
User:Black Kite has blocked OM indefinitely for "repeated abuse of editing privileges". I've asked him to come here and explain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin blocked because of questionable use of admin tools; needs review.
I have blocked Arthur Rubin(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) because, upon review, it seems evident that there was objectionable use of admin tools used in a dispute against another editor. This needs to be scrutinized before proceeding, and protecting the encyclopedia is paramount; in addition, I cannot help but notice that this admin has been blocked three times in the past three months for edit warring. — Coren(talk) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Further note for the record, the block is set indefinite but the intent is "until such time as things have been reviewed". There is neither significance nor desire in that unbounded duration. — Coren(talk) 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock now. Dispute is over, admin tools were used once, block by Coren clearly punitive and inappropriate. No reason to block at this time. Christopher Parham(talk) 19:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way "this needs to be scrutinized before proceeding" is a message you should take to heart before indefinitely blocking other admins who are not an immediate threat to anything. Hasty, unhelpful actions like this fan the flames. Christopher Parham(talk) 19:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that we got an allocation of tool abuse before something need to be made about it. — Coren(talk) 19:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must be new around here. ➪HiDrNick! 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no allocation; but if the tool abuse was a one-time issue and has obviously stopped, indefinite blocking can no longer be described as preventative. You were welcome to bring up the action here; it's punitive blocking that is inappropriate. Christopher Parham(talk) 19:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could one of you two post some evidence please. We are not mindreaders. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First question is... If you want review and issued the block, why did you handle the unblock request yourself? Avruch T 19:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, declining unblock requests of people blocked by you[84] is highly inappropriate, unless they trolled. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) x 8 To both point above; my mistake. I mostly meant to answer the direct question, and I realize I should have done so outside the context of the unblock template. Will fix immediately. — Coren(talk) 19:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is the single deletion of the opt-out page, then I think this block is both hasty and unnecessary, two things which blocks should not be. I think Arthur Rubin should be unblocked immediately to participate in this discussion, since there doesn't appear to be danger of harm from his actions. Avruch T 19:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking the edit history of the MfD. User:Carcharoth explained a policy violation there (diff). If I'd thought of that, I would have said it, but I could just see that it's an unconscionable and possibly illegal "contract". Copying, as well as producing the diff.
Quoting from this page version (the text has since been removed): "Keep in mind that when you sign this list, you fully are aware that you lose the right to [...] You also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise." - here the generalised (not the specific) right to complain is not something that can be signed away. We can have a semantic argument over whether we mean complain or criticise, but Wikipedia is a co-operative and collaborative editing environment. Wording such as this, however "voluntary" it is, does not contribute to a collaborative editing environment, because it restricts the possibilities for discussing the bots and what they do. It promotes an environment where bot operators WP:OWN the bots, and contravenes the third of the m:foundation issues: "the wiki process" (we write articles and change community processes by discussion, not by fiat). To sum up: even in principle, people shouldn't be allowed to sign away their rights to make valid comments and criticisms, of a bot or anything (even if that gets labelled as "complaining"). They certainly shouldn't have such rights held to ransom over an opt-out process. Carcharoth (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, although I have separate disputes with beta and the bots ("beta and the bots" would be a good name for a rock band), the number of editors who do not have a dispute with beta is small enough that when I see a clear policy violation by beta, I don't see any reason not to note it.
Furthermore, I'm not the only one who removed the content from Beta's user page. Apparently someone signed it, then read the page and also found it unconscionable. I think it would be wise to notify User:Obuibo Mbstpo as well as User:Carcharoth of the AN/I thread. I don't want to violate WP:CANVASS. It appears that inciting violations of the pillars is not actually a policy violation, but perhaps it should be. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a hurry, work quickly approaching, but here's the basic rundown of issues, hopefully others can expand for me and help explain. I'll clarify anything I may need to when I return from work tonight.
I don't have time right now to gather all the relevant diffs, but there are several on various pages where he asserts it's a violation of policy without citing a policy.
Then he warns Betacommand to stop edit warring or risk being blocked. If he, as an admin, understood the policy for which he's gaining a habit of being blocked for, he'd know it doesn't apply to user space.
And then he drops a template warning on my talk page telling me to assume good faith.
I believe it's time the community reevaluated his access to administrative tools. Lara❤Love 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A.R. seems to have a habit of edit warring, but RFC/arbitration would be better places for this discussion. Christopher Parham(talk) 19:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see only one bad use of the tools. Maybe this needs an RfC, but there's nothing here meriting desysopping yet. A lot of pointy MfDs, that's all.--Docg 19:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with this summary, and it demands an explanation from Arthur if not more serious proceedings. A block seems totally unnecessary and inflammatory, though. Avruch T 19:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to build an ArbCase right now, but this is the justification for his well-deserved block. Lara❤Love 19:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except Arthur's right, Wikipedia should never allow these kinds of agreements to take place (trading one thing for another). Especially trading away ones right to participate in discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That he is right or not is immaterial; WP:POINT is bad enough without misuse of the tools. — Coren(talk) 19:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT? How was this misuse, these kinds of pages simply should not exist per my previous comment. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting pages under criteria explicitly disallowed in userspace, citing IAR (you don't cite IAR, you just use it and if you're good enough, it slips under the radar), and threatening to block under a policy that gives exception to userspaces? Will(talk) 20:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that page good for the encyclopedia? How does it help the encyclopedia? There's probably a policy somewhere that covers these kinds of "contracts" or "agreements", and I doubt it looks highly on them. Even if there's not, do you really need a policy to tell you what common sense should: We should never tolerate agreements to restrict editing unless they're part of dispute resolution (which this clearly isn't). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am unblocking in 3 min, unless someone can tall me what this block is preventing? We can re-block if there's further problems.--Docg 19:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c x 11!) I agree with an unblock iff Arthur agrees to lay off the tools until this is resolved. — Coren(talk) 19:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is support for requiring that condition. Christopher Parham(talk) 19:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, unblock. Take the case to arbcom if necessary. Addhoc (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Highly inappropriate block. El_C 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x8) Looking at the diffs, I agree this should go to LYNCHMOB, if only for a stepping stone to arbitration, as we have no community desysop process. But still, AR's block threat does sound hypocritical, especially as he's had three 3RR this year. Will(talk) 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me at "agree." El_C 19:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a reply to you, it was a reply to Avruch and Glasgow - after the fifth edit conflict I got tired of placing the comment midway in. Will(talk) 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that AR's block threat was wr9ong and had he actually blocked anyone then I would be the first in line in asking the AC to desysop him. But he didn't. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, unblock and use our processes. Deleting that article as T2 was a poor decision (I restored the history after Betacommand re-created it) but probably not worth a block at this time. Black Kite 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issues of the Betacommandbot/Optout page may be Civility and AGF, I must admit I find the bolded entry somewhat confrontational and not particularly conducive to collaborative editing. Furthermore, AR placing a note warning of blocking for 3RR didn't necessarily mean he was goingto do the blocking, just that 4 reverts places anyone at risk. Those would be my AGF takes on it. I do agree that 3 blocks recently is somewhat of a concern.
PS: I have not been too involved with the betacommand issues. Do others think the stern approach on the optout page is necessary?Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the first bolded sentence is fair enough but so obvious that it's unecessary. The second is clearly wrong and totally ignorable. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to specify that it's clearly policy that it's ignorable. I think it's clear, but Lara apparently doesn't believe it's ignorable, and beta clearly doesn't believe it's ignorable, or he would have agreed to the strikeout. I apologize for being baited by beta. I should know better, by now. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 21:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, for the record, I didn't threaten to block anyone. I stated that anyone who agreed to the condition should be blocked. As an involved admin, I wouldn't do the blocking, although I would probably withdraw from Wikipedia if the condition agreed to as a policy. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 22:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion and the block relate to issues that may be accepted at an ongoing arbitration request so that can be left aside for now, though I will be suggesting that the main parties involved here that are not already parties to that request, ie. User:Arthur Rubin and User:Coren, be added to the request. Arthur is right, though, that there does need to be a clear statement somewhere in policy that informal gag rules and trade-offs and divisive interpersonal contracts (however voluntary they are) are extremely destructive to a spirit of collaboration. I did struggle to find a policy where this sort of behaviour is disallowed, and my arguments about about WP:OWN and the third foundation principle were rather weak, but we can't expect policy to explicitly cover everything. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a case of WP:BEANS in action to me. We don't have a policy on it because it's a pretty obscure thing to do. Perhaps we need more of a catch-all policy against behavior that goes against the spirit or goals of Wikipedia to cite in cases like this. --Infophile(Talk)(Contribs) 03:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whew. Long day at work. Good times. So, here's my take. Considering he deleted a page under an invalid criteria and cited Ignore All Rules, then made two pointy MFDs, then threatened to block Beta (or, rather, have him blocked) for an offense that not only has he been blocked three times in two or so months, but for an offense that doesn't even apply to the page Arthur was edit-warring with Beta on... Beta's own subpage. Then, as if that weren't enough, he dropped a template warning on my talk page. Seriously? Telling me to look at the Welcome page so that I, an admin with over 18,000 edits, can learn how to contribute to the encyclopedia. The rest was tldr, but the point is that admins don't drop template warnings on other admin's talk pages. Clearly, in my opinion, he was losing his grasp on wikireality and needed a few hours to chill out and realize what he was doing. He's been with the 'pedia for quite some time, but 2008 seems to be going downhill for him. Lara❤Love 03:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template on your page seemed like an attempt to be funny and informative. That said, the block was inappropriate as there was no immediate issue, and any long-term problems with Arthur belong at RFC or arbitration. Christopher Parham(talk) 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand isn't an admin. And Betacommand hadn't just gotten a final warning telling him to stop using his admin tools in this situation, including warning users, considering his abuse of the tools. Lara❤Love 05:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, beta had gotten multiple final warnings about various things, including misuse of rollback, which used to be an admin tool. But that's not entirely relevant. Then again, I haven't had a valid final warning for misuse of admin tools, either. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lara, do you see several people saying that the block of Arthur Rubin was inappropriate? Maybe you could consider listening to them? I'm not going to defend what Arthur Rubin did, as that is not how I would have handled things, but Arthur is discussing things and talking to you. Calling for him to be blocked or desysopped is an over-reaction. I will say again that if you and Coren disagree over that, then you, Coren and Arthur Rubin need to take this to arbitration as a "dispute between admins". Unless you want to try and resolve this before it reaches that stage? Pre-emptive blocks of admins because someone thinks they've abused their tools is not how things are done here. In any case, the last time I checked, blocking an admin doesn't stop them using their tools (of course, in practice it does stop them using their tools as using their tools through a block is considered a reason for desysopping). Carcharoth (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated on my talk page in a different context, what I saw was (a) an admin tool (delete) being used in furtherance of a content dispute (b) continuing dispute, and (c) threat that an admin tool (block) will be used. What clearer definition of preventative block would you prefer? — Coren(talk) 14:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, you'll note that Beta no longer has rollback privileges, so if you want to use that as a comparison, are you saying you agree it's time to take your admin privileges? I doubt it. As far as the warning goes, apparently it was valid, because you were subsequently blocked for ignoring it. As Coren pointed out above, you abused your tools, which appears to me is something the community agrees on. So, Carcharoth, while the community does not agree that Arthur should have been blocked, it is something I obviously endorse considering I posted the justification for it above. While blocking admins doesn't technically stop them from doing anything, considering they can unblock themselves, it's understood that if you're blocked, you treat it as such and go through the same venue as everyone else, just as Arthur did. So (a) deletion of page under invalid criteria citing IAR and no policy, (b) two pointy MfDs, (c) threat to block Beta for 3RR (something Arthur has been blocked for three times this year) on his own subpage, which is not a blockable offense, (d) ignored warning. It was my opinion, which I continue to stand by, that he needed to be blocked at that point while it was brought to the community's attention because I believe his block log and actions during this dispute have shown him to lack the necessary judgment and restraint expected of an admin. As Coren noted, a clear example of a preventative block. Lara❤Love 20:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there is clearly nothing WP:POINTy about the MfDs. Beta has shown no interest in discussion, so it seems to me to be WP:POINTy to attempt to discuss it before making the strikeout edit and then the MfD. The delete may have been inappropriate, but it still seems to be that allowing gag rules is contrary to the principles underlying Wikipedia. As for the second MfD, I should have initiated discussion first, but I thought fairness required that I open MfDs on all copies of the material, and I withdrew the MfD and requested others withdraw their delete !vote as soon as I became aware that ZScout was open to discussion. I'll wait to comment in the RFAr until a few more points are brought up, so I don't use my entire space repeating points made by others. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 01:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Arthur, but I find both MfDs to be pointy. Mostly because they cite no policy, and also considering you cited IAR in your rogue deletion prior to the first one. Betacommand is actually quite receptive to discussions presented to him in a civil manner. Straight up deleting his page as you did, then turning to MfD was not at all the constructive way to go. Lara❤Love 02:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John254 has pointed out the following at the arbitration case. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Inappropriate administrative actions states: "Blocks may not be used to sanction administrators for the abuse of administrative privileges." - while the wording (which was added by John254 around a month ago) could do with some work, this is, I believe, an already generally accepted principle. Preventative blocks may seem fine, as long as there is a clear danger, but most times people will disagree whether there was a clear danger or not. In general, discussion should be used for a lot longer than was the case here, and then go to arbitration. Blocking between admins can all too easily escalate into wheel-warring. This wasn't the case here, but please let's not risk that in future. Carcharoth (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the discussion for this change? And, as an aside, why is he posting as a party despite not being listed as one? Lara❤Love 13:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this change when it happened and I support it, especially in light of Archtransit's block of me. A change does not need to be discussed. If nobody objects, it stands. JehochmanTalk 13:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This guy just won't quit
After numerous warnings for NPA, cult-free-world was blocked for one week.
He is back now, and here is his 2nd edit since the block- labeling numerous people (including myself) "a cult member." [[85]]. Sethie (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in that diff he doesn't. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My inivitation to you is to look at what he was blocked for, then re-read the diff, then comment. Sethie (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My invitation is to wait. Users like that normally weave their own rope, tie the noose, hang it over the tree and jump gleefully. It's rarely necessary to rely on a single ambiguous diff, just wait a few days. And if he doesn't do anything stupid, well, then he's learned his lesson and there's no problem. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're the admin.... not me. I figured the same behavior that got him blocked, started up as soon as the block expired was significant... maybe it isn't. I will wait... :) and I concur he'll hang himself. This is most likely a sock and if so, not a smart one. Sethie (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My observation is that this particular one is not smart, so like Guy says, he'll hang himself if he's here for no good purpose. Orderinchaos 07:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the dif that shows the same vein of personal attacks that got him banned. Is there a way to stop users from posting lies about other users? Seems libelous to me. BTW, here is the record of the recent ban. Unfortunately, much of the evidence has been deleted because the pages he and his sock tried to re-post were speedily deleted multiple times.
I hope there is some mechanism in the Wiki community for SPA users whose user names alone represent a bias. The labeling of bona fide eastern spiritual practices as "cults" is offensive and meant to provocate. This user has no real interest in adding to the Wiki community. Renee (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing about his user name "alone" that suggests an anti-eastern-religion bias. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Racism in edit summaries
Resolved
There are racist sentences in a couple of edit summaries [86] of the article High-definition television, the three most recent ones. Is it possible to wipe them? --Cantalamessa (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally oversight edit summaries unless they reveal personal information; in this case, the IP editor has been blocked 24 hours so there's little more can be done except roll back to a previous version without recent edits. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. And there was me being bold...erm, well, anyway, I'm quite happy to restore the deleted edits (I'm getting quite good at it now...!). GBT/C 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't know a better place where to ask for this problem. Anyway, thank you! --Cantalamessa (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting edits is not the same as oversight. GB, I assume you mean you deleted the page and restored some revisions and did not restore the ones with the problematic edit summaries, so that the page history no longer has those comments. That is not oversight. What you did still allows administrators to see the edits. So, maybe what you did is fine even if oversight is not usually used in such situations. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I appreciate that there's a difference, as yes, the deleted edits still remain in the log but only visible to administrators. Since, however, the edit summaries didn't merit the full weight of oversight, I think deleting them is a reasonable half-way house. GBT/C 12:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just created these two templates that could be used in future regarding this, this one for the article or talk page or user page;
Template:Editsum
or this one for the user's page;
Template:OffeditDangerTM (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following was left on my talk page by a user in need of some help. As he says, I don't really want to get involved. I stepped in regarding a naming convention (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Syriac)) but I'm really trying to keep my distance from the overall issue. I'm just posting this here because I don't think Chaldean is aware of this page.
I know you don't want to get involved, but you have to, since the only admin involved is abusing his powers. He is deleting masive amount of source information [[87]] when it is clearly not off-topic. When I ask sources for his big changes, he states he owns the page [[88]] and is not obligated to bring sources to the table. I try to negotiate with, try to work with him, but he continues to put me down [[89]]. It would be one thing if this was a regular user talking this way, but this is an admin. He is moving pages without discussion [[90]] and the madness goes on. The thing I'm must troubled with is that he doesn't want to negotiate. I have been verbially abused so many times by this guy in the past week, for simply asking sources for his edits. And now he is ready to put his master-plan together by moving Assyrian people page, despite the huge opposition to it in the talk page. He doesn't care, his gameplan is to wait until the opposition has died down and then suggest to move it again. You don't go to Greek people page and suggest to move it to Greek/Hellenics people. This guy has a complete monopoly on Assyrian related pages. Chaldean (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I know the editor who wrote this has some POV issues of his own, but I also think Dbachmann is a little over-involved in this topic and is getting kind of aggressive, as some of his edits show. A few more eyes on the matter might be useful. Thanks, everyone. KafzielComplaint Department 06:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Yes. I don't have time myself, but this does look like it needs attention. Fast. For the record, Dbachmann is not using his tools (unless he is moving over redirects), so no abuse I can see. Just a content dispute that may be escalating. Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ri-ight. Lets examine some of the diffs, shall we? "Deleting masive amount of source information" is usually the first thing one has to do on discovering a little walled garden where enthusiasts or fringe nationalists or mysticists of some stripe or another have set up a shrine to something. In this case, Dbachmann removed a long disgression about the stone age from an article about modern names. "Ownership" - I read Dbachmann's edit summary as indicating that he knows where the page has to go, but he's being swarmed with what he assumes are extreme nationalists; I personally can't disagree. (User:Chaldean's username is a bit of a giveaway.) In the same summary Dbachmann pleads for some admin attention. So I suppose this section is useful in a way after all.
"Moving pages" - as Carcaroth has pointed, out, its over redirects. More to the point, he had a perfectly valid reason: he moved the page "X in the USA" to X's official group name in the US census.
All-in-all, business as usual. Dbachmann's trying to apply our core policies to another little-visited corner of the project, that's all. His talkpage shows him being relatively restrained with the ensuing commotion. If anyone's interested, I'm sure he'd be happy with some help. Relata refero (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little concerned with what I perceive as a growing attitude to consider editors actively trying to implement Wikipedia core policies as "over-involved". Indeed this needs more eyes. I have been advertising for more eyes. I will be grateful if it isn't left entirely to me to look after WP's coverage of "various ethnic groups and nationalisms". It is a deeply flawed attitude to think that the "admin caste" is here for admonishing people, while matters of content should be left to pov pushers of various convictions. I can't believe I am "old school" for actually trying to understand the issues under dispute and trying to fix them within policy, instead of an idiotic approach of "hur, hur, can you believe, some people are arguing over content (as opposed to procedure and red tape). Let's slap them all on the wrist a little bit and go back to Wikipedia-administring on IRC". dab(𒁳) 12:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can spend the rest of your life on IRC and you'll never see me there. I resent the implication that I'm a red tape admin; anyone here who knows me - love me or hate me - knows that isn't true. I know I stepped on your toes a bit with your guideline proposal, but that was because you were abusing it. I backed up my reasons with policy (just as you're doing here) but that doesn't mean I'm any more a slave to procedure than you are.
That's the sort of thing that tells me only that someone has been over-taxing even Dbachmann's abundant patience. It happens, you know. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Dbachmann has been violating our core policy of WP:CONDESCENSION again. Wait, that's a red link. Never mind... John Carter (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. If a new user had said that stuff, he'd be warned for incivility immediately. It should be more so - not less - when it's an admin. KafzielComplaint Department 17:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a heads up, you could also bring this issue to the village pump, as editors there discuss the technical aspects of wikipedia. Wisdom89(T / C) 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WalterGR reporting user for continued Wikipedia disturbance, including repeated sock puppetry
12:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC) - Kilz's static IP is blocked as it's "used to avoid 3RR detection." 67.175.233.209 is clearly Kilz. Kilz obliquely admits this. (diff)
(Another user noticed his use of "IDontBelieveYou" and "Loki144", here.)
Use of Loki144:
Kilz argues for the removal of a reference for benchmark data which shows Swiftfox is faster than Firefox:
"The site is also a private site listing the findings of only one person with no editorial oversight and is therefore not a creditable source [WP:RS]..." (diff: [94])
Loki44 backs Kilz up:
"The browser speed test site is also a private site and not a reliable source." (diff: [95])
Use of IDontBelieveYou:
When Kilz argued for the removal of the reference for benchmark data, he also said:
"If we cant find information on the 2.0 version from a reliable source the section needs to be removed IMHO." (same diff as above: [96])
IDontBelieveYou backs Kilz up:
"I agree with you Kilz... This article should be about 2.0. If we can't find references for the speed section for 2.0, the section should be removed." (diff: [97])
Kilz doesn't believe Swiftfox is faster than Firefox.
Kilz removes the text "The name Swiftfox implies a faster browser than Firefox" (diff [98]). It gets added back in. Kilz then adds a {{fact}} tag (diff [99]). It gets removed. Kilz adds an {{unreliable}} tag to the section instead (diff [100]). It gets removed. He adds it again (diff [101]). It gets removed again.
IDontBelieveYou comes to Kilz's aid:
He makes the following edit: "The name Swiftfox comes from the animal Swift Fox which coincidently implies speed". (diff [102])
That edit gets removed, then Kilz "restore[s] edit of idontbelieveyou" (diff [103])
"It dose not pass WP:SOURCES it is a self published source." (diff [104])
StVectra agrees with Kilz:
"Microsoft in this instance is not a reliable source. It is writing about itself WP:SELFPUB clearly says it cant be used as a reference when it includes claims about third parties." (diff [105])
Kilz later responds:
"You cant use the source. It is self published , and has claims about a third party." (diff [106])
Sock pupped IDBYou backs Kilz and StVectra up:
"WP:VER is very clear, you can not use self published sources. I think the section needs to be removed as it also has claims against a 3rd party" (diff [107])
Kilz later argues that blogs cannot be used as sources:
"This is from a Blog, blogs are not usable as sources WP:SPS." (diff [108])
StVectra agrees:
"I agree that blogs should not be used as sources or references. They all to often have bias that is impossible to remove." (diff [109])
"Ars Technica is a news site. That they use Groklaw as a source in no way makes them unusable. FanaticAttack is not a blog in my opinion but an news site that covers a wide range of topics. The article is neutral. That it has a place for comments is besides the point. GrokDoc is a wiki, but it is not an 'open wiki'." (diff [111])
StVectra agrees with Kilz:
"Use of information on Groklaw is not a reason to remove another site. Fanaticattack is not a blog IMHO, and the neutral style they use is that of most news sites. I am not so sure about Grokdoc more because of a neutral point of view problem. Open wiki's are those that allow anon posting, it is not open." (diff [112])
Kilz removes information (diff [113]) that later gets restored. IDBYou removes the same information (diff [114]).
IDBYou removes some quotations from the same section (diff [115]) that are later restored. Kilz removes some of them again (diff [116]).
Kilz's periods of editing activity - whether via sock puppets or his logged in account - are directly correlated to edit wars and controversy within those articles.
Swiftfox: This dispute was summed up here. Kilz believes Swiftfox is non-Free Software and is opposed to non-Free Software: "There are a few of us on the Ubuntu forums who oppose non free software... Jason has tried to stop me from telling people Swiftfox is non-free... I think I know how unethical he is, and know he will lie to win." (diff: diff).
Office Open XML and Standardization of Office Open XML: On Kilz's talk page, "Groklaw - I find the site facinating. When I found it 2 1/2 years ago I was still using Windows. The site has changed how I feel about freedom and the court system. Ubuntu - I have completely removed Microsoft from my life. I do not miss it in any way." (diff: [117]) Groklaw is critical of Office Open XML standardization.
While every editor has a point of view, Kilz is extremely and continuously disruptive.
On 15 March SPA account Mike Babic has been blocked on 24 hours period because of 3RR rule [118]. It is important to notice that blocking has been done on my demand similar to semi-protection of article Serbs of Croatia (which has been edited by this account). During this 24 hours blocking I have recieved this nice message:
"YOUR DESERVES THE HOTTEST PLACE IN HELL ....." [119]
It is important to notice that this user has today reverted semi-protection tag put in article Serbs of Croatia by administrator Jossi. To tell the truth I want this nationalistic SPA account banned because in last few months nationalistic edit warring between Balkan editors has stoped and we do not need SPA accounts for starting new edit wars !--Rjecina (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This anon user has acknowledged that he was blocked and is circumventing that block. [[120]]
It sounds to me like he was maybe unfairly blocked (or maybe not some people think he is a sock). Regardless I think this IP needs to be blocked. Hohohahaha (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure an admin will be around to do the job, but you could report the IP to WP:AIV with a brief description of the reason and the diff. Wisdom89(T / C) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request For Assistance With Relentless Self-promotion and COI
Weareallone has a long history of adding Belling haus references to articles [127][128][129][130], which how I came to be involved with him. I'm asking for help dealing with this, since anything I do (including this) is likely to be seen as an attack. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm in the wrong place for this, please nudge me in the right direction. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely certain what the best course of action is here, so would like to observe a more experienced admin at work... User talk:Omegace (contribs) appears to be making death threats, but not at anyone in particular. See specific edits such as this, as well as edit summaries in their contributions. They've been warned about innapropriate edit summaries, but seem to have carried on regardless. As the threats aren't directed particularly, do we continue to warn, or do we just block now, taking the new Wikipedia:Threats of violence into consideration? TalkIslander 17:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn' look like a threat of violence to me. I think he means the text has to be sourced or it will die, i.e be deleted. My advice would be to ask him what he means on his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but that doesn't explain comments like this - "One more thing Put the 2008 section of the thorpe park timeline or die" (read the whole edit to get the context - basically "it is now 2008, thus the 2008 section should be added to the timeline, thus do so or die"). TalkIslander 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that does seem inflammatory but I'd still say the first step is to talk to him on his talk page, come to us if you get no joy there. Theresa Knott | The otter sank
HUGE wiki is NOT a child porn site. Images MUST go.Thright (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC) ps - wiki policy here takes a back seat to the law.[reply]
Those should be deleted ASAP. --Fredrick day 18:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're deleted and the account is indef'd. — Scientizzle 18:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did it to prevent further inappropriate uploads and left the explicit (no pun intended) message that a promise to discontinue would be enough for me to unblock. If you want to unblock now, I won't throw a fit or anything. — Scientizzle 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was a good call. Child pornography isn't just illegal in the United States, it's illegal everywhere--I'd have indefblocked him even if he wasn't a minor. Blueboy96 19:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Child pornography is a bit harsh, such images may be fine, in context, for instance in a medical textbook, but on a Wikipedia article on erection their use was at best dubious. Polly (Parrot) 19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editor has given an undertaking not to upload any more images and I have unblocked and pointed him in the direction of policy guidelines. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of that. — Scientizzle 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way of permanently removing such content from the servers? At the moment, admins can access deleted revisions of this material, and that could still be problematic. Obviously other stuff could exist (and not everyone self-identifies their age), but once we know about such material we should take further steps to remove it, surely? Carcharoth (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would an OTRS ticket be a good way of ensuring that this gets done? - Now and in the future, I guess....? Privatemusings (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The name Vararesande is to appear in a future publication. Its creator does not sanction its use or appearance in any of Wikipedia's websites. Its continued appearance on Wikipedia constitutes a violation of copyright on the part of Wikipedia and may result in legal action if situation is not remedied to the name creator's satisfaction."
What should be done here? Both accounts were blocked in February for vandalistic edits. Metros (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't think anyone can claim a user name is copyrighted. When a person creates an account here, they acknowledge that their user name will appear wherever they edit. --clpo13(talk) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link the user to our renaming policy and be done. If the user persists, block and protect the talk page. The "copyright violation" claim is ludicrous. FCYTravis (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears they did make a username change request on the talk page (linked by Metros above). --clpo13(talk) 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user has indeed made the legal threat in his/her own request for a username change. Basically they have said that their username violates some copyright, and that Wikipedia is somehow liable for this user's copyright violation. Bizarre. AecisBrievenbus 21:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the user's previous contributions (to articles and to his own talk page) I don't see any point tolerating him at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Maybe the user has _received_ a legal threat about their name and are trying to get it deleted or changed to comply with it. —Random832 21:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and you cannot copyright the future anyway.... --Fredrick day 21:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can trademark/patent something for the future. But I believe this is moot. Wisdom89(T / C) 22:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were the case, the user is still making a legal threat to Wikipedia. I also seem to recall that in the account creation guidelines there is a note about not using a copyrighted name (with example) so if this user has violated that then they have only themselves to blame. In the meantime this is pretty simple WP:LEGAL territory. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Names can be trademarked, not copyrighted. Use of a name in such a noncommercial context as a Wikipedia username is most likely not any sort of violation, and trademark rights only exist as of the time the name is put in use, anyway, so that if this is actually a "future use" that is planned, no violation exists. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:LEGAL. The user should be warned then, if he/she doesn't relinquish their position, blocked indefinitely. Wisdom89(T / C) 22:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user is already indef blocked. --clpo13(talk) 22:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the problem is already solved, then. --Cyde Weys 01:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– blanked and protected SirFozzie (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't want to do this, as I genuinely felt there might be a way of sorting this out once and for all without admin intervention, but serial puppeteer CollScott has returned to us, this time to issue legal threats here, despite my best efforts at mollifying the guy and attempting to find some way of resolving his long-standing issues. I think we've reached the end of the conversation; he's obviously spoiling for a fight and I'm done replying to his insults and legal threats. I suggest a speedy resolution to this one, so this report can be blanked per WP:BLP. SteveT • C 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done all taken care of. SirFozzie (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for the prompt action. Um, what happens to this AN/I report? Removed, blanked, or does it wait on the page to be archived in a few days' time? It does use his real name in the section header, after all, so I assume BLP applies to this too. SteveT • C 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Waits to be archived like normal (which should be around 24 hours if no one else posts here.). SirFozzie (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if you are concerned about this real name i would recommend starring it out, just to be safe. i dont htink it will be a problem though sinc ehe chose to his real name. Smith Jones (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thought on the issue. He chose the name he did for this sock account for a very specific reason. SirFozzie (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User creation log - possible mass batch of socks created
Noted and precautions put in place. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More with Don Murphy
A couple of brand new accounts have been heavily editing the Don Murphy article. I'm guessing they are socks of one another (there was also an IP edit, probably when the person forgot to log back in). I know we've had a lot of trouble with this article in the past (I watchlisted it after the last AfD) but I don't remember enough about the specifics to know what's going on right now. I should note that this comes on the heels of a bunch of new material being added. I have not looked closely but it seemed fairly well sourced and the editor who added it was asking for comment on the talk page.
Can someone familiar with the situation take a look? I also left a comment on the discussion page over there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I briefly protected the page, but I recall this is a can of worms inside a hornet's nest and I'm about to go off-line. -- Flyguy649talk 00:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been reverted again by User:Runabrat, with much material removed, using the edit summary "Agreement was made with Wikipedia after repeated conflict with Don Murphy. Please check into this before changing." This needs prompt attention given the past issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with changes to adhere to WP:BLP, but I don't believe that Runabrat's wholesale revert is warranted. I included details about his personal life and his professional career, and it has both positive and negative perspectives. If the article needs to be altered per WP:BLP, I would be fine with discussion. I just think that the expansions solidify the notability of the producer with multiple references that have significant coverage about him. There is probably even more detail about him in Jane Hamsher's book Killer Instinct. In addition, this is a SPA because Don Murphy has repeatedly warred against Wikipedia for having an article about him with a group of supporters, as seen in this thread. My personal opinion is that I've been reverted by supporters who may be POV-pushing. I hope that my contributions can be reviewed instead and revised accordingly. RTFA (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is good that we are talking. Let's move this to the Talk:Don Murphy article talk page. No more administrator intervention is needed here, at this time. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors need to talk with each other. Invite him to the article talk page. Work this out, I can help if you like. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the page for a week to allow discussion to take place. I don't know anything about this article, so I'm not sure what can of worms is being spoken of, but I believe protection was warranted here. Lara❤Love 00:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has objected to this article and there was a lot of high level discussion about it. This AfD might provide some background. This is not a simple content dispute and admins need to look into it further. Two of the accounts, Runabrat and Curiosity Inc., we're created within minutes of one another and are almost certainly related. Again, the former reverted to a certain version with the summary "Agreement was made with Wikipedia after repeated conflict with Don Murphy. Please check into this before changing." We need more eyes on this, particularly from folks who know the relevant background. Any suggestions on who to tell about this? There are serious issues here (I think) but I am not even sure exactly what they are.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don Murphy has used multiple sockpuppets for his own purposes -- he is indisputably User:ColScott, and the rest of the sockpuppets are here. I noticed the related incident above at #User:TheRealDonMurphy, and he said this on his talk page:
"I'll make you a deal- delete the Don Murphy article and I will go away and you and your cult can be safe again- that is all I ever wanted anyway."
"Please delete the Don Murphy article and I promise to go away and not reveal who you are- but will you, Coward? Will you?"
"Since the first two losers, HighinBc and PhilGronowski started this crap a year and a half ago I have been banned 114 times. Wikipediots have blocked the IP#s of Sony Pictures , Jim Henson Studios and the Walt Disney Company at various times. Just last week they blocked the IP# of one of the biggest resorts in Hawaii. In that time I have outed Fifteen of you cultists."
Hope this provides some recent insight about how Mr. Murphy feels his article should be handled. RTFA (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked both Curiosity Inc. and Runabrat for being disruptive SPAs. It is highly likely that they are meatpuppets for Don Murphy (he runs a message board where his goons collaborate to out editors). John Reaves 05:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Murphy's legal threats, and the edits of his meatpuppets, should of course be WP:RBId, but I do urge anyone doing so to carefully check that any restored material is compliant with the most rigorous interpretation of WP:BLP. Murphy is an oddball and absolutely not suited to editing Wikipedia, but he does have the right to be treated with some degree of decency in BLP issues, as does any article subject. OTRS backlogs are such that the email back-channel may not be quick enough. So: please watchlist the article and deal firmly and decisively with any editors who are attempting to knock Murphy (not to say there are any at present, but still). As long as we do that, we have nothing to fear, I think. Oh, one final thing: if your RWI is traceable from your Wikipedia account, I strongly recommend you don't get involved, as his forums have in the past resulted in some spectacularly inappropriate off-wiki behaviour. DAMHIKIJKOK. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, we can review my contributions to ensure that they comply with WP:BLP. I think the majority of the content is necessary in establishing his notability because while the consensus of the AFDs were to keep, there were a few opinions that he was not notable enough. I think that the revision I made establishes his notability much more strongly than any previous revision, and the large portion of details are directly relevant to him as a producer. I think that his dispute with Quentin Tarantino is the smaller portion that does not entail inclusion, though I had included it because I thought it fit Murphy's reputation, which the producer himself had spoken about. The revision reflects both positive and negative traits about the producer as reported independently by reliable sources, so there should be some balance here. RTFA (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone have a look at the behavior of User:Cryptographic Slurm? He seems to be engaging in mass AfD nominations of American local news anchors. I suppose I wouldn't consider this a problem in and of itself (indeed, one could make the case that this entire class of people is not sufficiently notable), but I am concerned that this user has already engaged in sockpuppetry to influence the deletion discussion about Alycia Lane (to whom he referred as a "bimbo"); his edit patterns are an exact match of those of User:MRPL8, who also voted in the same discussion. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, is it appropriate for us to bundle this large number of nominations into one discussion, where we can also address the possibility that these are bad faith nominations?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ran across this at AfD before. I was wondering what was going on here. If they can't become any more obvious than this... seicer | talk | contribs 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cited information regarding a drug bust on the subject of the article in question has been repeatedly removed by an IP user and I accidently overstepped the 3RR while readding the information and was warned about it. While I agree with the warning, the information has been removed again and I don't dare revert the edit. Help with this situation would be greatly appreciated. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering (and I can't find anything out via the net) - were those charges dropped or not? Because if they were, I don't see a reason to be mentioning them at all. Black Kite 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly Grill entered drug treatment in order to receive a diminished sentence. Orlando Sentinel seems to be the only news source reporting on this situation, and they don't seem to keep articles online very long. / edg☺☭ 04:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also here and here. This editor's contributions have become more problematic. Further to his anti-policy block voting on MfD and AfD, which included such gems as voting Keep for a spamlink page, he has moved on to silly vandalism ([131]), disrupting an AfD with such as this ([132]), and finally an article Obuibo Mbstpo which (unless I'm seriously mistaken) was a complete hoax. I have blocked the user indef for the time being to prevent any other disruption, and bring the matter here. Is indef too harsh and a shorter block should be tried (he does have some productive edits)?. Thoughts invited. Black Kite 01:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of his edits he's practically been begging for a block. Support it. Wizardman 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I think a block for the marriage proposal edit was probably warranted. As for the hoax article, on what basis are we sure it's a hoax? I see that it has zero ghits, but, reading the article, I'm not sure that it was speediable. Support leaving him blocked for now, but I'm very curious and fairly open-minded about his response. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umuofia is a fictional village from Things Fall Apart, for starters. I support a block. This is getting way out of hand. bibliomaniac15 01:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's pretty damning. I'm still interested to hear his response, but my mind just closed a little. You know, for some reason this user has been reminding me all along of User:Zenwhat (which is funny given their polar-opposite approaches to deletion). Not sure why. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess creation of that article was something to do with his (self-described) extremism stance that "nothing should be deleted" - I'm sure he's fill us in at length about what it was meant to achieve/be an example of. --Fredrick day 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's late here, so if any sort of a consensus forms that the original block should be modified (though it doesn't look like it) please go ahead and do it. Black Kite 01:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had previously blocked them for using multiple accounts and serious disruption.[133] (Absidy was one of the many former accounts.) After a bit of discussion, I decided to unblock because they had stated an intention to contribute productively. Unfortunately, the level of disruption has not decreased at all. While there is a bit of signal mixed in, the amount of noise is overwhelming and on balance the account is hurting the project. A second chance has been provided, and squandered. JehochmanTalk 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's currently active on his talk page, if anybody's interested. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given his fondness for using multiple accounts, don't be surprised if a suspiciously familiar editor should happen to show up at some of his old stomping grounds. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mbstpo has been very open in the past. I'll do what I can to encourage him not to evade the block. If he does evade it, it will certainly complicate ensuing process. I do think he is attempting to commit wiki-suicide, a wikibreak is probably just what he needs. I saw that marriage proposal prank. It was funny, to be sure. After all, marriage proposals do often come as a result of pregnancy. On the other hand, he knows, he's been here long enough, etc..... Meanwhile, there are the causes for that suicide attempt which are going to require some attention. I just hope he hasn't spiked his account like he did the previous ones. I'm seriously worried about him.--Abd (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you examine the history of this user (which can be seen back to 2005 with relative ease, I'll assist any administrator who needs the information, privately), you will find a clean block log until very recently. (the former account, started in 2005, had one block that was quickly unblocked as an error). Then there was one block by Jehochman, of User:Absidy. First block is indef with a "do not unblock without consulting" message. No ignored warnings, on the contrary, Jehochman had warned Absidy and Absidy had stated no intention to continue, and did not continue. Cause of block obvious, and not what Jehochman has stated above. Absidy was rude to Jehochman. If this is taken to ArbComm, high probability Jehochman would lose his bit, or at least have a face smelling of wikitrout. Abdisy was unblocked because Jehochman was willing to relent, so no further process ensued from that. Sock puppetry and use of multiple accounts was not a factor in that block, it's blatant, and only one account was involved, the one he blocked. Now comes another block. Stated reason: vandalism. No serious vandalism alleged. One edit. One questionable article. A warning, not ignored. What's the real offense? It's looking very much like a Rule 0 violation. That rule. The one we can't state, because it would violate Rule 0. So we make up other names, like "Disruption," "Trolling," "Voting in AfDs Openly with an Agenda," "Corrupting the Youth." Never mind, the last was Socrates. The brightest people in societies often violate Rule 0, and societies which punish Rule 0 violations die if the conditions under which they arose change, for these are the people who can see beyond the unstated assumptions of a society. Healthy societies contain Rule 0 violators, and do not punish them (except for, sometimes, a certain level of ostracism). Societies which vigorously exile Rule 0 violators are doomed in a changing world. Don't say you were not warned! In any case, since I don't want Wikipedia to go the way of Ancient Greece and all the rest, I would intend, if this cannot be swiftly resolved, to pursue standard Wikipedia dispute resolution. I did last time, it started with having a friendly talk with the administrator involved. Will that be enough this time? I won't know unless I try. Good night... --Abd (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"No serious vandalism alleged"? What about the vandalism of marriage proposal and the creation of what looks very much like a hoax article? I'll thank you for not acting as an enabler, Abd. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. No serious vandalism. Is that edit to Marriage proposal serious? If some editor vandalizes like that, what's the standard response? First offense for vandalism. You know. I know. I've watched it. Hint: it is not "indef block." As to the article, at worst that would be a second offense. Did it take place after he was warned? Was he warned? I didn't see it. Has it been shown that the article was a hoax? If it was, would this be an indef block offense? No, the offense is obvious. It is made even more obvious by the comments of User:Equazcion below.
The spouting of long examples of elitism or closed-mindedness in history in a sarcastic manner sounds exactly like OM to me. I find this irritating and unnecessary. All of your responses can be summed as "Wikipedia is a society like any other, history is repeating itself, and only smart people like me are aware of it". At least a toning down of the sarcasm would really be appreciated, Abd. Most of us in serious conversations try to say what we mean, despite the temptation to resort to sarcasm. A return of that favor would really be appreciated, and would be more likely to garner serious consideration of the points you're trying to make. You catch more flies with honey, or something. Equazcion•✗/C •04:07, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
"Elitism in history?" Forgive me, but that makes no sense to me, so I can't respond, I don't think I wrote about elitism at all. And I was not sarcastic. And, yes, people who write like me can be irritating to those who don't understand. I can't tone down sarcasm that does not exist. Well, there is one possible exception. My reference to "Voting in AfDs Openly with an Agenda," could be considered sarcastic. Except that this is actually what Mbstpo did. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. "Sarcasm" is a projection of emotional content onto the written word. I've been communicating on-line for over twenty years, and one of the biggest mistakes people make is projecting emotional states onto written language. You don't have the facial expressions, the body language, and far too many readers will supply them in imagination, thus reacting to what they themselves create. This is why we have WP:AGF, and, folks, it's a policy, not a guideline. To continue, I'm not trying to catch flies. If I wanted flies, I'd use honey. Instead, I use argument I consider cogent, participating in The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe. I've found some signs. Mbstpo is one of them. Wikipedia is another, by the way. --Abd (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand. Trust me, I understand. When you have a free couple of hours, read through my talk archives. But there's a time and a place. I left a comment at your talk page. Let's keep this discussion about OM's block. Equazcion•✗/C •04:41, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism? I don't see it. Seriously, the edit to Marriage Proposal was perfectly legit. Disruption? Again, I don't see it. All I see is someone putting forth ideas that a lot of people disagree with to try and rectify what he sees as massive problems with Wikipedia. But please, don't let sanity interfere with a good hardcore two-minute hate. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 04:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't. It was an entirely inappropriate bit of humour with no place in that article. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we have a template for that: {{uw-joke1}}. —Random832 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't template the regulars. That warning is meant for people who require the benefit of the doubt. OM assuredly knew at that point that jokes shouldn't go in articles. Equazcion•✗/C •18:15, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Could I in the spirit of good faith propose a compromise. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk·contribs) is unblocked and a namespace restriction is placed on his account. He will be able to edit Mainspace, Talk, User, User talk, Image, Image talk, Category, and Category talk. He will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, Help, Help talk, MediaWiki talk, Portal, Portal talk, Template, Template talk. Newyorkbrad has made the point before that he contributes good parli pro ARTICLES and that its really the Meta stuff that makes us all cringe (at least me), so this would seem to be a compromise. MBisanztalk 07:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think MBisanz has actually made a good suggestion. Like many good suggestions, it makes no sense unless one considers the unwritten laws of Wikipedia. It will cause, in my opinion, minimal disruption, and whatever mess remains can be cleaned up in an orderly fashion. A standing indef block of a user with some support is practically guaranteed to be disruptive. Now, can I get Mbstpo to accept it? I think so, but, my meat puppet he is not, nor I his. On the other hand, he's half my age. Hmmmm.... Is there any way to merge the content?--Abd (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on his talk page, he was blocked for mainspace vandalism. Unblocking and restricting his activities to mainspace doesn't really seem like a very good suggestion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sarcasticidealist here. I would support a namespace restriction, as MBisanz suggests, if this were an isolated case. However, looking at every incarnation of this user, I would be highly surprised if Obuibo/Ron/Sasp/whatever would even accept it. His/her main purpose and goal here on-wiki seems to be to participate on a meta-level, and in a disruptive manner (IMO). How long will he/she go along with this, if/when he/she actually agrees to it in the first place? My guess is about a week. For this reason, I support an indef block with no compromise. How many strikes do you get in baseball? Three. How many strikes do you get in Wikipedia before the majority of co-editors wash their hands? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Majority rule. Should we make this into Policy? What I see here are not strikes at all. There are a couple of foul balls, very few, actually. When Mbstpo was blocked before, it's obvious it was for a single act of impulsive incivility to an administrator. First foul ball. Could have gotten him a 24-hour block. See any warnings before that? (He was warned for canvassing, responded with an expression of no continuance, but also was rude, and was then indef blocked by that admin. So the warning is part of that incident, not a prior.) Then, he was not doing anything worthy of blocking without warning, until the "vandalism." As vandalism goes, it's about as mild as one could get, I see much, much worse, commonly, with a response of nothing other than a warning. For this, he gets, not a 24-hour block -- which would still have been excessive -- but an indef block. So what's the real reason? It's obvious that it is the WP space work. But it would have been quite troublesome to block him for that. However, he provided an excuse, making a joke in mainspace. Something that could result in a warning, normally, particularly with his quite clean record (about such things). Anyway, we could go over and over this, and will if the block continues, I'd predict all the way to ArbComm; on the other hand, what I expect to be the most likely outcome is that a settlement is negotiated. Want to keep fighting? I'd suggest that you find another community to disrupt, for that is exactly what is happening. Mbstpo's actions are at most minor disruption, if any at all. For example, there are quite a few editors who make what are essentially canned responses in AfDs. Are they ever even warned? The difference is that Mbstpo was explicit about it. As has been pointed out (as a counterargument to Mbstpo) closing admins might disregard his comment. Quite a few editors felt it worthwhile to point out that the comment was a standard one, though it was pretty obvious. Now, if a standard comment is cogent, it should count. If not, it shouldn't. What's the harm? What if a hundred editors made such comments? It's quite simple: they would be moved to Talk space, quite likely. In fact all votes that don't present actual arguments relevant to the case should be moved to Talk. Not just Mbstpo's. Essentially, his canned comments were not disruptive. Attempts to stop him, with comments to AN/I, bringing critics out of the woodwork, were disruptive, and this is generally true. Attempts to censor Wikipedians are always disruptive. Sometimes they are necessary, to be sure, but that doesn't change the fact: people resent, typically, being told to shut up. It's disruptive, and should only be done if the speech to be ceased is itself more disruptive. In any case, the suggested remedy deals with the real cause of the block; it's patently obvious that it was not the "vandalism." By the way, I hadn't read the block log comment, when I wrote what is above, the block log comment was more detailed, and vandalism was only one of the causes given. On the user Talk page, only vandalism was mentioned, in fact. What has been proposed would settle the immediate fuss, and I think the blocking admin might accept it. Failing that, I'll suggest to Mbstpo that he request unblock and follow WP:DR and we will see where that goes. But I can guarantee one thing: the latter is more disruptive than the former. More editor time is wasted arguing about Wikipedia ediorial process, diverted from actually working on the project. Given that Mbstpo's concern has become the process itself, this would be, I'd suggest, playing into his hands. If he is unblocked with the compromise, his work on process will continue, but moderated. It's actually a classic on-line solution, used for many years with success. It's about time it is tried here. (Maybe it has been. Any links, anyone?)--Abd (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was accused of being a sockpuppet by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I will not take such slander and lack of basic human rights, such as innocent until proven guilty being ignored laying down. I demand my name be cleared and sanctions be taken! MRPL8 (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accused where? Providing some diffs documenting this accusation would help out anyone looking at this. --clpo13(talk) 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right on his userpage, actually. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as I was writing this, the user was blocked for 24h for disruption. Thanks! seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for providing these diffs. I recommend further investigation. Feel free to refactor my block as needed. JehochmanTalk 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you file WP:RFCU to help empty the sock drawer and get the underlying IP(s) all blocked? Feel free to extend my block. I am going AFK. JehochmanTalk 02:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stepping out right now, but I extended the block to indef. based upon the SSP above (that's a lot) and for similar editing patterns to Cryptographic Slurm. Obvious sock abuse case. seicer | talk | contribs 02:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. WP:RFCU would be overkill at this point--there were only 2 sockpuppets active tonight, and Seicer blocked them both. Nevertheless, I'll continue to watchlist the local TV news anchor pages. The dude also likes to edit license plate articles, for some reason. I'll let an admin know if he turns up again.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can try RFCU but you'll likely just find a bunch of Tor exit nodes. I blocked them non-stop for an hour the other night. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately many of the tor nodes he has used were soft-blocked (anon-only) and others were blocked as tor nodes but recently unblocked as "no longer tor" when at least as of today they surely are. I think that whatever algorithm is being used to unblock tor nodes needs to be adjusted, unless admins prefer to play whack-a-mole. Thatcher 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spam block? Could you be more specific as to precisely what you're seeing? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like User talk:WhisperToMe#Alberto "Beto" Gutierrez contains a link to Lulu, which has been blacklisted. I've put some nowiki tags around it, so the page should be saveable again now. The trick is to look at what link the spam page mentions as being the culprit, then searching the source of the page for the link. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed my password so hopefully nobody else can get into my account. Could it be hackers or soemthing? --Exoz (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks suspiciously like another one. It immediately went after TV articles and the Alycia Lane 2nd deletion nomination. Jonneroo (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see diffs to supplement the above post: [143][144] Nothing bad in and of itself, but suspiciously similar to the type of edits and subjects of editing that the community has come to recognize from a certain banned user. Jonneroo (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Preoccupation with Scott Brown (whoever that is) is another one of this sockpuppeteer's MO's. See the IP shenanigans currently underway[145].--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lucifero4(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has vandalized after final warning on Ergastolo (diff). This user insists on creating (and in two cases recreating) redirects for Italian words, rather than treating them as foreign words with links to the English language articles and cross-language-version links to Italian language articles on Italian Wikipedia, and insists on using only Italian language sources - our sources need to be English language or at least have the relevant paragraphs translated to English per WP:RSUE. These issues appear to be too complicated for WP:AIV, as my report there was skipped by multiple admins for over two hours. Parsecboy has warned this user again, but previous warnings have not even garnered responses. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Left user a note requesting their comment/responsiveness. If this keeps up without any response on their part, be sure to bring this up again. Beyond that, leaving the floor open for others on this thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this sort of situation isn't really what WP:AIV is for. AIV is for the most obvious vandalism that's occurring presently. Creating foreign-language redirects isn't really vandalism, so you probably would've been better off waiting to give Lucifero4 time to respond (your notices for the Italian redirects created today were after he made his last edit). If, he began editing later on, and ignored your warnings (which, I gather he has a habit of doing), you could've just come here directly.
He doesn't seem to be acting in bad faith, so I don't think any kind of block is in order; he may just be unfamiliar with the guidelines.
On the other hand, he's been around since November 2006 with close to a thousand edits, so he's certainly no newbie. He really should know what he's doing here, or at least answer comments left on his talk page.
Given that he appears to be acting in good faith, I suggest sitting tight for the moment, and give him the opportunity to explain himself. Parsecboy (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have create the redirect articlefrom sottotenente to italian military ranks in order to explain what mean as sottotenente, it's the same for tenente.
Regarding the case of the article named ergastolo I remind to everyone that ergastolo is not the traslation of Life Sentence in italian.
For Raffaele Cadorna Jr I have used to write the article news from books or websites written in italian so that is why I have decide to use as reference a website or a book written in italian. User:Lucifero4
It seems bots have been experiencing some glitches in the last few days, yesterday I noticed a simmilar pattern by RussBot[147], can these simmilar cases be attributed to them sharing a software bug in common? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its archiving work seems to be working fine and the glitches are just in its own userspace, and not very frequent. I don't think an emergency block is needed here. Mr.Z-man 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the cover of a magazine. Its fair use, we aren't breaking copyright as long as the publication is discussed in the article.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an office issue (the community is not as good as making legal calls as the Foundation's lawyers are), but my first instinct is the same as Uga Man's. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're complaining about the use of her photos to obtain profit, so it would seem this is completely irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. In any event, we do have an official legal expert. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a derivative work of a copyright violation also a copyright violation? Also, although the letter does address commercial usages, it goes on to state that any unauthorized usages are violations of copyright law. It seems to me that this could qualify as a takedown notice. Nesodak (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just kick this up to the Foundation and let Mike sort this out. This is out of our league to deal with, since attorneys are in play now. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Left a message at Mike's talk page here. (I'm away from my e-mail account.) Nesodak (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I were the one figuring out the picture, I would keep it now because it has become notable as a news item, and not as a representation of a living person. Normally I would find a free picture, and indeed, I've turned down the infamous "bikini" picture because it's not free use. Calwatch (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone with e-mail handy mind passing this along to Mike Godwin? His talk page says that's his preferred method of communication. Thanks! Nesodak (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's being taken care of. Appreciate the diligence, all involved. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
forwarded your post / info to Mike via email too - can't hurt.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the photo in question is not among those owned by Ms Dupre or her attorney, it's owned by the New York Post. They are unlikely to take action against the routine fair use of a front-page photo, and in fact probably appreciate the publicity. Rob T Firefly (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That said, this is yet another article teased together from shreds of tittle-tattle about someone who is actually known to the public only because of her involvement in a political scandal. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least she's not another WP:MWF (at least, not yet). Thatcher 13:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Michael & Hephaestos, the last chapter
Not the most pressing problem Wikipedia has, but this has gone on for way, way, way too long.
Once, long ago, there was a vandal fighter by the name of Hephaestos. This was back at the dawn of Wikipedia, before most of you had even heard of Wikipedia. In his time, he was the preeminent vandal fighter, a model that such legends like Zoe & RickK modelled themselves on. Then he encountered a problem user by the name of Michael, who in the end drove him from the project.
In any other story, that would be the end; this has been the end of the story of many vandal-fighters. But I've since discovered that this saga has continued, below the radar.
Even before Hephaestos left, it was clear that Michael could be obsessed with certain things. Like a punk band called Crass -- & with Hephaestos. Michael created countless sock puppets to harass Hephaestos -- & since Hephaestos ended his time with Wikipedia, he has used these to vandalize Hephaestos' user & talk pages. Have a look at the history of those pages. So I decided enough is enough: no one needs to edit the page of a long-departed user, so I sprotected indefinitely the user page.
If this doesn't put an end to this obsessive behavior, I will then protect both. The saga is now over; Hephaestos deserves to exercise his right to vanish. It's time to start enforcing his right. -- llywrch (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I remember dealing with a bunch of those socks, back in the day. Not sure if this will bring a complete close, but it may help a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised it hasn't been fully protected already. We often do that with userpages of retired users, even if they aren't a vandalism target. Hut 8.5 07:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure everything is protected. I know I did such to the talk page last year.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x 2) I'm more than familiar with dealing with the vandal involved and, yeah, he's still active. Please feel free to indef protect both user and talk pages. I certainly endorse your actions here. If Hephaestos needs his account re-activated, he should be able to contact someone via email who can then do the necessary - Alison❤ 08:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC it used to be protected, and we used to get the socks posting lots of unprotect requests, make sure the protect message is clear and keep an eye on it for the almost inevitable new admin honouring such a request. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just got two personal attacks via email (bringing my age into it, hoz original), can we get this user an email block? Looks like he registered just to send the email. Will(talk) 11:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
::Is the fuser fully blocked from editing? Igniateff (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Ok, never mind that last comment of mine, can you post what he said to you in the emails under this comment so we can actually see the nature of the personal attcks? Igniateff (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary; I doubt Will would pick on some random newb who hasn't really edited yet. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no discussion on a proposed page move at either the talkpage of the article or Requested Moves. THe moving editor's contribs (see also DHeyward (talk·contribs)) show no participation in such a debate, and this is the second time the editor has moved this article to a different title (per his move log, see 12 July 2007). Unless someone has an overwhelming argument for keeping the new title, either during a discussion on the matter or because it's better in some way I'm not seeing, I'll move it back. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 12:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOved back. There was no discussion I can see, and this is a high traffic article so discussion is definitely needed before a move to a title which embodies a value judgement. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If moved again without consensus, perhaps it should be move-protected until such a consensus is reached. I'm not a fan of protecting an article in this manner but, given that this user has already moved the article twice without any involvement in the article, a third move is likely. - 52 Pickup(deal) 14:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of renaming this article has been discussed at length, as shown in the talk page archives here. Note that that archive is at the wrong title, but I'm not going to move it back until this settles down. My concern was that, whatever the consensus for or against the move, the article was moved and has been at a title for almost two months. If indeed consensus was strongly against this title, then someone would have moved it back sooner. The proper course would be to post on the talk page, asking about moving it back and citing the weak or missing consensus to move in the first place. Given that so much discussion had taken place about this article's title, it's unreasonable to move it without at least asking about it first. JzG was exactly right to move the article back - had I not been sidetracked, I would have done so myself. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's back. After being banned for 1 month for Wikistalking me, user:Prester John has returned, and resumed his previous practice of stalking me to delete my contributions. This time he is doing it slowly... deleting my work about a month after I post new content, probably hoping the delay will make him difficult to detect.
Here are the diffs. Hopefully his pattern of stalking and reverting can still be seen, despite his time delay tactic:
The prior history of Prester John's wikistalking of me and previous 1 month ban which had no effect on modifying his behavior (ignoring previous Admin warnings and bans).
The wide range of article subjects that he is reverting and deleting my content on. From Copra Plantations in New Guinea to the Sony Betamax. This is no coincidence or chance passing.
User:Prester John had not visited any of the articles prior to me posting content on them.
On all the above examples, Prester John deleted or reverted my content.
If Prester John doesn't like me, my content or my behavior, he is welcome to take it up in the appropriate community dispute resolution channels on Wikipedia. However, I ask to be free of this guy taking it upon himself to revert my contributions as his way of stopping me from contributing to Wikipedia. Regards, Lester 13:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gave final notice but may block based on prior contributions from last block (still reviewing). seicer | talk | contribs 13:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Prester John twice in the last few weeks for edit warring and 3RR gaming alone, and it's clear his disruptive behavior isn't getting any better. I wholly support a block of a much longer duration. krimpet✽ 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support any measures likely to ensure that PJ recognises that Wikipedia is not for reverting other people alone, regardless of whether you believe they are evil POV-pushers. A look through his contributions seems to demonstrate that what we have here is someone who does not believe in being particularly collegial, and has minimal actual productive contribution. On the other hand, he's on this noticeboard or on Jimbo's talkpage all the time. If not a block of hefty duration, then some form of revert parole or mentoring certainly seems in order. Relata refero (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Prester John until June. Feel free to tweak away or unblock at your collective pleasure. east.718at 13:49, March 17, 2008
That equals Fri, 30 May 2008 04:20:12 EST. :) krimpet✽ 14:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well played - though I would have favored a 130,000 minute block as well. ^_^ UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 15:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. I should be more familiar with the UNIX timestamps... since I am a programmer who uses it on an almost daily basis. seicer | talk | contribs 16:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indef-blocked as a self-admitted sock, per the userpage. I'm adding the appropriate notices now. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 13:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know where to report this, as WP:UAA wouldn't really solve the problem, and it doesn't fit the strict criteria of WP:AIV --Closedmouth (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing special here, I don't think; I'd treat it like a regular vandal account. If the account was adding lots of unsourced content about how much Biomass sucks, that might be cause for concern, but this is probably just a bored kid.
This is a complicated case involving vandalism, possible sockpuppetry and WP:BLP issues, so I wasn't certain where to report it and came here instead! Justpassinby has a long history of tendentious editing of Pure Reason Revolution, including past vandalism (see User_talk:Justpassinby) and a past sockpuppetry incident. The sockpuppetry case included a possible sockpuppet account of User:Joncourtney. Jon Courtney is the name of the lead guy in the band Pure Reason Revolution, but the one edit made back then was insulting towards the band and seemed to be by Justpassinby. Subsequently, Jon Courtney was created as an article. Justpassinby tried a speedy delete, which was rejected, then an AfD that failed (narrowly). During that time, he made claims of plagiarism against Courtney but then agreed to withdraw these. Since then, Justpassinby vandalised the article.[150] There was then one edit by the Joncourtney user[151] — I presume this was Justpassinby. Of course, if it really was Jon Courtney, then there are conflict of interest issues. Also see discussion on WP:BLP noticeboard. Basically, help! This all needs investigating, but I also think some quick action could be taken by admins. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Techcrunch-transparent-photshop.gif
Resolved
– Uncopyrighted, trademarked-only logos do not fall under WP:NFCC. — Edokter • Talk • 16:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to get User:BJBot to use some kind of exception tag or whitelist entry for fair-use images that are exceptions to the rule that fair-use images must be used in at least one article. Discussion at User talk:BJBot#Image:Techcrunch-transparent-photshop.gif is not occurring soon enough, because the bot keeps adding the template. Is there some kind of "hang-on" tag to use so at least some discussion can occur without the bot continuing to add the template?
This is important also because User talk:BJBot sections get archived if no discussion occurs in 3 days in those sections.
Here is the last version of the image with the template: [152]
Hang on a minute. The fair use reason is that it doesn't render properly because it is a transparent gif? I don't understand. Why do we need to use a company logo for that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly matters, since {{PD-font}} obviously applies. —Random832 15:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look obvious to me. This is a company logo. Presumably trademarked. I removed the resolved tag. Let let others take a look. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Coca-cola logo, which does not violate NFCC to use here (and good luck getting it deleted from commons)
Trademark has nothing to do with copyright. Image:Coca-Cola logo.svg is both a lot more trademarked, and a lot more public-domain, than the image we're discussing. —Random832 15:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Trademark is not considered in WP:NFCC so it's restriction do not apply. Marking as resolved again. — Edokter • Talk • 16:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa, I have argued on Commons and elsewhere that our focus on copyright in deciding whether an image is free is unhelpful and that other commercial rights such as trademarks need to also be considered as they represent a considerable restriction on the uses images can be put to. That argument has not seen much success, it seems that "free" in the Wikimedia context has been widely interpreted to mean "not subject to copyright" not "not subject to any commercial right which may limit the legally permissible uses of the image". As well as trademarks, we ignore other rights - like that of museums and galleries to disallow photography. The works being photographed may be out of copyright but those that own the collections have a commercial interest in limiting photography - to sell their own photographs, postcards etc. Such rights have been successfully vindicated in many jurisdictions, but again isn't something that we seem to factor in when describing an image as "free". WjBscribe 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I don't understand the technicalities too well, but thanks for keeping the image. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that, unlike copyright, trademark is heavily context-dependent. The H&R Block logo is simply a green square. Any green square, if used in the context of promoting a tax preparation company, would be a trademark infringement. Should we ban all images of green squares from Wikipedia? Of course not. There are words that are trademarked - many of these are used as article titles. —Random832 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin abuse
Yes, I know, yet another thread by an IP about admin abuse has about a snowball's chance in hell of being paid attention to. However, User:JzG has taken it upon himself to protect his own version of a page move: [153]. The worst part is that he was reverting a page move because it was "undiscussed" - and yet this page title itself had been moved there only a few weeks back... in an undiscussed and controversial page move (thus the current move war). I would demand that something be done, but that tone doesn't come across right. Therefore I humbly request that this page be unprotected or moved back to the previous title, as this is against the protection policy. You will note this is not the first time JzG has edit warred on a protected page: see Al Gore III, whose page history is now deleted. 71.58.56.181 (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't this problem arisen with JzG before? Justin(Gmail?)(u) 16:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What problem? That he fixed a blatantly POV title and prevented the problem from recurring? I wish all of our admins were that abusive... — Gavia immer (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is also being discussed above as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion above and on the article talk page suggests that others felt it was a problem that the move had been made with zero discussion on the part of the mover; the page had been moved to contentious titles in the past as well. Protection is quite suitable until discussion actually occurs. Tony Fox(arf!) 16:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, one of these days if we all live long enough somebody might eventually post here that they disagree with an admin action without calling it abuse. In this case, for example, the only reason I introduced move protection was because the log for that page shows a series of disruptive non-consensual moves, and there is some likelihood that the user who made the last such move will do so again. But hey, why bother being calm and reasoned when we can shout ZOMG! ADMIN ABUSE! instead, since that works soooooooo much better. Anyone care to count the number of articles I've protected against moving in the last month? Shouldn't take long, you know where the logs are. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a good protection. He reverted an undiscussed move on a page with what looks like a history of move wars. Whats wrong with this protection? Bad Guy! Bad! Lawrence § t/e 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with the protection or the revert of a controversial and undiscussed page move. There was no consensus towards the move, and those that have complained about Guy's actions haven't given one good reason why the page move was even needed in the first place, instead focusing on a trivial and unrelated RfC. seicer | talk | contribs 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very active new anonymous friend, I wonder if we've met him before under another name, perchance? Anyway, I thought his choice of example was amusing, seeing as how that article is now deleted by consensus, thus showing I was actually right at the time! Guy (Help!) 17:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support Guy's action here. --John (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another case of an admin protecting something on The Wrong Version (tm) and thereby becoming the root of all admin evil. FCYTravis (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm - looks fine to me. The article's been moved out of process a number of times already. It looks like Guy is reverting to the consensus(-ish) version and protecting to prevent abuse - Alison❤ 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Ec) This is ridiculous. Move-protecting so issues can be worked out is evil now? Its not even as if Guy was in any way involved in the discussion, he just responded to the problem stated higher on the page. Relata refero (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The beatings will continue until morale improves". Guy (Help!) 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin assistance needed FOR admin assistance in Articles_for_deletion/List_of_hooligan_firms
Man, I never thought I'd have to file one of these, but:
On March 13, I submitted "List of hooligan firms" for deletion via AFD [154]
as it violated WP:NOT#DIR. Yes a few of the users involved with that particular article & group
protested. That's normal.
March 16, I decided in the name of WP:BOLD to simply close the thing, considering it was a list
and therefore a violation of policy: dif
of course, it got removed a few times, which I expected: [155] [156] [157]
At that point I gave up for the evening and came back the next morning.
An admin Rambling Man had been called in and he and I spoke about the revert, very civiliy. However, he decided to "shut the door" as it were with this message [158]
The users contesting the deletion as well as the admin are all members of a group that would have contributed to this list, as such, his involvement is COI. Additionally, he has stated that he will
allow a violation of WP:NOT#DIR by allowing this list to be retained, even go so far as to actually
ask if this is a list.
I'm specifically asking that his conduct be examined as I belive that it constitutes COI, and that
his involvement in the aforementioned AFD is not allowed. It's still standing so a DRV wouldn't be
appropriate at this time.
Kosh, you are specifically not allowed to close AfDs for any reason that you are the nominator for. Had you not done that, I don't believe there would be any problem here. Rambling Man has done absolutely nothing wrong and has been way more civil than other editors/admins would have been in the same situation. He was friendly, to the point, and corrected where you were obviously in the wrong. What action do you want here? Because, so far, all you've done is draw attention to yourself. I would recommend a "back away slowly and quietly" approach...but that's just me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you closed an AFD you started... after three days... when you're not an admin... accused others of vandalism for reverting it... threatened anybody who stayed in your path... edit-warred to restore your bogus close... and then decided step into the lion's den here? You should just fall back and count your graces that you didn't run into a block-happy admin. east.718at 18:34, March 17, 2008
Yeah. What he said. And said better than me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That article is actually a drama, vandalism and sockpuppet magnet (I've got it watchlisted, and have had to make a number of reverts and blocks because of it recently), but it's undoubtedly a valid article. The OP would be well-advised to read up on deletion policy before submitting another AfD. Black Kite 19:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this is the right place to bring this up, but I've had enough of this user. He keeps being arrogant and sarcastic in discussions, and is constantly rude to other users. An example is this comment here. He also made some false accusations about other users in this discussion here, and began attacking every single user who disagreed with him. If someone could please talk some sense into this user, I'd appreciate it, because I'm fresh out of ideas. The Prince (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link that you've provided from Talk:Mario is indeed quite rude, non-productive and incivil and shouldn't be tolerated. However, have you attempted to engage this user on your or his/her talkpage? Have you notified "Link" of this thread so he/she can defend/articulate him/her self? I can't find evidence of either. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I have, in fear of being attacked by him. I have tried to reason with him on several occasions, but he doesn't listen to me. The disputes between me and Link are due to the fact that he makes controversial edits that should have been discussed first. And when we start discussing he can never agree on a compromise, and has to have it his way, even though numerous other users disagree with him. All in all, I think maybe he would listen to an admin instead of me. The Prince (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Block review
I'd like some community input on a block I performed. I just blocked a user called Theasssss Nutsssss indefinitely, without any warning, but for the following reasons:
Their username came across to me as "The ass nuts", probably a borderline violation of the username policy, but combined with the above, gave me more incentive to block.
I reckoned that they were trying to impersonate A. B. Was this a good block, or should I remove it and apologize? Acalamari 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse such a block. Creates a fake userpage/talkpage, then tries to apply for adminship while impersonating a user? seicer | talk | contribs 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's "these nuts" but yeah- there's nothing to remotely indicate this editor is here for any useful purpose. Friday(talk) 19:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't reckon they are actually trying to impersonate, the username is not similar. But the RFA suggest a troll, so I endorse your block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse..troll ban..--Hu12 (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I saw this, I couldn't help thinking of the "ay did did did whats-a-name done get at you yesterday? / who? / deeez nuuuts!" skit from The Chronic. :-) Endorse block, by the way. east.718at 19:20, March 17, 2008
Troll user: The Dominator aka Dominik92
I have a problem with the above user. Yesterday we had a disagreement about sourcing on a couple of maps. I believe this ended well and everything was ok. However last night he rv several of my edits. Ok no big deal! Today I was havin a coverstaion with an admin and he jumped in out of nowhere. I asked him to stop and he did not. Again not really a big deal, however this user has posted this "Thanks, I'll keep an eye on the user though, because he does many unhelpful things that aren't blatant vandalism and attempts to manipulate the system" on djsasso's talk page. I feel from this users trolling actions he will follow me around wiki for the next several weeks. Here is what was posted yesterday, "Is this civil?
Left by Dominik92 on my talk page:
I see nothing on the talk that suggests consensus, all in all I really don't care, but I find the maps useful. An admin's opinion holds no more weight than any other user's opinion. I really don't think that a new users who violates policy with nearly every edit should be asking me to review policy. PS: we're building an encyclopedia here, and I see you're approach disruptive. For example, barnstars are given out to users who you feel have done exceptional work and mean absolutely nothing more than a pat on the back. And I think you're too new a user to be voting at RfA even though there is no official cutoff, sucking up to admins has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. I suggest you refrain from giving out tips (that are 99% of the time incorrect) as a new user. About the same-sex marriage page, I really don't give a shit, I would prefer some visual representation, but eh. comment left on my talk page. by Dominik92
My responce:
I find the above comment ill-hearted and unjust. No proof has been given how I have violated policy, and that I am disruptice because I award users who desire to be praised with barnstars? ALso the user is upset that I vote on wiki issues and admins?? In any case I have been around wiki for several months and decided recently to create an account because I like the project. Dominik assumes that I am 'new' when in fact I am not. I would be worried with some of his answers, "all in all I really don't care", "I really don't think that a new users who violates policy" no proof, "I see you're approach disruptive, [for giving out barnstars], "And I think you're too new a user to be voting at RfA", he thinks, is he the policy maker?, "from giving out tips (that are 99% of the time incorrect)" again where is the proof, and "I really don't give a shit" this was just rude.Thright (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)"
I thought it was over, however with dominiks92 need to troll me, and watch me, it is not. Please see the number of times I had to rv my talk page, after I said it was over, over an hour after he posted the last comment. Please help thank you.Thright (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to respond as it is a bit obvious to anybody who looks through the contributions and talk page histories. The Dominator (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cause in point, no less than 4 minitues pasted and there is a responce. Why so fast?Thright (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean case in point, and "why so fast" is probably because you were rather predictable here. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was absolutely correct to re-insert the maps. There was no consensus to remove them and no evidence that any of the information on them was incorrect. The message left on your talkpage was a bit uncivil, but hardly worth branding as a "troll". Black Kite 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While still pretty early in his career, Thright (talk·contribs) is looking like a good case for mentorship, in that he's an apparent good faith editor whose lack of understanding of policy keeps landing him in hot water. I'd offer to mentor myself, but we've had some run ins (including one in which he accused me of not understanding the alleged policy that made Fuck (disambiguation) speediable), so I doubt he'd be thrilled with me. But I really think that mentorship would be advisable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The message was a misunderstanding as Thright has admitted here. The Dominator (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Black Kite here, his actions were completely justifiable. Maybe a little harsher than needed in his comments, but hardly is he being a troll and trying to pick fights. I suggest, that the two of you just stop talking to each other for awhile to have a cool off period. -Djsasso (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did stop talking to him, and as a reward I got reported here : ) I think Thright is good faith on most occasions, but his accusing everyone that disagrees with him of not understanding policy is unacceptable behavior. I agree that mentorship would be of some benefit.The Dominator (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was more aimed at him that you, because I already talked to you about it. I do agree with you that he has to stop accusing people of not understanding policy when he himself is incorrect. But, that is mostly because he is brand new and he will figure it out as he goes along as long as people don't bite him to much. -Djsasso (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a checkuser should be done. I have been wondering by his edits if he was a sock of someone, and hadn't until now seen that someone already accused that other user of being a Thright sockpuppet. -Djsasso (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clearer I am worried about this, "Thanks, I'll keep an eye on the user though, because he does many unhelpful things that aren't blatant vandalism and attempts to manipulate the system" If dominik92 agrees to stop following me around, - which is trolling is it not? - I will be happyThright (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No trolling is when you purposefully say stuff to pick a fight. Users are more than welcome to watch your edit history to make sure you aren't causing trouble. That is why edit histories exist. -Djsasso (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So that's considered uncivil by you, but calling me a troll and a vandal also on somebody else's talk page is OK? I want to watch your edits to make sure you aren't making mistakes, all in good faith. The Dominator (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FOrget it, you all win This is not worth my time. I thought I liked the idea of wiki, butit turns out that most, - not all - people here just attack everyone. I am done with wiki, my time will be spent better somewhere else. I will take my masters degree and my managerial skills elsewhere.Thright (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I may be misinterpreting something here so would appreciate someone else's take on it. This spin-off article was just "kept" from AfD and the nominator blanked via redirect (diff here). I reverted and now the same user has installed an super-sized clean-up tag. Was this AfD wrongly closed? If so could it be re-opened? Benjiboi 19:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At best, the AFD should have been closed as "no consensus to delete" rather than as "keep" since there were 6 keep votes to 4 delete votes, which is hardly a consensus to keep. But since the people who voted to "keep" didn't present a single argument why the article is not a policy violation, it really ought to have been closed as "delete" since what counts at AFD is discussion, not nose-counting. —AngrIf you've written a quality article... 19:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Resolved. 
Done all taken care of. SirFozzie (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
![[152]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Techcrunch-transparent-photshop.gif&oldid=198839460){kind=link}