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)
At present, Wiktionary is carrying a message saying "AOL users are presently blocked from editing Wiktionary pending contact from AOL. We apologize for the inconvenience. For more information please visit the IRC channel.". And it's not April 1. -Splashtalk01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article, AOL serves nearly 24 million subscribers. Whatever may be the difficulties encountered in dealing with sundry AOL users, the suggestion that they are categorically (or even generally) "bad rubbish" is wholly preposterous. Joe02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, it wouldn't be true if AOL would actually deal with their delinquent users but since AOL doesn't give a fuck many many many AOL users run rampant and commit huge amounts of vandalism to the point where it starts to become mind boggling. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that AOL subscribers are inherently worse netizens than individuals who use other ISPs. The problem is the proxy server system that AOL uses, where a single individual in a single session will appear to come from a new AOL IP address with each successive edit. This makes it extraordinarily inconvenient to deal with a vandal from AOL, because we cannot block them effectively without blocking all of AOL. In contrast, editors through most other ISPs will tend to have at least a semi-static IP address which makes it possible to block troublemakers without causing collateral damage to other editors.
Additionally, the rapidly changing (apparent) IP of each editor probably makes it very difficult for AOL (if they wanted to) to associate specific edits with a specific real-world individual. This in turn hampers one of our last-resort options in dealing with vandals—contacting an ISP to get them disconnected. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's great for file sharing, AOL couldn't associate a client with any specific ip, even if a court told them to, lawsuits are virtually impossible! oh wait, that has nothing to do with this--64.12.116.6503:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also, someone really should tell them that the 172.x.x.x users behave like normal static ips, so they dont need to be range blocked, same for AOl canada ip ranges, i think--64.12.116.6503:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At eBay in the early days, there was a similar problem with AOL, not just because of the IPs, but because AOL not only allows but encourages members to have multiple accounts -- and the promiscuous way in which AOL hands out accounts (how many AOL CDs can one person use?) compounded the problem. This was the source of a lot of the rules eBay had to develop on the fly -- for example, a list of domains from which eBay membership required further identification in the form of a credit card. This became onerous enough for AOL users that it was likely part of the reason AOL and eBay started collaborating on various levels, in particular user validation; my guess is that AOL based eBay users were numerous enough that their complaints to both companies caught AOL management's attention (eBay was aware of the problem almost from the very start.) Unfortunately, the only way this maps onto Wikipedia is to require registration with a validated email address from editors from AOL. Which isn't a bad idea; yes, it's making special rules for AOL users, but so what? AOL's overly trusting IP usage policy makes it necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆16:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so much for the egalitarian promise of wikipedia...
Just in case anyone is curious, I RC Patrol en.wikt and vandalism was cut by at least a third when AOL was restricted access. We've brought in a policy that should let us block AOL users instead of their proxy server, eventually it might be a good idea for WP -- Tawker09:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw out a suggestion, anyone editting from the IP range of the AOL proxies to provide a valid AOL username. Of course, this would require participation from the AOL management. In any case, does Wikipedia have enough clout to get TPTB at AOL to work with us? -- llywrch17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptable User Name?
User:The Molester has just been created. Their only edits so ar are to Talk:Lolicon. Is "The Molester" an acceptable user name? It seems like an offensive user name to me, but maybe that is partly due to the location I first encountered the user (implication of child molestation). Opinions? Johntex\talk02:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's trying to make more socks now, but they're being blocked on sight. John: yes, they're all blocked indef. --Rory09602:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds sensible. They are brand new so they have invested little in the name, and their first edits are not constructive at all so they are probably just here to troll/disrupt. I'll block them indef and cite WP:U on their Talk page. Johntex\talk03:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been blocked for violating 3RR seven times in the past three months; twice in the past three days. He's taken swings at everyone who has come near him, especially Sceptre, who gave him a four-day block for his latest (read: seventh) 3RR violation. This is becoming a disruption This has become a disruption, and needs to be dealt with before it becomes an ArbCom case. I'm inclined to support a month long block, to enforce enough time for him to read WP:3RRvery carefully and get the picture that disrupting the site will not be tolerated. Of course, before doing so, I want to hear others' opinions; opinions? EssjayTalk • Contact09:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3RR blocks by six different administrators, a tendentious history, and now he's starting to blank portions of his talk page. I'd say a month off is entirely appropriate. There's no reason why people should have to keep putting up with this. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the user blasted me on IRC for dealing with their unblock request and was promptly kickbanned, no proof that the IRC user was the WP user but its too close not to raise an eyebrow -- Tawker19:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page-blanking is nothing new; Deathrocker has continually done this since December. As a result, he/she received several redundant 3RR warnings from users who probably didn't realize that he/she already had been warned (1, 2, 3, 4). He/she also routinely removed messages pertaining to various other issues (including general edit warring, vandalism, incivility, and the talk page-blanking itself). A one-month block seems appropriate. —David Levy19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im violating my Ban by doing this, but im using an anon to add this comment here. Ive set up a rather extensive list of Deathrockers actions as part of my user page, which is linked here, here and here. This also includes the extensive revert war on his talk page. All diffs are supplied so there is no hear say or attacks by me or anyone else. I hope this helps somewhat for the purposes of deciding his case, wether for, against, or just for reference/comment. 86.132.130.6920:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (Ley Shade)[reply]
Given that I've been involved, I'm not comfortable setting the month long block, but it certainly seems to have drawn consensus. Can an uninvolved admin (or one more rogue than I) set it, please? EssjayTalk • Contact08:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get something against Deathrocker, though, to stop the two edit warring. With Leyasu limited to 1RR, and Deathrocker still on 3RR, there needs to be levelling of the field 18:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems there is no other way for me to voice my side other than this, (because some dunce has blocked my talkpage), Leyasu did the same so will I as my original ban is now up.
Firstly; I delete all messages I receive which is stated on my page! Don’t like that? Don’t message me. I did not "delete the warning" from the last ban, I kept it on while the ban still stood, I deleted redundant talk.
It is no different than people archiving their messages (they are still there for people to see if they wish), please tell me where it says I can't do that. And I can’t delete blocking logs so “boom” goes your silly little theory of “hiding“ anything.
Second to Tawker; I do not even use ICR, period. Either for Wiki or personal. Let alone "blast" you on it.
I put an “unblock” tag on my page, as I had been blocked for 4 days, for 3RR, which WP:3RR states is not Wikipedia policy as admins can only block “up to 24 hours” for 3RR, a non admin user “Tawker” kept removing the tag, while the discussion was in process.. and before an admin has looked at the case.
EssJay shows up to “look at the case” threatens me claiming I’m attempting to “game the system”, even thought I was just going by WP:3RR, EssJay then threatened to block me for a week, if I put the tag back on my page (which is first ridiculous, blocked for requesting help?? haha and second, I didn’t re-add it after that).. I instead emailed the user, through Wiki to discuss the matter, to which they were still hostile, abrasive, and claiming Non existing Wikipedia policies to be golden, going against WP:3RR
I have never once claimed the policies don't apply to me, and do to others. Please feel free to show me exactly where I said that, you won’t be able to find it because you’re talking rubbish as usual.
Its also hilarious that you are pretending not to be the IP addresses whose only edits were reverting the articles back to your versions and even using the exact same line as each other in edit summaries once the I.P. address was switched the second time. It wasn't even me who first reported it as been a suspected sock puppet of yours. If you were smart enough to actually check the records, you would know this.
The only people who were siding with your reverts were anonymous I.P.'s which were suspected (not just by me) of been YOUR sock puppets, something which you have been suspected of in the past in totally unrelated debates... actual users who were not suspected of been sock puppets were also reverting your trolling.
Even if I was not involved in the day this went down, you STILL broke your parole anyway, you reverted three perfectly reasonable edits by User:RJN to POV versions by yourself, because you think you own the article Gothic Metal.[3][4][5]
You do not understand the concept that this is an open encyclopaedia where numerous people contribute into working an article, if its not your version, regardless of which user is editing it its "vandalism" according to you, and then after a revert war and both you and who you were warring with are banned, you come straight back with sock puppets.
The only way you can get any sort of pull in your edits is talking straight out of your ass, claiming to quote me on things I have NEVER once said.
There are no “rules” as to how users keep their talk page or user page that I am aware of or have read on here, there was no sexual profanity, or anything of that nature, so again, you’re clutching at straws.
You want Ironic? Here’s Ironic;
1. On your userpage you have a box that says “This user is short sighted.”... no kidding! You see everything that isn’t an edit by you as vandalism, or not worthy of been included in the articles you troll on a regular basis.
2. The fact that you kiss user:Sceptre ass to have an admin on your "side", notice how on your talk page Sceptre said "be careful" trying to save your pathetic hide, did Sceptre give me the same warning beforehand? No... hardly an impartial stance for a so called "admin"... also, somebody who breaks a 3RR deserves the same punishment as somebody who is on parole for past idiocy, and is on a strict "1 revert a day" basis?.. ridiculous and a clear abuse of admin powers.
Examples of Leyasu been a liar and a manipulator
For onlookers here’s a prime example of how devious Leysau is with twisting words...
Example #1.
Deathrocker on Talk:Gothic_metal: Also, stop the personal attacks and lies in the edit summary, I have not been "warned by 3 admins" one of which I have never even heard of, your ignorant behaviour is somewhat overwhelming at times
I was refering to the edit war that was going on at the time
Leyasu on User_talk:Sceptre: Hes taking advantage no end, and just made a comment on the Gothic Metal talk page, that you dont exist!!!
Ok, now where in that sentence did I say Sceptre did not exist? This is prime Leysau in action.. ass kissing an admin, I never even claimed which admin's name was not familiar to me, let alone claiming they didn't exist.
Example #2.
On Leyasu's tribute and rather odd little shrine to me that he/she has gone to the trouble of creating it says;
Quote: Deathrocker has also used edit summarys for making direct personal attacks at myself, including called me a liar, cunt, and shit.
This is an other blatant lie, I have called you a liar? Yes (because that is what you are). I have called you shit? No, I referred you to WP:BATSHIT though, asking you to stop the lunacy, Which isn't the same thing.
Called you a cunt? Total bullshit, I have not called a single person on Wikipedia a "cunt" and again you evidence of it either....
I have though called you an idiot, and a liar in the last, because your actions suggest that.
Example #3
Another one of Leyasu's greatest hits from his/her disturbing little shrine to me.
Quote: Deathrocker also vandalised my user page (Leyasu),.. Admin Sceptre reverted this himself, pointing out to Deathrocker that he cannot attack as being a 'sock puppeter' simply because Deathrocker cannot force his POV onto all articles,.
After Sceptre had removed it, Deathrocker readded it, claiming everyone was 'vandalising',
I added a "suspected puppetmaster" tag to Leysau's page, as he/she features on the suspected of using sock puppets page.
An anonymous IP (83.100.146.147) reverted and said "Guess I sock with 217.33.207.195, then (--Sceptre)"... to which I reverted back as that made little to no sense, was suspicious (why would an admin use an annoymous IP?) and had little/nothing to do with the whether Leyasu was suspected of using sock puppets or not, the line I used in the edit summary was.... "unexplained tag removal, it applies correct?"... nowhere did I say in that statement that everybody was “vandalisng“, just more bullshit from Leyasu.
Rather suspiciously my last edit on that userpage was reverted back by (81.157.88.186) who was suspected of being a “sock puppet” of Leyasu and was reported as so on the sockpuppets page...
At this time Leyasu was still blocked, rather suspicious that a so called “newbie”/annoymous I.P. would not only be reverting all edits back to versions by leyasu while he/she was blocked, but also keeping an eye on his/her userpage too?.... very suspicious. Why would a bran new person editing wikipedia for the first time be doing that? They wouldn't.
To show the Personal attacks and fallacys from the above, i have quoted them with bullet points:
I have never once claimed the policies don't apply to me, and do to others. Please feel free to show me exactly where I said that, you won’t be able to find it because you’re talking rubbish as usual.
Diffs for all Deathrocker's commments and attacks are logged Here, including the one where he called me 'psychotic for having a whole page devoted to harassing him'.
You do not understand the concept that this is an open encyclopaedia where numerous people contribute into working an article, if its not your version, regardless of which user is editing it its "vandalism" according to you, and then after a revert war and both you and who you were warring with are banned, you come straight back with sock puppets.
This is a personal attack. Deathrocker states here i do not know something, when i have been known to let people know when they are acting Meglomanical. Its also wrong when i havent been banned seven times in three months for POV pushing, when Deathrocker has.
The only way you can get any sort of pull in your edits is talking straight out of your ass, claiming to quote me on things I have NEVER once said.
This is another personal attack, in which he just called me an ass. Deathrocker will probally now claim he never one said im an ass.
1. On your userpage you have a box that says “This user is short sighted.”... no kidding! You see everything that isn’t an edit by you as vandalism, or not worthy of been included in the articles you troll on a regular basis.
This is a personal attack at the fact im short sighted and wear glasses.
2. The fact that you kiss user:Sceptre ass to have an admin on your "side", notice how on your talk page Sceptre said "be careful" trying to save your pathetic hide, did Sceptre give me the same warning beforehand? No... hardly an impartial stance for a so called "admin"... also, somebody who breaks a 3RR deserves the same punishment as somebody who is on parole for past idiocy, and is on a strict "1 revert a day" basis?.. ridiculous and a clear abuse of admin powers.
This is a personal attack at both myself and Admin Sceptre, due to Sceptre having made the initial bans, and because there is no animosity, unpolite language, or general hostility between me and the admin. Also, if i had an 'admin on my side', Sceptre wouldnt of banned me.
Example #1. Deathrocker on Talk:Gothic_metal: Also, stop the personal attacks and lies in the edit summary, I have not been "warned by 3 admins" one of which I have never even heard of, your ignorant behaviour is somewhat overwhelming at times
Deathrocker here claims i am a liar, and he has never been warned by any admins. The irony of this is that Admins here have already showed multiple warnings that Deathrocker has deleted from his talk page.
On Leyasu's tribute and rather odd little shrine to me that he/she has gone to the trouble of creating it says;
This is an attack at the Evidence Page that is part of my userpage, which is also being used as my statement in Deathrocker's abbirition case.
Quote: Deathrocker has also used edit summarys for making direct personal attacks at myself, including called me a liar, cunt, and shit.
Yes this is on my Evidence Page, here are the Diffs as well, [6], [7].
Another one of Leyasu's greatest hits from his/her disturbing little shrine to me.
Another personal attack at the Evidence Page.
Rather suspiciously my last edit on that userpage was reverted back by (81.157.88.186) who was suspected of being a “sock puppet” of Leyasu and was reported as so on the sockpuppets page...
Reported, by Deathrocker.
If I am to be blocked for a month for arguing in edit summary, the other party who was involved “Leyasu” should too.
This is a plea to block me to achieve a 'beat the opponent' scheme, even though Deathrocker's 'comment' was riddled with personal attacks and infallacys.
Yet more shining examples of your ridiculousness, you claim every comment discussing things you have done is a "personal attack".... by your standards you personally attacked me multiple times in that last section due to you claiming I'm "personally attacking" you. Stop crying "wolf".
I find your shrine rather disturbing, you expect me to lie? You aren't an administrator or anything like that, you are a user who is in trouble with ArbiCon, wy are you keeping tabs on me dedicating a whole section of your user page to me? That doesn't strike you as psychotic behaviour?
Again I said you were "talking out of your ass", I didn't say "you are an ass"... this is what I'm talking about with your selective reading and minipulation of comments. You also still can't show anywhere I have ever called anybody on Wikipedia a "cunt" because I never had.
If me suggesting both parties involved should be blocked for the same length of time is "trying to beat an apponent", exactly what is it you were doing when you said "we need something against Deathrock, as the other editor is on a 1 rever parole basis"?? - DeathrockerComment23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have bulletpointed the attacks from this comment, as well:
Yet more shining examples of your ridiculousness, you claim every comment discussing things you have done is a "personal attack".... by your standards you personally attacked me multiple times in that last section due to you claiming I'm "personally attacking" you. Stop crying "wolf".
Deathrocker makes the personal attack of calling me ridiculous for noting that calling me a cunt, liar, bitch, twat, fool, shit, and insulting me for wearing glasses is a personal attack.
I find your shrine rather disturbing, you expect me to lie? You aren't an administrator or anything like that, you are a user who is in trouble with ArbiCon, wy are you keeping tabs on me dedicating a whole section of your user page to me? That doesn't strike you as psychotic behaviour?
Deathrocker here calls me psychotic and claims im not allowed to have an Evidence page because im not an admin, even though other admins first told me to use Evidence pages such as these for 'sandboxes' when building up a case against someone.
Again I said you were "talking out of your ass", I didn't say "you are an ass"... this is what I'm talking about with your selective reading and minipulation of comments. You also still can't show anywhere I have ever called anybody on Wikipedia a "cunt" because I never had.
Deathrocker again makes the personal attack of claiming im 'talking out of my ass', seemingly assuming that its ok to make personal attacks at users.
If me suggesting both parties involved should be blocked for the same length of time is "trying to beat an apponent", exactly what is it you were doing when you said "we need something against Deathrock, as the other editor is on a 1 rever parole basis"??
Deathrocker then makes claim that i made a comment that was made by Admin Sceptre, going a backhanded way about claiming that myself and Admin Sceptre are the same person, [8].
I have never called you or anybody here a "twat, cunt, bitch or shit"... I refered you to WP:BATSHIT though, as already explained which is not a personal attack, in an attempt for you to stop the lunacy during an edit war, while asking you to join the talk page.
Its not a "personal attack" to call you a liar, because that is what you are and you prove it to me constantly... I don't care where you are, you lie, I'll call you on it. Stop personally attacking me and defaming my character by claiming I have said stuff which I never had.
I've called you an idiot and a liar, that much is true.
Again you are twisting words "We need to get something against Deathrocker, though, to stop the two edit warring. With Leyasu limited to 1RR, and Deathrocker still on 3RR, there needs to be levelling of the field 18:05, 20 March 2006".... was an unsigned comment, I presumed it was you as you were using an IP just a couple of replies above, and it sounds like something you would say.
Again you are talking rubbish, I have never claimed you and Sceptre are the same person, I have stated that I think you kiss Sceptre's ass, correct?... I have never said that I think you are the same person as you claim, your lies aren't even well thought out or following consistantcy, and you wonder why I have in the past refered to some of your actions as idiocy?
And also I didn't say "you can't have a shrine" to me, because you aren't an admin, I asked why you have it and stated that it is odd, as you are just a user who has been blocked plenty of times yourself and you are even on parole. The fact that I find it disturbing and rather creepy that you keep tabs on me in some kinda warped shrine, is just my feelings on the matter.
Its not a "personal attack" to call you a liar, because that is what you are and you prove it to me constantly... I don't care where you are, you lie, I'll call you on it. Stop personally attacking me and defaming my character by claiming I have said stuff which I never had.
Deathrocker here says its not a personal attack for him to call anyone anything. Thus, he seems to think that its ok to make personal attacks against people, and then expect to be unblocked.
Again you are talking rubbish, I have never claimed you and Sceptre are the same person, I have stated that I think you kiss Sceptre's ass, correct?... I have never said that I think you are the same person as you claim, your lies aren't even well thought out or following consistantcy, and you wonder why I have in the past refered to some of your actions as idiocy?
As can be seen above, Deathrocker inferred that a comment made by Sceptre was made by me, thus inferring that Sceptre and Me are the same person.
And also I didn't say "you can't have a shrine" to me, because you aren't an admin, I asked why you have it and stated that it is odd, as you are just a user who has been blocked plenty of times yourself and you are even on parole. The fact that I find it disturbing and rather creepy that you keep tabs on me in some kinda warped shrine, is just my feelings on the matter.
Further personal attacks concerning the Evidence Page, and claims he hasnt made comments that are clearly quoted above. Ley Shade01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try at "twisting" words again, Leyasu. You continue to personally attack me by A) Claiming I'm personally attacking you B) Twisting my words into your own little perversion.
"Deathrocker here says its not a personal attack for him to call anyone anything."
Yet mores lies, please study this aticle; truth, and try again...
I never said that it is OK for me to call "anyone anything". If I called somebody a "cunt" or "twat", without any evidence of such activity, that would be a personal attack, thus I have not called you or anybody else for that matter, anything of the like.
Calling you a liar when you have clearly tried to distort words I have said and in some cases, totally made them up (and you can't even show where I've supposedly called you them) shows you fit the discription of the word liar. I call things how they are, unlike you who keeps trying to twist things, and you'll probably come back in a moment and try to twist comments make in this section, pathetic.
Yet again, I DO NOT THINK SCEPTRE AND YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON! Repeat these words until it drills into your head, as I've explained previously, why I thought that was a comment by you at first. (IE- It was unsigned, and you were using an IP just a few comments above). - DeathrockerComment01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continued attacks and violation of his ban by Deathrocker:
Nice try at "twisting" words again, Leyasu. You continue to personally attack me by A) Claiming I'm personally attacking you B) Twisting my words into your own little perversion.
Now making personal attacks in the sense of attempting to deframe my character and the quotes of him both attacking myself, and violating his ban.
Calling you a liar when you have clearly tried to distort words I have said and in some cases, totally made them up (and you can't even show where I've supposedly called you them) shows you fit the discription of the word liar. I call things how they are, unlike you who keeps trying to twist things, and you'll probably come back in a moment and try to twist comments make in this section, pathetic.
Deathrocker here claims that by directly quoting him, ive 'totally made them up ', and also personally attacks me, calling me a liar for quoting him. He also calls me pathetic for the same reason.
Yet again, I DO NOT THINK SCEPTRE AND YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON! Repeat these words until it drills into your head, as I've explained previously, why I thought that was a comment by you at first. (IE- It was unsigned, and you were using an IP just a few comments above).
Here Deathrocker assumes a threatening tone because i wont stop quoting him either on the ANI board or on my Evidence Page.
Yet you persist with your personal attacks and defemation of character, claiming I'm "personally attacking" you with every comment, is it any suprise that you are already Arbcom parole?
"Deathrocker here claims that by directly quoting him, ive 'totally made them up"
You knew exactly what I was referring to.
In the last week you've claimed I've said "I dislike Gothic metal", and that I've called you a "cunt, twat, bitch, etc", when you can't even quote them, these are just two examples of what I mean when I say you "totally made them up".
Persistant deframing of my character by Deathrocker:
In the last week you've claimed I've said "I dislike Gothic metal", and that I've called you a "cunt, twat, bitch, etc", when you can't even quote them, these are just two examples of what I mean when I say you "totally made them up".
Again, all these claims have diffs, supplied openly on this evidence page.
Perhaps the user Deathrocker would like to use his sockpuppet to make comment on his Arbcom case, instead of personally attacking people on ANI. Ley Shade02:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your little shrine or "Temple of Deathrocker" is incorrect on basic facts.
Firstly there are no "diffs" showing where I said I "dislike gothic metal" or called you a "cunt, twat, bitch".. infact I have only ever said that I like some Gothic metal bands.
Tawker and Rory69 are NOT admins, check their pages. If you are going to stick your nose in where it has no business atleast get the facts straight. Keep on with your pathetic little shrine kiddo, it doesn't make you seem creepy at all... half of the stuff you are harping on about in it you have little/no idea about in the first place. - DeathrockerComment04:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More personal attacks:
Your little shrine or "Temple of Deathrocker" is incorrect on basic facts.
Personal attack yet again, regarding the Evidence Page.
Firstly there are no "diffs" showing where I said I "dislike gothic metal" or called you a "cunt, twat, bitch".. infact I have only ever said that I like some Gothic metal bands.
Deathrocker claims there are no diffs for things on the evidence page, when they are clearly provided.
Tawker and Rory69 are NOT admins, check their pages. If you are going to stick your nose in where it has no business atleast get the facts straight. Keep on with your pathetic little shrine kiddo, it doesn't make you seem creepy at all... half of the stuff you are harping on about in it you have little/no idea about in the first place.
Personally attacking Tawker and Rory69. Now telling myself that i have no place in commenting in the arbcom case or articles im heavily involved with. Also again attacking the Evidence Page. Personally attacking me using a sockpuppet to call me a 'Kid', and telling me 'you have little/no idea' about subjects im involved in.
Yeeeeeeeeah, totally personally attacking Tawker and Rory096 by saying they're not admins (which their pages show... ask them, they aren't admins), whatever, you are past help. I'm working on a reply to your shrine to me, by the way. - DeathrockerComment07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deathrocker doesnt seem to realise he is on a 1 month block for a reason, personal attacks being one of them:
Yeeeeeeeeah, totally personally attacking Tawker and Rory096 by saying they're not admins (which their pages show... ask them, they aren't admins), whatever, you are past help. I'm working on a reply to your shrine to me, by the way. - DeathrockerComment07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deathrocker again infers im 'past help' in the same vein as his attacks that im 'psychotic', an 'idiot', a 'bitch' and 'know nothing'.
Put this argument somewhere else. We don't want your petty name-calling, persistent personal attacks, presumption of bad faith and trading of accusations, threats and arguments on AN/I. This discussion does not belong here. Werdna648T/C\@11:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am not beating a dead horse here, but I have started a RfC against this user. I'm new to the RfC/M/Ar process, don't kill me. Sceptre(Talk)20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been constantly vandalzing the Joseph Sobran article. He has been removing factual information and replacing with POV. He has violated the 3RR rule on numerous occasions. You can see that he has a history of bad behavior on this page. In the past he has called other editors vile names. It is suggested that he be banned from Wikipedia for at least 1 month. - User:Rogerman
The term "vandalism" is being used by User:Rogerman in a manner that is not standard on Wikipedia. Rogerman and DJac75 are involved (as I am) in a content dispute, which I think most here would agree is substantively different than "vandalism." Dick Clark23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, articles are usually debated for "five days or so" before final action is taken. This debate lasted exactly three hours, culminating (after 5 votes) in a speedy keep by Sean Black. Under the heading of "AfD etiquette," participants are advised that "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy." SlimVirgin, the primary author, not only failed to declare her interest in the discussion, she also reverted the article three times, deleting the AfD template from the article in question, during the three hour time period. In addition, AfD etiquette recommends that participants should "Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, civility, and assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment." In her comments on the AfD page, SlimVirgin characterizes the AfD as "vandalism" and the initiator, a new user named User:IAMthatIAM, as "a LaRouche activist with a new account trying to cause trouble." She then blocked IAMthatIAM when he restored the deleted template (see [9].) It appears to me that multiple policies have been violated here. --HK22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent some time looking into this. Here are my views on your various complaints:
Speedy keeps happen when well-sourced, notable articles are put up for deletion for no good reason. That's a judgement call of the closing admin, and it was the right one here.
SlimVirgin didn't vote, so declaring herself the an author wasn't really a big deal. In any case, it's less important than the next point.
I do wish SlimVirgin had been a bit more civil. However, it is clear that User:IAMthatIAM was an account newly created by a knowledgable user (perhaps previously anonymous) for the express purpose of arguing about issues related to Lyndon LaRouche.
Likewise, SlimVirgin as an involved writer of the article ought to have gotten help dealing with this, rather than performing the disruption block herself.
The same LaRouche supporter has turned up with a new account, User:IAMwhatsIAM, and renominated Jeremiah Duggan for deletion. I reverted the edits and blocked the account for 24 hours for vandalism in the first instance, but Fred Bauder has advised that the account may be blockable under the arbitration rulings against LaRouche editors, so I'm going to discuss with him how best to proceed. SlimVirgin(talk)07:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, socks of this nature may be treated as socks of Herschelkrustofsky and blocked indefinitely upon recognition and anything they do reverted. In such instances Herschelkrustofsky may also be briefly banned, but that is not mandatory action. Herschelkrustofsky is only permitted to edit under one account. Fred Bauder16:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... But, you'll revert them, though, won't you? It is policy. It is the rules. Never mind the merits of the situation... He is a banned user, and he must be stopped. ElectricRay14:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. For a commoner, JW has a very developed sense of justice being seen to be done, and miscreants being brought to book. Very commendable attitutde. Perhaps JW will be an admin one day. ElectricRay19:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everyone here is a commoner, and yes, JW probably will be an admin someday. As long as he keeps on being productive and level-headed, there will be no reason to oppose. --LV(Dark Mark)21:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Some commoner than others. Yes, I suppose he might. Hope so. It would be a pity, though, if he were to become so focussed on rooting out Zephram Stark whereever he may be found that JW began destroying perfectly sensible content in the encyclopaedia. Some people might think this was a little unlevel-headed, and counter-productive. ElectricRay22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Ray, I must point out that Zephram has been banned from Wikipedia. He has lost the privilege of contributing. I will rvt any edits I see from him, I don't care if you think they are "sensible" or not. I'm not going out of my way....he is actually pretty easy to spot.--JW1805(Talk)23:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the first time I might wonder aloud whether a walk around the block and a breath of fresh air might not do you the world of good. ElectricRay00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble seeing the personal attack there to be honest. There is criticism of your action, sure, but that is quite a different thing, and it seems to me to be fairly stated: "Yet, JW1805 goes out of his way to try to delete it. I don't think Wikipedia benefits from this kind of editor". Harmless enough - one must be allowed to express an opinion, surely. On the other hand, your subsequent edit to the same page in reply, which you neglected to mention, here seems to comply with neither the policy of assuming good faith, nor refraining from personal attacks, making as it does allegations against another member (viz., being a sockpuppet of a banned user, and being a liar) neither of which, as far as I can see, you are in a position to substantiate. Now these are what I would describe as personal attacks. Is not the pot calling the kettle black, therefore? Indeed, is not a personal attack of that sort a blockable offence? Just wondering aloud. ElectricRay00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said "most likely a sockpuppet", which based on my extensive experience with this troll, he most likely is. It is a fact that previous ZS sockpuppets uploaded images and lied about their source. That is not a personal attack. Questing my motives and calling me McCarthyist is. I think you could do us all a "world of good" if you spent more time actually contributing to articles (which you do very seldomly), instead of tirelessly defending the actions of a banned user. --JW1805(Talk)01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seems to me it would easy enough for one or the other of you to email brian@silverbushmusic.com and double check the permission. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆01:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. And as JW is the one in doubt about this, it would be incumbent on JW to send the email. Since it is such a fitting image, perhaps JW might ask "if we don't have permission already, may we have permission now?". ElectricRay10:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't any way for you to prove that you have received an email with permission. How do we know you aren't just another one of Zephram's sockpuppets? The website in question says:
All photographs, diagrams, and repair explanations are from the works in progress;
Zephram claimed on the image page that he received permission to release it under a GFDL license. That's probably just baloney. Like he's done many times before, he swiped if from the webpage and claimed he had permission. Actually, I's surprised he didn't claim to have taken the picture himself, which is what he usually does. --JW1805(Talk)00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what a dilemma. How do you know I'm not just another Zephram Stark sockpuppet? How do you know you're not, indeed? Je pense, donc, je suis. You could get one of the big kids to block me, to be on the safe side. ElectricRay01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we've got our little nice discussion out of the way, hopefully... User:Thousandsons has, on his user page, a declaration that he's a member of the Crips -- a criminal street gang, by California's definition, and I'm sure by many other jurisdictions'. The question is -- is there a policy against such a declaration on a user page? If so, what might be an appropriate action to take about this? --Nlu (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he starts dealing drugs on out-of-the-way talk pages, or does a drive-by shooting of house, then call the cops. Otherwise, treat him like any other user. --Carnildo09:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... This user has both red and blue on his user page. Maybe he's just a part-time Crip, or was placed in a position in the organization through a temp-agency. He probably just does clerical work, or maybe he logs minutes in Blood beatdowns. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>09:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Present: Ice Dogg, CaPiTaL lEtTa AlTeRnAtA, Madd Hamsta, Masta Bater
Apologies: E-Z Vauxhall Driver
Secretary: Thousand Sons
1. Beatdown productivity down by 12% on last month. Madd Hamsta to look into. Suggested this may be a temporary blip resulting from the recent shift of focus from 'critical' to 'lyrical' beatdowns.
2. Ice Dogg complained that CaPiTaL lEtTa AlTeRnAtA had owed the crack kitty $2.67 for two months. AlTeRnAtA replied that Dogg could "stuff it up his ass in pennies". A full and frank exchange of views was held.
3. Full and frank exchange of views aborted due to running out of bullets.
4. Mad Hamsta to order more bullets.
5. Any other business: Masta Bater questioned the long-standing constitutional policy of "Bros before hos". Argued that this was unrealistic, and that particularly fine hos should surely take precedence over some particularly fronting bros. Agreed to form a sub-committee to research how fine a ho needs to be. Members and budget to be decided later.
I have blocked Karmafist (talk·contribs) for 24 hours for extremely uncivil edit summaries, which he has been warned about repeatedly in the past. His last few contributions should make the matter quite clear. Please note that the block is not enforcement of his ArbCom case, which is not yet completed, nor is it for the content of the edits. (However, the uncivil edit summaries being on new user talk pages is an aggrivating circumstance as far as I'm concerned.) -- SCZenz07:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it. I think it's justified. Perhaps not as long as 24 hours, but I'm not going to change it. Left a note on KF's talk explaining my view too. NSLE(T+C) at 07:18 UTC (2006-03-21)
Hmm... He baits people to block him and quickly gets the predicted response. Maybe ignoring the bait would be better; he doesn't seem to be doing anything I would call harmful. But if he really wants to martyr himself it'll be difficult to stop :) Haukur12:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the ArbCom case is completed, you might want to keep an eye on his {{subst:welcome}} ~~~~, because he's hidden a link to his manifesto in his signature. Ashibakatock04:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm... "09:27, September 4, 2005 Petaholmes blocked "☺♥§¡¡PhüçGèõrgëW.Bûsh‼♀♪►☻ (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, vandalism account)" NSLE(T+C) at 11:19 UTC (2006-03-21)
Oopsie; I only saw an edit on the particular user's account page. I should have double-checked the block log. --MJ(☎|@|C)12:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Leyasu violating personal attack parole on his ArbCom ruling
User:Leyasu reverted an edit of mine, erroneously calling it
"disguised vandalism" when it really wasn't [11]
. Both of us have already been warned that calling good faith edits
"vandalism" is considered a personal attack, and he obviously has not listenened to either admins or arbitrators.
A little background on User:Leyasu; before and after his ArbCom case, he has been claming ownership of various articles and changing the genres of many bands to his liking ("gothic doom", which is not even a separate genre to begin with, and several users have told him this over and over).
He has been banned repeatedly for 3RR; he used an IP address "81.157.93.18" [12] during one of his blocks to revert another one of my edits back to his "gothic doom" claim on the Paradise Lost (band) page [13];
Proof that this is him is based on 81.157.93.18's contribution history, which shows edits on User:Leyasu's page.[14]
It appears he has been reported here by different users several times; I would appreciate that an administrator intervene. Also,the ArbCom ruling concluded that if he violated personal attack parole, he would be blocked for a specific amount of time.[15] --Danteferno12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, Danteferno is under investigation for being the Sockpuppet/Sockpuppeter of the Deathrocker account: [16], to which end Danteferno has used the Check User board to make personal attacks at myself, and mentioned several times things having happened to himself, that have happened with Deathrocker.
Secondly, Danteferno has also ligiated in Wikilawyering, targeting the Admins Sceptre and WooWhoKitty, per association with Deathrocker. This has been in regards to having me banned from the articles that the Danteferno and Deathrocker account have both been previously/currently banned for revert warring on, [17], [18]. The reason given was that i had violated my revert parole by one edit, after Danteferno went on to brag he had set up an anon to vandalise an article so i would revert it, so he could then revert to the version of the article he wrote, even though the revert was that made to the one by Deathrocker.
These two users have been recognised by both the Abbirition Committe, the ANI, the Mediation Committe, various Admins, the Wikiproject Metal and many other Wikipedians, as serially deconstructive users who have little to no intrest in editing in good faith. This is also confirmed with both users threatening and carrying out the use of Sockpuppets to disrupt and vandalise Wikipedia articles and policy pages when bans are given for their policy violations, per Danteferno's serial vandalism using anons on the Gothic Metal article, and his previous use of anon's to vandalise my talk page, and Deathrocker's open sockpuppet which he used to disrupt the ANI board and talk page, leading to his talk page actually being protected.
As such yes, i violated my rever parole by one edit, one edit from a user who was warned by Admin Spearhead and user WesleyDodds, about removing cited information from articles. Yes i violated my revert parole by one edit, reverting someone who bragged about having set up vandalism to disrupt Wikipedia and push their view onto the article. If the ANI board wishes to ban me for this for an example, then i accept and understand that. I however do ask that the above, and my reason for violating my revert parole, is taken into consideration when judgement is passed on me. Ley Shade14:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:U is overused, and I see nothing wrong here. If using a name of or from a movie is bad, then ban me now, because my name is from a video game. --Golbez16:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Freply and Golbez. Is it a movie title? I wasn't aware of that. To me it seems to be a little hostile and may violate WP:CIVIL. I didn't explain my thinking because I wanted to hear other people's first, unbiased impressions. If no one else interprets it as hostile, then that is fine by me. Johntex\talk16:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might watch this user, however, as one of our long-term vandals was registering numerous movie-related names recently. Ral315 (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accused of racism for adopting the terminology and illustration of the National Institutes of Health
I would like to hear some comments on the following incident @ Prognathism:
I replaced a picture of a skull [19], which has no copyright info and was marked by other editors as an exaggerated and insulting illustration (see Talk:Negroid [20], with this picture [21] , which is based on the illustration of the National Institutes of Health [22] and added that, according to the definition of the National Institutes of Health [23], "Prognathism is a protrusion of the jaw caused by malformations".
Whereupon user Deeceevoice declared that my edits "stink of racism"[24], that I "deliberately" redefined prognathism as abnormal and the result of disease" and that I
produced this illustration "to show that Negroid profiles are "abnormal" [25] and that "one could most certainly, and more accurately, assert it is Caucasoid profile which is the abnormal one"[26]. She further declared that my edits "smack of racism", and accused me of "deliberate provocation" and claimed that my edits are not factual but "pretty tacky and extremely ill-considered" . [27]
In support of her own edits, user Deeceevoice quoted Frank W. Sweet (author of several books about racialism, Ph.D. candidate in history and molecular anthropology and one of the few Wikipedia expert members) out of context, and then disrespected him after he joined the discussion [28] to rectify the quote: "I'll not play word games with you." ; "keep your questions about drug use to yourself."[29], "I shall return"? What's with the MacArthur impersonation? Woo-ooh. I'm shakin' in my shoes. :p"[30].
CoYep16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the comments on both sides have been skirting the edges of civility, I'd like to point out a fallacy in your argument that the NIH defines Prognathism as a malformation -- even the page you cite specifically says "A protruding jaw can be part of the normal facial shape a person is born with. It can also be caused by...". I would agree that the edits removing the normal occurance of prognathism were ill-advised. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish16:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, the definition is that: "Prognathism is a protrusion of the jaw (mandible) due to misalignment of teeth caused by malformations of the shape of the bones of the face". They further state that: It is appropriate to see a dentist or orthodontist to treat abnormal alignment of the jaw and teeth. However, also contact your primary health care provider to rule out medical disorders that can be associated with prognathism. and "Call your health care provider if there is difficulty talking, biting, or chewing related to the abnormal jaw alignment." But you are right, under common causes they say: "A protruding jaw can be part of the normal facial shape a person is born with. It can also be caused by inherited conditions such as Crouzon syndrome or basal cell nevus syndrome. You can develop it as a child or adult from causes such as gigantism or acromegaly." but I added this information into the article as well: "is either inherited, or acquired by harmful habits such as thumb sucking or tongue thrusting and results in teeth that do not meet properly."[31] I further put an "expert" sticker on it and also emailed a wikipedia dentist and asked him to check the article. Short of time himself, he gave me two other names to contact, what I did. So I still fail to see how my edits are deliberately falsified and "tacky", "deliberate provocation" or "stink of racism" CoYep08:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see anything particularly egregious here, I see some stiff talking from both sides, I also see apologies and very civil parts. A note in case you weren't aware, ":p" on the internet is usually an emoticon which means "tongue sticking out" or "tongue in cheek". - FrancisTyers17:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that someones edits "stink of racism", and that edits are deliberately falsified and "tacky", eventhough they are sourced, is a normal, acceptable behavior in your opinion? And Deeceevoice never apologized to me. If she did and I didn't see it, I would appreciate it if you could provide a diff. CoYep08:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even though in each individual situation editors should assume good faith it should be noted that Deeceevoice has a history of accusing other editors of racism and many times accusing Wikipedia as a whole of racism. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see hate in the template. Looks like you are just disputing which flag to use. And by the way, I think calling someone a terrorist is pretty divisive. Lapinmies17:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Ghirlandajo has been vandalizing the template, but it didn't mean that it should be deleted just like that. //Halibutt21:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
userboxes designed to enhance the community spirit, fine. Userboxes designed as troll and vandal magnets? Delete away. dab(ᛏ)21:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia. So deletion of unencyclopedic material that has demonstrably caused strife in the form of edit wars is fully justified. If you don't want to be bold and do your part in stopping a festering dispute in its tracks, that's entirely your call; but don't complain when others take out the trash. --MarkSweep(call me collect)23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have caused strife in the form of wheel wars. Should I then block you or get an steward to remove you?
If you don't want to address the present issue on its merits, you may be in the wrong forum. The point is, the templates shouldn't have existed in the first place, they were against many fundamental policies, including WP:NOT, they've been at the center of an edit war, and they were speedy-deletable per WP:CSD#T1. What little substance there is to your complaints can be reduced to "he didn't use the right deletion summary". That strikes me as a rather childish thing to complain about. --MarkSweep(call me collect)07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia as MP3blog
User:Mike Nobody has links to a large number of downloadable MP3s on his page (scroll way down, right side of the page). Some are old recordings, some are spoken word, some are recent commercial songs. This user apparently has a history of disputes about fair use images in userspace (see here), and I don't know how this interacts with all that, I just know that it worries me that people are using their user pages to links to contentiously copyrighted materials. I may be off-base raising this concern, and I apologize if so or if this is the wrong place, but I wasn't sure where else to ask. Thanks. · rodii ·03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky. On balance I'd argue they are not really sutible userpage content but after my past skirmishes with this user I suspect someone else had better tell them that.Geni03:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decidedly not suitable. Odds are, the majority of those recordings are still under copyright. We don't allow linking to pirated material from our articles; why should userspace be any different? --Carnildo04:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh... point taken. I am not up for a big confrontation right now. I guess I was hoping "mommy" would take care of it for me. :) Well, I guess I was also hoping for a definitive policy statement on whether linking to copyrighted MP3s is permissible. · rodii ·21:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
possible hacking attempt or denial of service attack through password facility?
FYI,
I have received two emails stating:
Someone (probably you, from IP address 204.111.91.40)
requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org.
I am not this IP address, I don't know if it is someplace that could possibly snoop on the reply messages and try to pirate my account. But I have not noticed any unauthorized activity in my account. That IP is apparently involved in activity posting messages at this site. at this site: [33]
This has happened to me a few times. Usually it's after dealing with vandalism. In retribution, the vandals try to get my password. However, all clicking that "E-mail new password" button will do is send you a message alerting you to the attempt, and of course it includes the IP address of the person responsible. Thus the messages you received. I guess it's technically an attempt to hack into your account, but it's a very amateurish one. –Abe Dashiell(t/c)05:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too received such an email, indicating IP address 216.239.124.38. What is confusing is that looking at this user's contributions shows no article that I recall ever looking at, let alone editing / reverting. Might this indicate a DoS attempt or some other nefarious activity? Curious, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig23:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tubezone
This guy is really starting to cause trouble and I need some help. I`ll explain what happened.
A few days ago I came across the article List of misleading food names, I could tell that it needed a cleanup badly, so I started working on it. Shortly after that, Tubezone showed up and started adding questionable entries that I assumed to be a joke. I reverted the page, he didnt like that.
It all went downhill from there. He continued interfearing with my edits, I tried to comprimise, he didnt want to. I tried to contact him on his user talk, his only response has been to constantly blank it. Oh, and making veiled insults on Talk:List of misleading food names.
I tried for a while, and eventuly got angry enough to just stop editing the article. I submitted it to the cleaup taskforce, Tubezone didnt like that, and he removed the cleanup tags repeatedly. He still refused to respond to me on his talk page, or on the article talk page OR on the cleanup taskforce page. Today he decided to start harassing me on my talk page.
Im tired of this, I dont want to get my ass in trouble because of some random annoying guy. I give up and am putting these issues in the hands of a higher power. Jack Cain08:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation: Colin McLaughlin has contributed for about two weeks and has made some valid edits to athletics articles. The edit summary you warned him for was definitely over the line, and his response to the warning even more so. His continuation to use abusive edit summaries on the Ken Livingstone article definitely warrants a block. I would perhaps have made the block shorter for a first time offense, a week perhaps, but I don't think that a month is unreasonable either. Since this editor has made some valid contributions earlier, I suggest that he be unblocked if he is prepared to apologize. Sjakkalle(Check!)12:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems harsh given that multiply blocked serial vandals like SPUI have admins wheel warring over reducing a one week block for edit warring over the insertion of nosnense to an article. Just zis Guy you know?12:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have blocked such a new user for a month, although I agree his conduct was very poor and definitely warranted a block. However, given his reaction to your block, I don't think he's at all willing to change, and the result would've been the same, whether the block was one day, one week, one month or indefinite. I wouldn't have done it, but I can't see that you done wrong, either. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I worked out the block length by starting at one week given the nature of the comments, then considering as aggravating factors his refusal to apologise and general statements of disconnectedness from Wikipedia (which is particularly serious, because it so easily leads into major vandalism). A slight mitigating factor was that his worst remarks were in edit summaries rather than in articles. That all ended up with the one month. Naturally if he apologises or asks to make constructive edits again, it will be commuted to time served, and I may reduce to one week anyway if it would encourage him to be helpful. David | Talk14:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[The following comment was unfortunately removed by User:Rschen7754here, presumably as an accidental consequence of the server fubar we seem to be experiencing. I'm reinserting it. Bishonentalk 00:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC).] No, having the worst remarks in edit summaries isn't a mitigating factor at all. Edit summaries are the worst place for personal attacks, because they stick harder than article text does, and that's why Wikipedia:No personal attacks says that "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." It all sounds rather abstract and bloodless without illustrative examples, so here are a couple of the edit summaries at Ken Livingstone: "I see the jewboys are busy determining the shape of this page. No great surprise there!" And a few minutes later: "Instantly, a 'no personal attacks' warning. You can't pick on the jewboys. No way." Me, I'd have permablocked. Possibly, on a good day, pending an abject apology. Don't reduce your block, a month's fine. Bishonentalk22:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
For Image:PhilOchs1.gif, Image:PhilOchs2.gif and Image:PhilOchsPoster.gif, Roomba has tagged them prepared for deletion if not used within 7 days in an article. Roomba is a mindless bot under the ownership of Gmaxwell who states on his discussion page and user page "Sorry. I'm too busy with my bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories to talk now."
The pictures in question, though they may not have been used right away, are certainly no fair use abuse as anyone can clearly see, seeing as the photographer has granted all rights to Wikipedia specifically. I have not had time to add enough information to the Phil Ochs article to add more pictures in. Had a human being been looking at this, instead of a bot, there would be no problem. So if there's a way that an admin can protect these files to prevent deletion, it would be appreciated.
The licence is a problem. Wikipedia is releases under the GFDL this means that all content is "free" (as in speech). A licence that allows only wikipedia to use the photo is not free because it means that people who copy wikipedia cannot use the picture. We only accept GFDL Creative commons and public domain images. Is the photogropher willing to release the photo's under the GFDL or one of the creative commons licenses? Also IANAL but surely the copyright owner of the poster pic is the artist who created the pster rather than the person who took the photograph? 217.207.153.11415:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to the photographer and is willing to release such a liscense.... but the poster had other fair use claims. The problem is with a bot auto-deleting.
There aren't any bots that delete images. There are bots that tag unfree-copyrighted images as needing deletion if they are not used in an article within a week, or remove images that are identified as needing deletion for some other reason from articles. Deletion itself is not carried out by bot. Jkelly17:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if there was a bot that deleted images, it would be easy to make it first download a backup copy. There may be other problems with the idea of deletion-by-bot, but that one isn't much of an issue. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked both after examining the edit history. NoToFrauds indefinately and 6 months on the IP. I will request a checkuser to confirm but I am pretty certain. If I am wrong I willl unblock accordingly.Gator(talk)18:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We try not to block IP addresses for more than 24 hours because of the risk of collatoral damage. A 6 month block on an IP address is too much. The IP seems to be allocated to Apolo -Gold-Telecom-Per in Argentina - the contributions look like they come from one person - but then most users of that telco will be Spanish speaking. Secretlondon07:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16:45, 22 March 2006 David Gerard blocked "Jimididit (contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 hours (idiot trolling on Jimbo's talk. This isn't how to deal with a username block. Please take 12 hours to do something else.)
Jimididit (talk·contribs) was username-blocked months ago for his old username, Jebus Christ. He is now back and wants his old name back! And is pissy about it and being a dick, e.g. [[38]]. We really don't have time to deal with this level of stupidity, so I blocked 12 hours to give him time to think about how not to act like a disruptive dick. Review away - David Gerard16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any opinion on the username issue, but I don't see why the block was made. I don't see any explanation for the block on his talk page, and I don't see anything blockworthy in the diff you posted. I don't know much about whatever previous episodes of ill behavior this user may have been involved in, though - it's possible your assumption of bad faith is justified. I think users generally deserve an explanation of why they were blocked. Friday(talk)17:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, block reason is appears to have nothing to do with link provided, and nothing on the talk page, so I'm unblocking. Won't sweat the slightest a re-block that at least pretends to be following the blocking policy. - brenneman{L}17:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the merits of the block, calling someone an idiot and a dick is completely uncalled-for. Please, David, if you're in a highly emotional state, don't block people. As an experienced editor you should know better. Friday(talk)17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that this isn't exactly unusual for David. He isn't being rude. He's just blunt. It's just how he speaks. And, to be pedantic, he didn't call him an idiot either. Sam Korn(smoddy)22:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Civility is not optional, regardless of "how one speaks". I read "idiot trolling" as saying the person is an idiot, although I'm open to its intention to have been "idiotic trolling." - brenneman{L}00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...he didn't call him an idiot either". How do you figure Sam? He quoted it right there in the first line of this section, "idiot trolling on Jimbo's talk". See up there? Just below the section title where he called Jimididit a "dick"? Above the paragraph where he calls him a "dick" engaging in "stupidity" a few more times? Trust me... that actually is "rude", not "just blunt". BTW, if you are going for semantic games about how it was the 'trolling' (which... actually wasn't anything like trolling) which was "idiot", and not the person doing it... I'll skip the whole spiel about how actions don't have minds ('idiot' or otherwise) and the description thus devolves to the actor, and instead just say, "still rude". --CBDunkerson10:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the unblocking. It's good to know that it was a breach of wikipedia policy. How should I best complain about the actions of this administrator and seek an apology for the accusations? I've not once ever been involved in trolling and the User Jebus Christ block had nothing to do with trolling. It was a username block. David Gerard didn't bother to even read what i'd written on Jimbo's talk he just assumed it was a rant about the username and that was enough to accuse me of 'idiot trolling' and being a 'dick'. What the hell kind of conduct is that? Jimididit09:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that complaining about his actions will get you nowhere. Wikipedia is not a petty society where you need to seek retribution against those who have wronged you. An apology, I believe, is merited, but pushing for one is not yours or anybody's place. A single breach of Wikipedia blocking policy is not acceptable, but certainly does not merit a RfC or Arbcom case. If, however, David continues breaching blocking policy in manners such as this, more action may be required. Werdna648T/C\@10:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for retribution I merely want to see some sort of acknowledgement that what he did was wrong. I'd like to think this is a once off thing and that he doesn't always conduct himself in this manner. I'd also like to think that wikipedia doesn't find this kind of behaviour acceptible. I hope we don't have a culture of bullying here. Thanks Jimididit11:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You got acknowledgement that the block was wrong- from other people. The block was undone, so what else needs to be resolved? If David Gerard, or any other editor, is regularly being rude and/or blocking inappropriately, this will hurt his reputation over time, and could possibly lead to other consequences. But for now, the problem has been fixed. Friday(talk)21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange behaviour. His last edit however has been considerably shortened - which you asked for.So he is certainly reading your comments. Maybe he is really shy (I'm not joking here) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn19:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had made a checkuser request on February 16, 2006, which was archived on March 18th and closed as stale. [39]
However, if you go on the evidence page, you'll see a longer list of 18 suspected, and more recent sockpuppets. There is activity as recent as March 21 and March 14th. How is this case then considered "stale" and closed? How are such determinations made? Or can this be relisted with active requests? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can these be checked? The suspected vandal comes back each time as a new user, while sometimes editing from an IP which is coming from a school, — presumably a dynamic IP (198.20.32.xx). And from home (67.158.xx.xx), under an ISP (another dynamic IP). Given these are dynamic IPs, I'm not sure what can be done if they are sockpuppet vandals? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 00:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rgulerdem seems to be pasting notices on quite a few talk pages, asking people who have edited Islam-related articles to go to his Wikipedia:Wikiethics proposal and keep it alive. I think this amounts to wikispam, as I don't think he's had any previous interaction with those people.
We need some wikispam guidelines, if possible. "I know it when I see it" isn't the best guideline for admin action. Zora21:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notice in question contains the phrase "pro-porn and pro-offense lobby" which I find personally insulting. When I politely requested he apologise, he confirmed the comment was intended for me and then repeated the remarks, trying to justify them. I have again asked him to retract his offensive comments. ॐ Metta Bubblepuff04:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Freestyle.king was, after his last block had expired, reverting his user page to a state that, in my opinion, called for disruption of Wikipedia. (See [47].) I've reverted to his even older version (as I did previous to his last block). However, I would like opinions on this. Should his preferred version be allowed to stand? Is it a personal attack (albeit against a group, not an individual), deserving of yet another block? Am I wrong about this? --Nlu (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many people have tirades like that in their userpage. The preferred version is acceptable, now it looks like it is protected to stop criticism. Lapinmies08:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading, I can't see any calling-for-disruption -- more of a complaining tirade more than anything else. The criticism is mild (and arugably with merit?) so I can't really see any attacking happening. It does look a bit like heavy handed censorship atm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.242.221 (talk • contribs)
OK, per discussion, unprotected. However, it is ironic that this user claims that Wikipedia is suffering from lack of civility, when the user's edits are nothing but personal attacks. --Nlu (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
umm...if you read my talk page. you'll know i copied "why is this page black?" stuff from this user called "Silensor" so yeah it is quite common. it is also unfair to say i'm making personal attacks because as you can see on my contribution, i'm becoming someone who is capable of useful edits. i even got involved in a new project. Also, Nlu is the one who told me I can post anything I want on my userpage and talkpage as long as I don't personally endorse it. If my userpage violate personal attack, isn't user "Jiang's" userpage and talkpage "Taiwan=shame" even an attack that provoke racial confrontation to a greater scale. This is like public racism and defamation toward a specific ethinic group and their president. I seriously don't get the Nlu's logic, no offense. Anyway thanks guys. I appreciate you guys taking your time about this issue.--Freestyle.king06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User SPUI has been blocked by a bot (page moves)
User:SPUI has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.
Blocks by the bot are routinely removed unless the page moves are vandalism. It's part of the tacit agreement that allows the bot to run. While SPUI's moves may not be a good idea, they are not vandalism and as such it is inappropriate to leave the block from the bot in place. If someone else should wish to block him on other grounds, that would be quite another matter. I am not sufficiently familiar with the situation to do so myself. The Uninvited Co., Inc.19:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but he also had no consensus to move the other way from where the articles originally were. So here we are at square one again. with half wanting it one way and half the other. Maybe we should have articles at both places. Because I see no solid consensus developing for either position.JohnnyBGood22:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. SPUI took it apon himself to move the whole state's worth of articles without discussion and when oppposition arrived and tried to move back so discussion could occur before there was a mass move he began the revert war. However in the interim discussion has now stopped and both sides have dug in and aren't budging. JohnnyBGood23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article naming revert-warring needs to be taken to an RFC now. I request that other administrators join me in enforcing blocks for further move-warring until this thing is dealt with in the appropriate manner. --Cyde Weys22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again as I said... getting us nowhere really. There is a majority for California State Route XX but it's not at the 60-70% level. I'm open to suggestions. As I said before perhaps two articles one at CSRXX and one at SRXX(CA) would be the way to go. That way they can have their less informative infobox and their desired page name and we could have the same.JohnnyBGood00:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that will work, since anyone can come in and just redirect, causing this whole mess again. I agree with Cyde, send this to RFC now. Not as a person v person, but as the article issue as a whole. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have a Mediation Cabal case open but no mediator yet since there is a huge backup. I would have done a RFC but have been reluctant to do so- should this be moved? Also, to make sure everyone understands, if anyone begins to move pages relating to California State Routes, they will be blocked, am I correct? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token SPUI has been doing mass conversions of {{routeboxca2}} to {{Infobox CA Route}} without consensus, and a major edit war is developing regarding this. Could we make any conversions from {{routeboxca2}} to {{Infobox CA Route}} or the other way around a blockable offense? (For only the users involved- if there's a user who has no clue and changes the infobox then they're not included). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I do any adding to articles and happen to update the article back to routeboxca2 in the process would you object? SPUI please refrain from editing the routeboxes at all during this cool down. It will just start the war over again and you know it. Wait until there is consensus one way or the other to modify the article names or routeboxes any further then they already have been.Gateman199719:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 35 (moved Talk:California State Route 35 to Talk:State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 35 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 35 to Talk:State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 35 (moved California State Route 35 to State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 35 (California) (moved California State Route 35 to State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 15 (moved Talk:California State Route 15 to Talk:State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 15 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 15 to Talk:State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 15 (moved California State Route 15 to State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 15 (California) (moved California State Route 15 to State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 9 (moved Talk:California State Route 9 to Talk:State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 9 (moved California State Route 9 to State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 9 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 9 to Talk:State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 9 (California) (moved California State Route 9 to State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 1 (moved Talk:California State Route 1 to Talk:State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 1 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 1 to Talk:State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 1 (moved California State Route 1 to State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 1 (California) (moved California State Route 1 to State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
Apparently this got removed from the page, but I've banned SPUI from making any transportation-related page moves for 48 hours (expiring 22:00 UTC on March 28). Ral315 (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo2/Control Monger/Control Monger: Kill Or Be Killed
I've gone ahead and indef blocked the user and protected the account. I will AGF here as far as whether the user meant to impersonate MONGO or just liekd the name, but will kindly inform him that he needs to choose a new name. I'll also encourage MONGO to create some doppledanger accounts so this doesn't happen again. I've also deleted the first apge and will look at the second.Gator(talk)21:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this issue had been resolved but it unfortunately appears that it isn't. User:Jayjg accused User:Newport of being a "sockpuppet" of User:RachelBrown on the 3RR noticeboard. RachelBrown has now left Wikipedia so this is just not true. Extensive discussions have been had among User:David Gerard, User:Charles Matthews and User:Phil Boswell which established that no actual sock puppetry was involved and all users have now been unblocked without any apologies for their unjust blocking (AFAIK). It is just not acceptable for a Wikipedia admin to make false accusations on another user who has good intentions and has made good edits. Arniep18:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've had extensive discussions with David and Charles myself, and it has not been at all established that no sockpuppeting was involved. Rather, it has been established that extensive sockpuppeting was involved, though it has also been claimed that it was merely meatpuppeting (a sub-variety of sockpuppeting). And, unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about here, since I'm the one who has all the original evidence, based on which 4 different Arbitration Committee members agreed that serious sockpuppeting was going on. It's only because of my own great forbearance that I haven't re-blocked the puppets; please don't make me regret that decision. Jayjg (talk)18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arnie, it's pretty obvious that one person is behind the Newport and Rachel Brown accounts (the same person who posts on WR as "Guy"), and I'm not aware that s/he has denied it. You have to stop responding to his or her e-mails encouraging you to start another fuss. SlimVirgin(talk)18:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No user asked me to do this, I just saw Jay's comment by chance, and, as I know it is not true it is not acceptable to make false accusations against a user who has done absolutely nothing wrong. User:Newport is a friend of User:RachelBrown's who took on watching articles in December that Rachel had started and started articles which Rachel had planned before she left Wikipedia after almost having a breakdown caused by certain users aggressive behaviour. It is true that Rachel and I asked people to vote on Jewish lists and categories on afd and cfd as there was a strong suspicion that a User:Antidote was voting multiple times (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments. The voting did not come as has been claimed under the sock puppeting or meat puppeting rules, as all the accounts that voted were different people who had been making independent edits on different subjects for some months before the alleged multi voting in November. The users were all friends of Rachel but at the time I saw admins asking their friends to vote on afds and cfds all the time so neither I nor Rachel were aware that we were doing anything wrong and the other users were never given a warning about it before being blocked (the users involved were: User:Poetlister, Rachel's best friend, User:Taxwoman, a university friend, and User:Londoneye, Rachel's cousin, all of whom had been making independent edits before there was any controversy over voting on afd or cfds). No action was taken by any admin to block the suspected sock puppets of User:Antidote despite all my work to demonstrate that he had broken Wikipedia rules time and again. Arniep21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-issue so I'm not going to respond again after this, but I want to point out that (1) you do not know what's true and what isn't (unless you're the person operating the accounts); (2) you forgot about "Lisa," the flatmate; and (3) I wonder if you have any idea how often we're asked to believe that a bunch of users live together, work together, edit the same articles, hold the same opinions, and even make the same spelling mistakes (maybe because they all supposedly went to the same school). SlimVirgin(talk)23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a non issue at all as I know that these are all different people with different names who live in different places and are therefore categorically not sockpuppets and as they all previously had completely different edit histories and did not join just to vote on afds or cfds they are not meatpuppets. Despite my requests to various admins including User:Kelly Martin and User:Ambi to review the information on the Antidote case none of his sockpuppets were banned and no comments were made in support of my investigations. I believe this dispute has been tied into the debate between people who are against Jewish lists or categories (such as yourself and Jayjg) and people who contributed to the lists such as RachelBrown and her friends (actually it was only when people started attacking Rachel that her friends backed her up re:the Jewish Year Book on Talk:List of Jewish jurists) and that unfair bias has been placed on silencing the views of these users as opposed to the lack of action that was taken against User:Antidote who attempted to force the deletion of Jewish lists and categories by using multiple sockpuppets (as well as numerous other violations, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments). The British users all made good edits edits completely independently before they voted on the afds and cfds, and I doubt that they all made those edits from the same locations and ips. I believe this should be able to be checked as presumably some instances can be found where they edited at similar times. Arniep00:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You "know that these are all different people with different names who live in different places"? How do you know that? And you "doubt that they all made those edits from the same locations and ips". Why do you doubt that? As for my being against Jewish lists, that's simply false; I've even voted on AfDs to keep them. I simply want them to conform to Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:V and WP:NOR. Anything else? Jayjg (talk)00:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, the argument that they are the same people just doesn't stand up with detailed investigation. They all edited on completely different subjects before November and it seems extremely unlikely that they would have deliberately edited completly different subjects on different accounts just so that they could use the accounts to defend against an attempted forced deletion of Jewish lists by a sock puppet user that was going to occur in the future. I don't think they even visited afd or cfd before User:Antidote started. I have been in contact with them via email and they all have separate names and surnames, one of whom googles as working for the British government. SlimVirgin accused the Guy person as being Rachel- this is impossible as I asked him to ask Rachel to check the Jewish Year Book for references and he said why don't you ask her yourself and gave me her email, so it's highly unlikely that he is her and I find no reason to disbelieve that all the other users are as they are shown in the photographs on their userpages. I realize you are not against all Jewish lists but you did support IZAK's amendment to remove most Jewish-related lists. I personally voted to keep some of the lists involved in the dispute which I now probably wouldn't vote to keep so I am not in favour of keeping most of them either although I think it is perfectly acceptable to have a historical lists but I can't really see the encyclopedic validity of listing living Jewish people. Arniep00:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I said I wouldn't respond again but there you go. Arnie, just because they gave you different names doesn't mean they really do have different names. Just because you've googled those names and found entries doesn't mean those are the real names. (And the one you mention as working for the British govt: it's a minor civil servant's position, and there's no evidence that person is connected to the Wikipedia accounts). There's other evidence linking them, nothing to do with check user, but to do with material that person has posted or e-mailed, and it can't be discussed openly because then he or she will know to stop doing it. In any event, it doesn't matter so long as they don't post to the same pages and act to deceive other users. SlimVirgin(talk)00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above it is not just the names that make it extremely unlikely that these are all the same people. They made completely independent edits on completely different subjects for up to 6 months before the voting on the afds and cfds, RachelBrown on Bible and Jewish subjects, Taxwoman on fetish subjects, Londoneye on London locations, and Poetlister on literature. Why would they have made four different accounts in advance to stack vote if they had never shown any interest in afd or cfd until User:Antidote started his campaign of mass sock puppet deletion in late October? The other users only started backing up Rachel after she felt she was being harrassed on Talk:List of Jewish jurists and they voted on the afds and cfds after me and Rachel asked them to do so. All the users involved have requested that their full ip data be sent to them but this has not been done. I still haven't received a reasonable explanation as to why an admin hasn't reviewed the Antidote case and the sock puppets of User:Antidote who wanted to delete the Jewish lists have not been blocked whereas these users who are not sockpuppets and supported the Jewish lists were. Arniep01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, Arnie, the difference between you and me is that your statements are all based on guesswork, "it seems reasonable to me" arguments, and e-mails from various alleged individuals with pretty pictures on their user pages. On the other hand, my statements are based on hard evidence, of which CheckUser results are only a part. And I'm certainly not going to release that evidence to you, nor to the often mentioned, but never actually seen, "request" by Rachel Brown that the evidence be released to her. We're not in the business of teaching sockpuppets how to be better sockpuppets. Now, since you are simply guessing about all this, whereas I actually know what I'm talking about, until you actually personally meet with the "individuals" in question, I'm going to have to insist that you stop bringing up this topic, which has crossed over the line from whining to actual harassment. Consider yourself duly notified. Jayjg (talk)04:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to act civily here and I don't think I am harassing anyone. I shouldn't have headed this topic with your username as you certainly weren't the originator of this dispute, and if you feel attacked I apologize for that. I had thought that Rachel and Poetlister had made a request for ip data, if this was not the case I will ask them to do so and copy me the email. Arniep15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a complaint about Jayjg (talk·contribs). He misidentified Baba Louis (talk·contribs) and Chai Walla (talk·contribs) as being sockpuppets of myself. When I asked him to reexamine in light of the fact that we were travelling together, he declined to do so saying that it was impossible to verify. I realize that he still would not be able to tell if there was one or three individuals, but he could have at least done nslookup and whois queries on the IP addresses to verify that the edits were indeed coming from first Austin, then the Hilton in Albuquerque, then the Taos Inn and a cybercafe in Taos, NM. At the point I made the request, I was already back in Austin, Chai Walla was in Seattle and Baba Louis had made a edit to my talk page from the Dallas airport. It should have been easy to verify that we had separated. I know records are only kept for a week, so refusing to revisit the issue means that when another admin gets around to looking at it, it will no longer be possible to verify the travel, only that we are now in separate locations. Either there should be a formal process to request a second opinion, or the first admin should be willing to look again if asked. —Adityanath18:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read your explanation as well. It turns out you weren't sockpuppeting at all, but you "all" simply worked together at the same location, and then travelled together to other countries, where "they" were all using your laptop without your knowledge, making the exact same edits as you. Your story is compelling as Rachel Brown's. Jayjg (talk)18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they used my laptop without my knowledge. We were collaborating, and passing it to the next person who wanted to make an edit. We are all members of the same Nath lineage and have similar but not identical opinions on the articles we worked on. If you couldn't tell we were moving, you must not be very ept with network tools. Why would we all lug laptops to NM when we could share one? You are making an insulting assumption rather than looking again at the data and the subsequent data which would clear me. Why are you so stuck on your own opinion? Are you afraid that you will have to admit to having made a mistake? Even the person who filed the original request has now realized that he was wrong! —Adityanath18:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has this bot been approved to do what it says it's doing on its User page? I see a request to do quick non-manual changes, but the request never explained what it was going to do. User:Zoe|(talk)03:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
his anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi vitriol deserve a long block (see the history of User talk:Licorne);
he made numerous attempts to evade his block with various IP addresses (see User talk:Licorne for the IP's and block logs).
I am posting here for maximum transparency, because I think it is unusual to reblock a user after his block has expired (without clear evidence of misbehavior after the expiry). His talk page has also been protected, but I suppose he can email me if he likes. –Joke03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, the ArbCom reached a final decision, so if anything about this was controversial, it's now an academic question. –Joke04:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The USAA page has a long history of vandalism by one user, originating with user Robertjkoenig, who was permanently banned by Jimbo Wales. Since then, numerous sockpuppets have popped up to attempt to prop up his POV airing of his perceived wrongs [Talk:USAA/Archive09]. It culminated with what I believe to be banning of several of the sockpuppets when children's pictures were posted in Koenig's diatribe.
The vandal has returned, with the same modus operandi, and reverting the page to the same language, and I request this sockpuppet be banned as well. [53]
I just want to add that Koenig recently said on Talk:USAA that the reason he is persisting is to get his material in Google's archives so it shows up in searches. I can't cite the diffs because the whole talk page was deleted and re-created without these comments, but I guess an admin can still see them. Anyway, I found this to be a serious misuse of Wikipedia and further cause to block all Koenig sockpuppets. --Allen03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism on my talk page
Recently, Randazzo56, Fat Carl and User:205.188.116.203 have all vandalized my talk page. The first incident happened when Randazzo56 began challenging my interests in certain cars (namely the Eagle Premier and the Plymouth Acclaim). I warned him twice about it, then he left a last message on my talk page stating that he "couldn't care less" if I decided to take action against him (which I obviously did). Then shortly afterwards, Fat Carl arrived and said "Im laughing at your knowledge". Then after I reverted that, 205.188.116.203 came along and said he would "rather be a vandal than a snot nosed little shit, like you." Since all three of these guys have vandalized my talk page less than two hours apart, have vandalized similar pages and were all blocked for various offenses, I heavily suspect these three are related somehow. --ApolloBoy03:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have my suspicions about these two accounts being connected as well -- they've made similar contributions at Bonnie and Clyde. Have you considered entering a request for a check to see if they're editing from the same IP address? You can make one here: WP:RCU. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to it. Who exactly are you suspecting the socket puppets belong to? Evidence? Violation? Using sockets in it itself is not against the policy. There has to be rules broken to request for a checkuser. --Jqiz07:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid question, of course, and I should have made that more clear. The reason I didn't was that I'm not actually asking for a checkuser (which isn't done here) I'm asking if I should ask (over at Requests for CheckUser).
If, for arguments sake only, these were your sockpuppets then you'd have broken the 3RR and would have violated a policy. In fact, I think that if any two of the three of these could be shown to be the same person, it would be a 3R violation.
Again, not making accusations but we've got you reverting to the explicit image four times, fuzzie doing so once, Gmcfoley twice, Sn0rlax twice and the "very new users" six times.
There are lots of possible combinations there that add up to 4 reverts, especially when noting that both you and Sn0rlax only started reverting after sprotect was applied.
Despite everything I've just said, I actually just wanted an opinion on the bounds in which check user was applied, as it's not something I'm terribly familiar with.
I'd wonder myself to be honest if I were in your position. I have nothing to hide. If you do want to ask for a usercheck, you'd have my blessing to go on with it. I believe the revert war was due to prior disagreements on the explicit picture, hence, no consensus. --Jqiz20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is only pretty recently that we even started to formalize requests for checkuser. I think rules and practices are still a little bit fluid. In my opinion, in a case of lots of new accounts immediately joining a revert war, it is not even necessay to request checkuser, they can just be blocked unceremoniously as obvious socks, never mind who exactly is whose sock. I think people have better things to do than play Sherlock Holmes with sock artists. dab(ᛏ)08:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jqiz, you're right that sockpuppets aren't prohibited. But using sockpuppets to be disruptive (in any manner of ways -- circumventing policies, manipulating consensus, etc.), then they may be blocked. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)What precident? I have always blocked obvious disruptive sockpuppets as socks even if i'm not sure who they belong to. I have seen other admins do the same. Yes there are legitimate reasons for creating socks. Edit warring isn't one of them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn16:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you may have a reason for the block for possibly violating the 3RR if you suspect it is under one person. Violation are per person. But, if a suspected socket jumps into the flay of a massive editting war, then is it really justified? A warning would have more merit than an outright block --Jqiz20:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attacked
It has just come to my notice that User:Jimididit has posted a rather nasty message about me at Talk:Football#Conduct_in_this_article., then followed up with nasty crossposts at Talk:Football (soccer), Talk:Rugby Union and Talk:American football. I have never edited any of these articles, so did not have them on my watchlist. I have never had any interaction with User:Jimididit on Wikipedia, except for being one of the many recipients of his petition to get his old username back. He/she has not approached me to discuss anything. Basically, I wouldn't known him/her from a bar of soap.
As far as I'm concerned, going around attacking and undermining people behind their backs is unacceptable. On further investigation I see that Jimididit seems to be on a mission to accuse every single Wikipedia administrator of abuse of powers, and I am merely one of his/her victims.
Jimididit's grief with me appears to be based on the fact that I blocked User:J is me for repeatedly vandalising User:Grant65's user page with bad faith suspected sockpuppet banners, while not taking any action against Grant65 for posting good-faith (and probably correct) suspected sockpuppet banners.
I would prefer not to act to defend myself, as I might over-react, and I'm sure any action I might take would only feed the troll. If anyone out there is prepared to review the situation and take appropriate action, I commend the situation to your care. Snottygobble05:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an extension of the unambiguously named thread "User:Jimididit trolling to be a dick" above, for the brave soul(s) looking to take this on. At the very least, the conduct, if not the issues themselves, seems to carry over. JDoorjamTalk06:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cart before horse? I know I'm tired and my eyes are bleary, but isn't the unprovoked broadside on Snottygobble from before the bizzare complaint on Jimbo's talk page? I also note that the guy's talk page is still mightyly bare of "hey, be nice" messages. Perhaps we try to modify his behavior positivly, eh? - brenneman{L}06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All these vandals have edited Harry Potter character pages and changed the default Harry Potter colour scheme to something ridiculous . The first one was given a serious warning by Drini as well as myself, the second and third were both warned by me. This is starting to get out of hand as I've had to revert every change made. Check the user's contributions and you'll see what I mean. — File:Ottawa flag.pngnathanrdotcom(T • C • W) - 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC) (posted via NathanHP)[reply]
Formally this not a vandalism, but a content dispute. Maybe you should report them 3RR assuming this is one user with socks. I can sprotect all the articles to prevent sockpupeeting. abakharev07:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if it's a dynamic ip like AOL, it might not be sockpuppeting so much as 3RR under multiple IPs. Sockpuppeting refers to using multiple accounts or purposely changing IPs. Ral315 (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...if you have time, I'd like your help and assistance please!
I'm a relatively new member, so please bare with me :)
I would like you help and/or advice in dealing with a certain user please. The user is question is Hotwiki. After making improvements to articles such as the Spice Girls (which I completely rewrote) and their members pages (Geri Halliwell, Melanie Brown, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Chisholm and Emma Bunton), its become very clear that hotwiki has a problem with me and constantly reverts any improvements I made to articles (best illustrated on the Geri Halliwell page, where he is also reverting edits made by other users).
There is a dispute over the Spice Girls discography; it was recently suggested that the Spice Girls library be merged with it and that the solo information included on the page be put on the girls own individual pages. The consensus agreement after discussions agreed with this view - with the sole exception of hotwiki, who seems to think he has some divine say over what does and does not go into the articles. And last night he made his objections personal, contravening wiki regulations on civility, in the Geri discussion page. This dispute has since spiralled and is effecting other pages. After discussions with other users on the best course of action, it was suggested that I should contact an admin to help resolve this childish situation - because quite frankly its petty and reflects very badly on Wikipedia.
Hotwiki is generally rude, arrogant and very hostile with a range of users - simply look at his discussion page and/or the additions he made to other people's discussion pages for evidence of this. His problem with me personally could well stem from outside of Wikipedia; I was a moderator on a large internet forum, which stemmed from a Spice Girls fan site. I don’t know what hotwiki's username is on the forum, but he has made it clear he was/is a member; so his hostility to me might stem from the fact I gave him an official warning or banned him whilst being a mod. Who knows. What is clear though is that he cannot continue the way he is acting because it reflects badly on this site and creates a negative and hostile environment.
Any help or advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated - and for now I'd like to keep this conversation on your discussion page (rather than mine) if you don’t mind. I am also going to contact one or two other users to see if they wish to make a contribution to this complaint, that way giving you more scope and different points of view. Thanks for you time - sorry to bother you over something so incredibly lame! Rimmers01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention on opening an RFC yet, because Hotwiki has made some fabulous contributions to Wikipedia, which includes categorization, creating new articles, and expanding to certain lengths. I merely wish for him to be warned or serve a short block for disrpution of a few policies for now. Perhaps an RFC will have to be opened eventually though, but certainly not yet. I don't wish to jump the bullet train. —Eternal Equinox | talk20:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this from WP:AIV. Another admin there has already expressed doubts whether this is Lightbringer or not. I don't know that much about the Lightbringer case, so I'll leave this to those more familiar with the situation. - TexasAndroid15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the rhetoric is similar to Lightbringer, recent socks have shown a tendency towards learning from his mistakes, the line about those who are prepared to identify as Masons didn't quite get to the 'should be banned' stage, but pretty close and some of the commenting in talk pages clearly shows some familiarity with the various viewpoints and previous discussions. I'd say likely but not definitive at the moment.
Serial vandal 38.112.87.6 blocked for two months, second opinion requested
This ARIN WHOIS report says it's registered to "Performance Systems International Inc". That didn't seem to qualify as a shared IP from what I've seen of them. The earlier long-term block by Hall Monitor and the fact that I couldn't find any good edits made me more confident that I wouldn't be doing collateral damage. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian)(talk)16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked him for a month following his latest outburst. He has repeatedly been blocked for incivility and it is clear he has no intentions whatsoever of reforming. He's just getting even more vulgar and disruptive over time. Frankly, I think a one month block may be too short. Here's his latest:
[56][57][58][59]
--Cyde Weys17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked him. The first time I've stepped into this Zephram Stark mess. But the copying of the previous sockpupet's talk page made it so obviously a sock-puppet. - TexasAndroid19:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Quadell (talk·contribs) for making the same kinds of edits which Bobblewik has made in the past (the frequent delinking of links to years). He is fully aware of the controversy Bobblewik has caused with his edits and he knows that there is significant disagreement over the relevant section which he claims to be enforcing. Given this disagreement, I think that people should not make edits away from the status quo in regards to date links until collective consensus has been reached, deciding what our guidelines should be on this issue. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Talrias, as you know I very rarely undo other people's blocks, but I've undone this one because Quadell is one of our best editors and admins, and extremely reasonable, so I'm certain you can talk this issue through with him. I'm sorry to undo your block. I mean no disrespect by it. SlimVirgin(talk)19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, of all people I would have thought might unblock Quadell, you were probably near the very bottom, given our history. I'm disappointed you didn't ask me about it first. If you were to look at Quadell's talk page, you can see I was quite happy to unblock him if he promised to stop making those kinds of edits, at least until we come up with an acceptable compromise. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry, Talrias. I don't like undoing other admin actions, but I felt this block was highly inappropriate, and you were arguably involved in the content dispute so that complicated matters. Moving on, I've posted a proposed compromise text for the MoS, which I'm hoping both sides might agree to. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. SlimVirgin(talk)20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on? How is abiding by the policy of WP:DATE "disruptive"? If you want to change the policy on date links then do it the proper way, don't block people making edits that conform with the policy. --Cyde Weys19:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde, the manual of style is recommended style guideline, not a policy. Also, as someone who has contributed in the discussion on the style guideline yourself, you are well aware that there is significant disagreement over the appropriateness of the recommendation in question. Given this, making fast and frequent edits enforcing a style guideline across multiple articles is not just impolite but disruptive. This is why I blocked. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? Last time I checked WP:CONTEXT has been active for awhile. There's no controversy here. Justlikenoteverywordinasentenceshouldbelinked, not every occurrence of a date should be linked. The only reason some dates are currently linked is for preferences formatting (there's actually an ongoing feature request to get that fixed too). It's not controversial to clean up the clutter of unnecessary date links that don't contain enough information to work properly with date preferences formatting. --Cyde Weys19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How am I supposed to discuss this with you if you do not even accept that there are people who disagree with you on this? You are presenting opinion as fact - and clouding the issue by suggesting it is about whether all dates should be linked. I don't think anyone is arguing for that. What I, and many others, want, is for articles to be treated on an article-by-article basis, with years linked to provide historical context for the events described in the article. I just saw Quadell delink, through the same script which Bobblewik used, every single date link on a historical list. I can't think of a more appropriate article to have links for years on. In any case, as I have argued on WP:DATE's talk page, people like finding out what else happened in the year in question. I am one of those people. What is the point of having an encyclopaedia on the web, with all the advantages of hyperlinks it gives us, if we do not utilise them? I don't really want to summarise and duplicate all the arguments made on the talk page, but there is disagreement on the issue, and I think Wikipedia is better served by deciding and adopting a sensible compromise than one group of people removing as many date links as they can find and ignoring the fact that other people disagree, and another group of people finding out that a frequently-used group of links are being removed, causing much frustration all around. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talrias, contrary to your assertion above, we already have guidelines regarding dates, and that is that they should not be linked:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Avoid overlinking dates - this is hardly controversial. Also, was his behaviour that disruptive? Did you contact him before the blocking? I see no justification for blocking a longstanding editor in good standing on such dubious grounds, and I'm quite concerned about the apparent precipitousness of these actions. Jayjg (talk)19:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have an opinion on the date-linking issue one way or the other, but I am concerned with the blocking without warning of a longtime user and admin. Judging from Quadell's talk page, I don't believe his edits were disruptive enough to warrant a block (i.e., there aren't numerous messages there asking him to stop). Nor do I do see any evidence that you asked Quadell to stop before implementing the block—that, in my opinion, should have been the first step. —WaywardTalk20:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to both Wayward and Jayjg, I blocked Quadell without asking he stop first on his talk page was that he is making edits exactly the same as Bobblewik (in fact, using the same script as Bobblewik used/uses). Bobblewik was blocked for making similar edits. I am confident that Quadell knows that Bobblewik was blocked for these edits, and he knows that there is significant disagreement about the issue. Given this, I felt my blocking was appropriate. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not have an opinion either about linking dates, but I am surprised that Quadell was blocked over a minor issue like this without warning. Talrias, I think you have overstepped and quite poorly. Quadell has a long history of productive edits and has stated that he is manually checking every date reference according to the MOS. You should have brought this to WP:AN/I. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the fact that Quadell was using the same script as Bobblewik used. As you can see by looking through the history of Bobblewik's talk page, they have collaborated on it. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Bobble was blocked for delinking dates -- that would be silly. I think he was blocked for running a bot. I know there is disagreement between you and the Manual of Style, but I didn't see that as a reason for me to change my editing. – Quadell(talk) (bounties)20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that Bobblewik was blocked for delinking dates, in (at least) one case for being rather fast at it. I don't think anyone has contended he is running a bot for some time (with the exception of Jimbo, though how he got the idea, I don't know). I also note that one of his critics who criticised his speed had edited faster than he did. I also note that Bobblewik requested at the time a statement of what speed was ok to edit at and got no reply. In other words his blocks were on a par with Quadell's, the only difference is that Bobblewik showed an incredible patience with being blocked, Quadell a merely credible patience. Rich Farmbrough 21:03 26 March2006 (UTC).
Cyde, that request is irrelevant. Quadell was making changes to solitary year links which has no relation to date format preferences. Correct me if I'm wrong. GfloresTalk21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just linking to it because I mentioned it in one of my comments and wanted people to know what I was talking about. And it's a good proposal. --Cyde Weys21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he wasn't warned, he shouldn't have been blocked, especially for changes so extremely unimportant to the encyclopedia. This block is very counterproductive. I would suggest Talrias find a few articles to write. Even if Quadell was going against a guideline, it should have been submitted to WP:AN/I to wait for other comments—or are there some pressing matters related to date formatting that I am not aware of? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-24 19:52
As for Quadell's changes... I almost always link the birth/death years in an article, as well as years for important events in the person's life. I've written over a thousand articles and have done this in every one. So, I would disagree with Quadell simply because I don't want to go back and unlink all of those dates :) If Quadell wants to delink them, feel free. It's not important, and does not warrant blocking a valuable contributor. Now, if Quadell has limited himself to making such minor edits, then I would suggest finding something more important to do; I see many of the MoS guidelines as "guidelines on starting an article" rather than "guidelines on fixing an article". — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-24
I did some digging around to find the basis for that section of the Manual of Style, to try and find some basis for the differing viewpoints we find ourselves presented with today. I found that it was originally added by, of all people, Bobblewik, back in mid-April, 2005, where he made an edit saying he was eliminating an inconsistency. He also added the text "Other date forms such as year only (e.g. 1981) should be treated like any other words and linked only if there is some particular relevance.", without mentioning this in the edit summary, nor discussing it on the talk page. A related issue was raised on the talk page, which can be seen in archive 17, however this mentions only the duplicate linking of years (i.e., where a year is linked more than once in an article). I believe this change should have been reverted and discussed on the talk page, especially since the edit summary does not mention this change.
Over time this gradually was changed by various people into the text we have today, as far as I can tell without much discussion, into requiring "special relevance" and a "strong reason" before linking a year. This is a good example of "creeping guidelines", where an important page has been modified slowly but surely over time into what its advocates can now declare are "uncontroversial" guidelines. Now, when people (such as myself) are questioning the guideline, I am being told "this is a part of the guideline, shut up and do something else". Well, I think that is appalling. There are only a few policies on Wikipedia which are not subject to change. I can count them on one hand, and this is definitely not one of them. I've tried to have a debate on this issue a number of times before, but it has always been the case that "the mos says this, end of discussion". Raul's 7th law, "[a]s time goes on, the rules and informal policies on Wikipedia tend to become less and less plastic and harder and harder to change", applies well here. This is the reason I suggested task forces - to make sure policies and guidelines are discussed openly, are always available for debate and are not subject to this gradual and incremental modification we've seen on this dates linking fiasco (note: I also wrote this on the proposed compromise page; it seemed appropriate in both places). Talrias (t | e | c) 23:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about the guideline. I care about its unimportance, and the amount of time being wasted on it. I suggest doing something more important, regardless of what the guideline says. If you want to incorrectly interpret that as "shut up and follow the guideline", feel free. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-25 01:09
Further proof that it is Zephram: He's using an image that he previously uploaded as Zephram. It appears he is now at Wikipeida Commons, and under the username Tim, has uploaded many of the images that were deleted from Wikipedia See here. Good Lord... --JW1805(Talk)22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is removing administratove tags considered vandalism?
User:Bonaparte removed the tag on his talkpage which read that he has been "blocked indefinitely" on Wiki. User:Irpenrestored the tag by reverting the page and said that "removing administratove tags is vandalism." Is this really the case? Can't a user have the right to integrity on Wikipedia, or do we have to make the whole world know that they have been blocked? I understand why this is done to sex-offenders in the real world, but why must a user on Wikipedia be stamped with tags that says he has been blocked? This reminds me of the punishments of Medieval Age where offenders were ridiculed and embarrassed in public. --Candide, or Optimism21:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tag needs to remain and I have protected the talk page too so that it stays that way. He is a banned user and now has demosntrated he can't be trusted to even edit his own page. Unfortunate.Gator(talk)22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of several reasons. Warning users that any edits they come across by this user may be suspect, for one. Indicating to other users that Wikipedia volunteers have the means available to prevent disruption, for another. Certainly the word 'integrity' does not leap to the mind when considering sockpuppet farms. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian)(talk)22:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tag's not as important as his request to be unblocked - he just made one on his talk page, but no one seems to have responded. --Latinus23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a 'scare tactic' at all. Rather, as has been said above, I think it's simply a reference for other users as to how seriously to take that user's edits/activity, and can be useful if a similarly named sockpuppet presents itself. --InShaneee17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is one of those times where I wish I were an admin...if I were, this account would've been blocked already. Can someone block for me? --TML198806:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User: IP Address keeps on making personal attacks on my talk page.[60] I warned him on his talk page about the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, but he kept up, anyway. We're having a dispute over an article I wrote, "spic". I kept most of his changes to the entry, even though they're unsourced (my sources are listed at the bottom of the entry) and I think, somewhat irrelevant. Now, he's edit warring with me, even though his version deletes a lot of information. (He says that etymology is irrelevant to an article about a word.)[61] His current version is unacceptable because it deletes a lot of helpful information and it's repetitive. Thanks.--Primetime22:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why all of his changes should be kept, but none of mine should. He hasn't compromised with me one bit and he's made personal attacks on me. His behavior seems very unacceptable to me.--Primetime23:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you want the article merely to reflect your Wiktionary approach. User:Will Beback has already commented on this and has instructed you what is the proper course of action. It's not merely me that you are running into problems with. Perhaps you should WP:AGF? IP Address23:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I certainly haven't commented on this matter. Thanks to Sam giving this edit war a timeout. -Will Beback 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Poliomyelitis
Could Poliomyelitis be semi-protected please? There is a spate of Vitamin C from IP addresses, at least if they are User IDs there is a little consistency in the trail. Midgley23:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked Benapgar(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) for incivility and disruption. As those who are familiar with his case (or his block log) know, Benapgar has had a detailed history of disruption and obscene personal attacks against other editors, especially as regards to the article Intelligent design. There is currently a WP:RFAR filed against him for this reason, which has not (at the time of this writing) been opened.
Some recent diffs, for which he was recently issued his second 1 month block (which I have extended to an indefinite block):
[63] "How about this: Jesus H. Motherfucking Cocksucking Christ you are a Goddamned fucking idiot. How's that, shitfuck?" Also includes an image of a Prince Albert piercing on another user's talk page.
I don't see any need to waste the time of the Arbitration Committee with this user; in my opinion, he should be considered banned from the English Wikipedia. --Ryan Delaneytalk00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heartily agree with this move, which, in my opinion, is what the Arbitration Committee would have decided anyway, and I have suggested to the rest of the Committee that we avert the case despite the number of accept votes it had before this. Dmcdevit·t00:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They should both stop it. Quadell is fully aware of the situation and the fact that Bobblewik has collected escalating blocks for exactly the same editorial behaviour, having recently collected one himself. I am minded to block him likewise. Ambi should should stop reverting, because one crusade is as bad as the next. -Splashtalk05:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde, you know full well that the section in question has been under debate for several months now. Please stop selectively ignoring some of the facts of this situation. It's duplicitous. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OrphanBot (talk·contribs) must be blocked immediately. It meets several criteria for blocking. First of all, it disrupts the editing process. It basically spams Wikipedians who then must go back and (re-)tag images. True, these Wikipedians were responsible in the first place for not following image-tagging rules, but we must decide what we want this project to be. Are we going to let the rules fill talk-pages and make Wikipedian morale suffer? The way I see it, OrphanBot is a horrible thing that invariably acts in *bad faith*. I saw one case where a user left due to OrphanBot’s incessant spamming of him and ultimate deletion of his content, which could have been very important content.
OrphanBot is also inefficient inasmuch as many users will simply appease it by placing the wrong tag, just to save their important images and to get the obnoxious OrphanBot to leave them alone. It would be much better to simply have Wikipedians looking out for image-policy violations, since Wikipedians are able to follow-up. OrphanBot is easily fooled and I have to wonder how many great images it’s caused us to lose for no reason other than to stroke its creator’s ego.
I disagree with this comment. The OrphanBot is doing a huge amount of tedious but good work. If administrators would write to you about an image, the message would be basically the same.
Destruction is good work? I thought Wikipedia was about information. We would be slower using human beings, but what rush are we in? It's not like the English Wikipedia is being published next month and all copyrights must be secure. We have plenty of time, and all this bot does is get things deleted. Isn't the goal to keep the images on wikipedia and just tag them? juppiterbon giorno#c06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but Wikipedia is rapidly becoming a highly-popular site, which makes us more of a magnet for litigation. And who said that we have to wait until we publish to secure copyright? Titoxd(?!? - help us)07:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it *is* becoming highly-popular. But the masses will abandon us if they start finding that every time they come here, the deletionists have gotten their hands on something else. I'm all for rules, but this adherence to the rules is much much too strict. We must put it in the hands of Wikipedians to control this privately, and not with this bot. juppiterbon giorno#c07:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone on OrphanBot's talk page said they were leaving because of it. Who knows if they actually did? The comment was unsigned. But coming on and finding 10 image tag messages definitely does not put one in a good mood. It's very discouraging and makes this a more contentious atmosphere than it should be. juppiterbon giorno#c06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia takes copyrights seriously, and properly tagging images is required to verify its license. I'd rather be notified that an image I uploaded is lacking a proper tag so that I could quickly correct it, rather than later finding it deleted per Wikipedia policy. — TheKMantalk06:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100% that copyright should not be taken a joke, but like I said OrphanBot is not efficient. People get so annoyed with it that they'll just stick any old tag on their image (& I know because I've done it) and then not learn their lesson. In addition, the bot makes mistakes and will continue harassing you sometimes even after you've put everything on the page that logically needs to be there (i.e. the times when you actually put the right tag on instead of just trying to shut the damn thing up.) A peer-to-peer system is much better since the templates would not pile up on talk pages so much (I have about 5 on mine right now) and it would decrease aggravation. Remember, Wikipedia could survive without the bot. Without users, it cannot. juppiterbon giorno#c07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for admitting that you've deliberately mistagged images. We are currently far too lenient on people who upload non-free material. There is no way that humans could realistically tag all unknown uploads. Secretlondon15:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If people leave over orphan bot, those are the type of people that should leave the project anyways, since copyright violations bring harm to the project. Oprhanbot, and it;s creator, are doing a good job. The uploaders are notified, and if the license is changed to something false, we catch it and run orphan bot again. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)06:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not always a violation, maybe just a general ignorance of image policy! The bot certainly doesn’t help with educating people on that (maybe its text says something about it, it’s very unlikely that anyone does more than skim the message.) I don’t think rules were meant to be broken, but there needs to be leeway. It’s raising acrimony. Acrimony is bad. juppiterbon giorno#c07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the image taggers. OrphanBot merely carries the image tags out. Some people continue to tag an image as "no source" despite it being self-evident that the user created it. For example, I have uploaded an image with the summary, "by me" and it was still tagged as no source because I used the GFDL template rather than GFDL-self. I later found out it was deleted. This infuriated me quite a bit. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way I look at it is simply that Orphanbot is far better than having nothing (ie, hoping some wikipedians decide to sort through the then-massive backlog of untagged images). Sure, some people may find it annoying, but think of it this way: Once you learn how to properly tag images, you never hear from it again. Sure, incorrect tagging is a big problem, but not one that should be blamed on Orphanbot. I have a feeling that users that mistag images would do the same thing if told by another person that their image was untagged. --InShaneee17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I think OrphanBot's doing a great service with image tagging; the actual humans doing the tagging and deleting are the ones who occasionally screw up, and would do so, bot or no. This is a really humongous problem, to the point where it would be impossible for a human to tackle without automated assistance, and from what I've seen of OrphanBot it does its task quite well. Mindspillage(spill yours?)01:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think OrphanBot is acticvely helping us make a better encyclopedia, and if there are failings here, they're all on the part of the human editors. -Colin Kimbrell20:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instantnood, post Arbcom
Instantnood has now had his second Arbcom case finalized. Since it was finalized, Instantnood has continued the exact same behavior he's been restricted from doing: edit warring over naming issues and making POV re-orgs (and edit warring with those that change it).
Of 73 article space edits, 53% of them(!!) are the prohibited behavior. Earlier today, he managed to rack up almost 30 reverts in a single hour of editing. On most of the pages he's edited, his revert wars take up the last several weeks (or months!) of page history.
So, can I ask an admin to take action? You can see a breakdown of the edits on this subpage: User:SchmuckyTheCat/Mick Jagger. Last few times I've reported his warring the response was crickets. Now that Arbcom had to rule AGAIN that he's a disruptive revert warrior...
This IP address has continuosly been adding spam links to certain Tool related pages(10,000 Days and Tool (band). They have been warned and I think it's about time to consider a block. Hope I got this in the right place! hellboy09:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Gastrich Sock
User:70751 has a short and suspicious edit history, consisting solely of edits to Gastrich's userpage, and an unaccredited Christian College. Sockpuppetry is in direct violation of the terms of his arbitration. Is this worthy of a CheckUser request? Hexagonal10:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's very nice of you Eugene, and I'm sure the user appreciates it. But to the issue at hand, he seems to have made only one edit, the one to this board, so I'm rather afraid I don't have any idea what the complaint is about. The toolserver seems to be down so I can't check if he had made deleted edits. —Encephalon13:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also the IP that placed this request is an open proxy. Open proxy fraud was exactly the activity that got Bonaparte permabanned. Should the IP be blocked as well? --Irpen06:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From: checkuser-l-owner@wikipedia.org <checkuser-l-owner@wikipedia.org>
To: checkuser-l-owner@wikipedia.org
Date: 25-Mar-2006 09:29
Subject: New subscription request to list CheckUser-l from jarlaxleartemis@msn.com
Your authorization is required for a mailing list subscription request
approval:
For: jarlaxleartemis@msn.com
List: checkuser-l@Wikipedia.org
At your convenience, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/admindb/checkuser-l
to process the request.
And he just tried a password request from every admin on Uncyclopedia. Well done! He's been long blocked there too, for uploading porn, and I've blocked his IP for a month from Uncyclopedia. I've done so preemptively on Wikipedia too, because he's clearly in the mood for trashing stuff. I wonder what other wikis he's going to hit - David Gerard12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user:JarlaxleArtemis was previously banned permanently for attacks on editors on a variety of Wikis. He was unbanned in November 2005 on the urging of user:Linuxbeak conditional on certian requirements, including mentoring parole, apologies to harmed users, and turning over the passwords of doppelganger accounts that he had created. Because he never fulfilled those requirements he has been blocked, though he seems to be making some effort at meeting them, even while claiming he was never guilty of the allegations and has already completed the requirements. If this new act of mischief can be traced to him I propose that either his permanent banning, or the one-year banning originally pending at the ArbCom be re-instated on the grounds that this is a gross violation of his parole. -Will Beback00:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it complies with the proposed policy Wikipedia:Vote Stacking. All Bertil is doing is posting a link to the AFD. He's not telling people what to vote Without him informing me, I wouldn't have known about the debate. --Latinus19:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does say that 'Notifing only people who you believe would agree with "your" position is a violation of this guideline'. I haven't checked yet, but it would seriously surprise me if any of the people he notified didn't vote with him, in which case I think action is still warranted. --InShaneee01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And do what? Strike out all the "keep" votes? I don't think that's possible... also, I think that it would be assuming bad faith (i.e. violating WP:AGF) to assume that Bertil only notified user who he believed would vote keep - there is no evidence that he believed any such thing (this is not wikilawyering - it is a defect in the proposed guideline and I have brought it to the attention of the guideline's authors so that they can remedy it). --Latinus20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonono. First, you (Latinus) already have a conflicting bias in this situation: you have been notified (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Latinus&diff=prev&oldid=45344415) via talk page, and have voted keep. It's not your fault, but you can already be considered tainted. Second: the following people who have been contacted have voted on the AFD:
DuncanBCS - keep
Hectorian - keep
Mukadderat - keep
Latinus - Strong keep
Nikosilver - Keep
Scranchuse - Keep
Choalbaton - Keep
Bhoeble - Keep
Moby Dick - Strong Keep
Tazmaniacs - Keep
Mais oui! - Keep
Three of the editors that were contacted did not participate in the AFD: Green Giant, Staffelde, and KillerChihuahua. You state that you think it would be assuming bad faith to assume that Bertil notified only users who he believed would vote keep... there's a difference between assuming good faith and being dense. Of course he only notified people that would agree with him; why would he notify people who would disagree with him? I mean, come on. Whatever your take on the issue is, it's blatantly obvious what has happened here. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I had edited Turkish Kurdistan twice [78][79] prior to it being placed on AFD and prior to Bertilvidet's message to me, so I would have expressed my view, message or not. I have had only minor communication with Bertilvidet, so it is rather presumptuous to assume that he could know what my view would be.
Where's this ridiculous policy going to go in the end? Disenfranchise all users who receive such a message? Now there's an idea with potential for abuse. --Moby08:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just got aware of this post. Cool Cat, when you posted a complaint about me I believe it would have been decent if you informed me about it.
The debate on the AfD became quite unpleasant, so I dont find it fruitful to advance my case there. Retrospectively, I can see that my spread of the word about the AfD could seem abusive. However, I want to underline that on purpose I sent it to people who I believe are open for arguments, and I didnt expect a common outcome. Furthermore I avoided to send it to people personally involved in the issue (didn't sent it to people I know as Kurdish or Turkish users). I also noticed that the message was passed on to the Turkish and Iranian users, who I would expect to support deletion - in most cases with the argument that voters should be gathered to get majority for deletion. In that situation I believed that a broad range of users with different backgrounds should have the possibility to voice their views on the issue.
In a short time, there have been several proposals for deletion of categories, stubs and articles related to Kurds - which has become rather trite, and probably created an atmosphere of irritation with lots of inappropriate comments (including personal attacks, semi racist and anti-Turkish comments). May I suggest that we from now on concentrate our efforts on improving Wikipedia, and consider our different approaches as an advantagde in order to write NPOV and balanced articles. Bertilvidet10:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, it's worse than that! Reviewing the contributions (that it's making every 6 seconds), I see that it moves the trailing ]]s to s]] on piped links. That's against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Form.
But you posted on WT:B before my user page. I resolved the then issue (I thought). And now you have posted on about half a dozen admin pages without coming back to me, when I was quite prepared to bend over backwards to accomodate you, and am still prepared to sort out any difficulty, fix any one off errors and scan for and revert any systemic that are confirmed to be wrong. I don't see how I alienated you here. Rich Farmbrough 17:57 26 March2006 (UTC).
"Actually Rich, now that I check the edits more carefully, it seems only to be delinking days and months, which so far as I know, no one objects to, so I'm going to unblock it. My apologies. SlimVirgin(talk)07:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
I'm off to bed now, so I hereby give any admin permission to unblock SmackBot if Rich Farmbrough gives assurance that he has fixed these issues, or if said admin feels I have blocked in error. Hermione198002:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Geni did the right thing, there's no point putting a short block on a bot. I will be back later to discuss. Rich Farmbrough 13:42 26 March2006 (UTC).
I'm not sure whether a permablock is warranted, but, as loath as I am to stand up for a GNAA member, I would at least temporarily block him until this is resolved. If this isn't considered personal information, it's certainly darn close. --InShaneee01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That first edit does look inappropriate and was removed. The other two, however, are ancient by Wikipedia standards. Barring future incidents, I'm not sure this is a huge deal (and a permablock seems like overkill). And if it makes you feel any better, InShaneee, you're not standing up for a GNAA member, you're standing up for evenhandedness, equal treatment, and WP:AGF. Or something. JDoorjamTalk02:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another bit of info in Femmina's defense: after I removed the section in question for being largely irrelevant to the article, Femmina came by and removed the corresponding URL at the bottom, which I'd missed, which indicates to me that, at the very least, Femmina is not simply looking to attack, and perhaps didn't understand why posting pic links from articles like that should be avoided; I really think we should just AGF, instruct Femmina not to post photos corresponding to editors' real-life personae, and call this "resolved". JDoorjamTalk02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to admit it, but now that I see the dates on those older edits, and considering this user's never been warned, I have to agree. Let's just explain to him what was wrong about what he did, and see how things go from there. Who wants to take a crack at it? --InShaneee02:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IP vandal
Here's an interesting situation. 152.163.100.197 (talk·contribs) is an AOL proxy, and all said address seems to do is collect warnings, as a look at the talk page will illustrate. Is there a policy regarding blocking proxy addresses in a situation where all it seems to be used for is vandalism? There are other edits on the IP, but they seem to be nothing more substantial than simple wikilinking. MSJapan02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's exactly the problem. An AOL IP can be used by ANY AOL user, even the productive ones. No matter how much vandalism we get from them (and, as everyone knows, it's a whole lot of a whole ton, to put it lightly), we have to stick with short-term blocks. --InShaneee02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible return of Willy?
User:GarageDoor just edited Talk:Humour with {{move}}, suggesting that the page be renamed "Humour on wheels!" [82]. I gave the user a {{test2}}. S/he has no other edits, but I'm mildly concerned that this user is another Willy on Wheels incarnation. I'm not totally sure what to do, though, so I thought I'd post it here and let someone who's got a better idea of how to handle this user decide if anything further needs to be done. Thanks. Hbackman02:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are three user pages being edited by a single user- User:213.121.151.142, which is currently the subject of a 48 hour block; User:Ask me, and User:Kingofspades. Given that they have all been editing the James Blunt article, and the last entry on the talk page of User:213.121.151.142 celebrates the further opportunity to vandalize that article, I suspect they are all the same person. Risker05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's blatantly obvious that someone is a sockpuppet, don't bother with RFCU. Just do what's necessary and take it further only if there is a complaint. Sam Korn(smoddy)11:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to permablock this user based on their username, which appears to combine a personal attack with an attempt to engage in personal communications through Wikipedia - any objections? BDAbramsonT05:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This contributer has been vandalizing my user page with his lawnchair buisiness links for what seems like forever now. Could admin please put a stop to this.Biker Chick06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tonight I reverted an edit from Eleemosynary (talk·contribs) on Snakes on a Plane as unsourced and unverifiable. It was an edit claiming the entire movie was a hoax, sourced by a blog article. As blogs are generally not considered acceptable sources, I removed the disputed section. I noted that it had already been removed by another user once before. In my edit sumamry I explained my actions. Eleemosynary reverted back, claiming my blanking was vandalism. I removed the material once again, and brought it to the users talk page, asking that they kindly don't refer to my edits as vandalism (assuming good faith), and explained why I did what I did. The user then came onto my talk page with a condescending and rude, uncivil tone. Here are some quality excerpts:
"Your unilateral blanking of the section is very close to vandalism. Apparently, you need reminding of it."
I then asked them not to come back to my talk page with an uncivil tone. I was greeted with this:
"I'll come "here" in any tone I choose. Your blanking without explaining why on the talk page was a moronic move, and you've been called on it. Deal with it. I'll get my source, restore what you blanked, and you'll still be a... hey, you might want to check WP:DICK too."
I asked again for them not to come back to my talk page with an uncivil tone. I received
"I give as good as I get."
I then added the {{subst:Civil1}} tag to their talk. Note this entire time I've maintained a civil tone and explained all of my actions, and been greeted with nothing but hostility. The user then goes and copies the same civility warning to MY talk page. Now I can't delete it, as that would be vandalism in itself, so I struck it and added a comment about it.
Eleemosynary is obviously trying to make a point over their reverted edit. This is disruptive behavior, and I'm requesting some action be taken, whether its a warning from an admin, or anything beyond that (I think a warning would be appropriate).
⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!09:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Swatjester sent me the oh-so-civil "WP:DICK" item before I sent it back to him. Kind of detracts from the "civil tone" he claims to have exhibited all along. I welcome a review of the entire exchange between us, especially contrasted with the spin Swatjester is currently trying to put on it. Eleemosynary11:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sure did a lot of good Pathoschild. Copied from their talk
"No problem at all. I just read "Swatjester's" little incident report, in which he has selectively edited our correspondence to place him in the best possible light, so that he may pose as a victim. Such disingenuousness from this pest is not surprising. I really have no interest in pursuing it further, as it falls into the realm of "feeding the trolls." Thanks for your advice, though. Eleemosynary09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Since when are taunts like "I'm warning you, DON'T come on my Talk page in an uncivil tone" some sort of official Wikipedia warning that can never be removed? And Pathoschild left a helpful comment, hardly a warning. I'd like to hear from a disinterested administrator on this. Eleemosynary10:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't refering to that, I was referring to the {{Civil1}}, as I mentioned on your talk. And please don't misrepresent my comments as a taunt, when I was clearly asking you to be civil on my talk page, something that you refused to do no less than THREE times. I'd also ask you to stop referring to me as "Cpl. Hairtrigger"....personal attacks don't fix anything, and my military service has absolutely nothing to do with this dispute. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!10:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You stated "they just blanked their warnings." More disingenuousness. You sent me one official warning, which I have retained. I have also retained Pathoschild's advice, though it was not an official warning. You seem to want to buttress your case by suggesting that it was. This all got off to a bad start when you unilaterally blanked my entry on the Snakes On A Plane page without giving a reason why in the edit summary or the Talk Page, then went into high dudgeon when I reminded you that this could be construed as vandalism. Your demeanor was dismissive and standoffishness, and I showed you as much respect as you showed me. And I have not attacked your military service, merely your quick-on-the-trigger behavior toward me tonight. Eleemosynary11:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as I've mentioned before, I explained clearly in my edit summary why I reverted your entry: because blogs are not acceptable sources on wikipedia. Further, it was not unilateral, as I was the second editor to do this. View the page history if you don't believe me, my edit sums are there, as well as the other user's reversion of your edit. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no military service, yet I still find Eleemosynary's conduct wholly unacceptable. — Mar. 26, '06 [11:29] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Freak, you admonished me to not to blank my Talk Page. Funny thing is, I didn't blank it. I blanked some comments on it, and some warnings, which you reverted. Then, I blanked the comments (but left the warnings). Yet, you still reverted it. I left you a message on your Talk Page, which I assume you have not seen. Would you mind letting me know why I can't blank anything on my Talk page? Is it a Wiki rule, or your personal fiat? Eleemosynary11:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some diffs to show that I was not acting unilaterally: [83], [84], [85],
And , here is where I clearly explained why I took that action, on edit sum [86], and on your talk page [87]. Your claims that I acted unilateraly, and did not inform you of my actions do not hold water ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!11:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it shold also be pointed out that Eleemosynary's harassment, stalking and attacks on users have been found on other pages as well. Specifically the Mark Levin page, plus a number of other pages for conservative broadcasters, where he has been pushing his POV. He is uncivil, demeaning of other users, and not conducive to the community that you are trying to build. He has been warned by administrators for this on several occasions. 88.108.195.10418:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on Eleemosynary's general behavior, but he has been very helpful at Mark Levin in keeping that article NPOV despite the activity of unregistered editors who are apparently fans of the subject. -Will Beback01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bunchofgrapes on 00:15, 4 February 2006 here. The request was not acted upon, and was deleted in this edit as "harassment, trolling and botspam."
Scm83x on 10:20, 9 March 2006 here. The request was responded to with complete incivility and a misunderstanding of policy here and deleted in this same edit as "harassment, trolling and botspam."
MattKingston on 23:38, 14 March 2006 here. The entire talk page was subsequently archived in this edit, though MattKingston's section was cut out.
There is no doubt that he understands how fair use works on Wikipedia; it has been explained to him many times over. Regardless, in this edit, he explicitly calls for the "challenge and defiance" of copyright law. Though copyright law may be unpopular and too restrictive at times, Wikipedia is certainly not the place to start his revolution.
After the user was given time to remove fair use images from his user page, but failed to do so, a number of editors have manually removed the offending images from his page. User page and fair use policy states that users are free to remove fair use images from others' user pages – especially after the user has been warned:
MattKingston on 00:26, 25 March 2006 here. The edit was reverted as vandalism here.
Scm83x on 03:33, 26 March 2006 here. The edit was reverted as "[v]andalism by a novice, petty official" here.
Can I just but in here and point out that "about to violate WP:3RR" is not something you can anticipate, fairly comment on or act upon until he actually breaks the rule. Even discussing anticipated crimes smacks to me of a little over eagerness on your part. My imagination I'm sure. I find the man deeply trying, but he is entitled to the same considerations as everyone else no matter how vexing he may be to one's patience. Giano | talk15:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert warring, even if it doesn't break WP:3RR, and especially when it is breaking other policies, is frowned upon; that is what I was commenting on. Excuses if I didn't make it clear enough that he wasn't breaking WP:3RR, or he would have been reported elsewhere. — Rebelguys2talk19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading to say that "he explicitly calls for the 'challenge and defiance' of copyright law" since he was referring to the DMCA and software patents, which (IIRC) have nothing to do with fair use. Johnleemk | Talk16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the line in question raised my eyebrows is that it followed a discussion with Natalinasmpf regarding a fair use rationale. I don't know enough to comment on the contents of DMCA. However, he has certainly challenged and been defiant of fair use policy on Wikipedia, and the whole issue here does, in the end, boil down to intellectual protectionism. — Rebelguys2talk19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest do you not think in disallowing the man to display his favourite album cover on his own user page is just being a teeny weeny bit over zealous. Is it actually harming anyone, is the copyright holder likely to say "Oi! Stop that now" or "Thank you good Wikipedians for stopping one of our fans displaying our album cover". No in short they don't give a stuff about that sort of thing. It's not as though he is claiming he designed it himself, is a member of whatever group it is, he's just one of millions of fans - nothing more - nothing sinister - and more importantly he is not deriving financial gain from the cover. There must be so many more important things you could devote your worthy time too, now why don't you just give him back his album cover and find something more useful to do with your time. Giano | talk16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting the integrity of the project is a pretty high priority around here. Ghost is lucky not to find himself blocked. -Splashtalk16:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes the integrity of this project seems to be open to personal interpretation[88] as I'm sure you realise. So at least you agree we have some leeway here. That's always a good start, shall we move on from there? Giano | talk20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, this isn't a negotiable policy. And it isn't about how we interprete the law. Ultimately, this is foundation policy and it is absolute. Now, we need to allow latitude for those who don't get it, and make mistakes, but not for a deliberate breachs. He is in violation of the conditions under which we may use this site, and if he will not comply, he cannot continue to use the site. We cannot all turn into lawyers and reach 'consensus' as to where this policy matters and where it does not. That way lies madness. And will those who say 'it doesn't matter' underwrite wikipedia legally if a liberal attitude to copyright gets the foundation into trouble? No. Anyway, there is also a moral argument. Copyright owners cannot go around this massive website checking where their rights may have been infringed. Their rights will often be infringed. The onus is on us to make sure we eliminate every violation we can. --Docask?16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Doc. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) must understand the policy by now, as it appears he's been warned about many times over. this needs to stop.--Alhutch16:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you quite sure though though that he is in in fact breach of copyright law? If he is - then under the licence template Albumcover were he to accompany the image with a few words describing the album then he would be 100% legal even in your eyes. Would it not be better to try and help him find a solution rather than keep issuing him with repeated "tickets" rather like over zealous traffic wardens, because at the moment it seems to me a rather unimportant action is being escalated and inflamed into what is an unnecessarily angry and hostile exchange. Something which wikipedia has quite enough of already. Administrators should remember they are here to assist and advise editors. At the moment he is being ordered around in an inflammatory way, when he should be being shown a way out of the problem. You are the admins not him. Giano | talk18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that he is in violation of what is apparently Wikimedia Foundation policy. If you would like to restructure Wikimedia policy, it needs to be taken up over there, not here on Wikipedia. R.D.H. has been guided through these policies by several editors, including administrators, over the course of nearly 2 months. However, he has not acted on their advice. Therefore, a page lock was justified. I am also unsure why you accused me of removing your comments here; that was an accident by Tom harrisonhere. — Rebelguys2talk20:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also mentioned the policy violation once in an unrelated note to him [89] (I just happened to notice all the images) but I didn't actually remove them, I thought maybe he would have himself. - cohesiont03:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rebelguys and M.Kingston are not admins. And if I have anything to say about it they never will be. The only admin actions taken here, apart from Ashibaka's protection of my userpage, was undertaken by Reb's friend/roomie/frat brother Scm83x. Among whose first acts as a newly appointed admin was to remove most all the images from my userpage and not just the copyrighted ones. All because he thought I was being a bit "rude" to him earlier. I argued that at least my images were being used in a way that was related to the 'Pedia itself, for "community building" purposes and to illustrate subjects brought up on said page. Unlike PERSONAL images, which have nothing to do with either building the 'Pedia or the community and are perhaps better suited for a blog and/or personal photo album. I would not grudge them their pics at all, except they grudge me mine. First certain userboxes are verboden, now certain images. It is only a matter of time before personal pics are taken away too. This is clearly a case of petty vindictiveness, justified under the aegis of policy. Hardly the reward I would expect for all my contributions here... Wikipedia:Harassment[90] and WikistalkingMr. Kingston. All in an attempt to make my continued participation here unpleasant enough so I might leave the project. Also disturbing is the fact that the only ones who have come to my defense are Ashibaka, who I mainly know of from the infamous unpleasantness of last month, and my arch WikiNemesis Giano. I now find myself in the especially akward position of having to THANK Giano for his astute and welcomed help on this matter. But I must also warn him that if he keeps this up, I will be forced to start respecting him also:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was not an "admin action" to remove images from your user page; our user page and fair use guidelines allow any user to do so freely if there is a fair use violation. In addition, only copyrighted images were removed from your user pages, of which there were four. No other images have been touched; I'm not sure why you believed others were. Please don't falsely accuse other users of ulterior motives and of actions they certainly did not undertake. Thanks. — Rebelguys2talk10:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of further resolving this mess, I have proposed a Compromise to Ashibaka. Another evening I intended to use working on articles, I've now been forced to devote to defending myself instead. As Giano pointed out, we do actually have better things to do with our time than browbeating a stubborn old man into compliance with a policy he regards as unfair, unduly oppressive and in this case unnecessary (Those images have been sitting peacefully on my page since last year...and we havent gotten a cease and desist order from Sting's or Mr. Gilliam's lawyers so far). This is exactly the sort of petty bullshit which is destroying this community and project. It's getting UGLY here, kiddos...and I fear it is only going to get uglier.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that everyone should take a breath, relax, and realize what the central issue is here. We should simply recall that our fair use guidelines prohibit the use of fair use images outside the main namespace, save for case-by-case exceptions (i.e., templates for the main page). Any other arguments, such as R.D.H.'s false and bad faith assumptions of "petty vindictiveness," "petty bullshit," "Wikistalking," "harrassment," and collaborations with a "friend/roomie/frat brother," are moot; in addition, our allowance for personal images is in no way related to fair use. Issues such as these stem from Wikimedia Foundation policies, and discussion should be taken to channels there. It is unlikely that you will get anywhere hurling false accusations. — Rebelguys2talk10:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly or wrongly you have pushed him into a corner back against the wall. So you now have the problem how are you going to help him out. For how much longer is he to be prevented from editing his own user page? I cannot understand why this has been allowed to escalate into such a huge issue which seems to be going nowhere. I am wondering where the more senior and respected admins are while this has been going on. (Another reason for training inexperienced admins!) Were this particular copyright issue to be taken to a legal court the chances are RDS would be allowed to continue his limited use of the image. However, in the absence of a court case, you have to decide how zealously you wish to interpret and administer policy, bearing in mind, who has he hurt?- What harm is it realistically likely to cause? and finally, has anyone actually complained or made official protest over Ghost's actions and use of the image? Bearing those questions and their answers in mind one can then assess the gravity of this case and where you wish to take it.........Without doubt, as I know to my own experience, and you must know surely too, he can be a very belligerent, pig headed and irritating person, but would Wikipedia be a better place without him? I don't think so - He is not one of those non-page-writing editors who flit about the site distributing wise opinions and advice to those that seldom want it, he actually writes pages on encyclopedic subjects, and for that deserves our respect and some consideration given to his views. You appear to have him now back against the wall into a corner, and for some reason seem surprised he is barking and shouting. Calm down and help the poor man out of the mess you have all got yourselves into, exercise a little tact and diplomacy when dealing with difficult customers - and it will be a better place for all. Giano | talk12:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A number of us had been courteously explaining policy to R.D.H. for the course of two months to which he made no response. We're not "interpreting policy" – it is one of the few fair use Wikimedia Foundation policies that are explicitly stated and unlikely to be misconstrued. It has come up many, many times, and never have I seen such a response. Never have I said that he isn't a worthwhile contributor; never have I said that he should be banned. I don't understand why you brought the issue of his departure up. We have only repeated to him: whether right or wrong, the issue is that this is one of the most clear-cut fair use policies we have on Wikipedia – here's why – here's what you need to do. I have also told him that, in all honestly, he should just drop the issue, as people were coming in every week or two to ask him to remove the images. We have never retracted our offers for assistance, our guidance through the bureaucratic web of Foundation copyright guidelines, or anything else he needs. If that isn't tact and diplomacy, I don't know what else you could want. We can and still offer help, but it is up to R.D.H. to accept it. — Rebelguys2talk16:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I bring up the subject of his hypothetical departure because if you bothered to visit his talk page you would see the way he is thinking [91]. There is a whole world outside of "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" and perhaps some people would do well to explore it. It does seem very sad that one can't have the image of one's favourite album on one's own page (with a few words about it), and yet can write on a main page about it and use the image, I wonder what, or whose logic, that is? Life is complicated poor old RDS no wonder he's upset, I'm totally perplexed by it all. You see if one was writing about oneself as one should on that page, and that particular album had had a huge bearing on one's life, then, by your logic, were one notable the image would be legit wouldn't it, because that user page could then be a legitimate main page, so it all boils down to interpretation of notability. I wonder if RDS is in anyway notable? He's becoming more infamous here by the moment. Giano | talk17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I certainly do "bother to visit his talk page;" various editors have been dropped in and out for two months regarding this issue. Do you really think I don't understand his position, or that I have such a severe case of tunnel vision that I don't bother looking elsewhere? I'm not as ignorant of what's going on as you think. I've read through his talk page, my talk page, the messages you left on ALoan's talk page, and the rest. Be civil, please. I certainly understand his position. However, it's not my logic; I'm going by the logic of the Wikimedia Foundation. If I was wrong here, I'd have backed out a long time ago, but the policy is currently not up for negotiation. — Rebelguys2talk18:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because his departure wasn't and isn't the issue. This issue is Wikimedia Foundation policy. I think User:Doc glasgow put it best at the beginning of this discussion: "[T]his isn't a negotiable policy. And it isn't about how we interprete [sic] the law. Ultimately, this is foundation policy and it is absolute." — Rebelguys2talk18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course by the strictest letter of Wikipedia law your are probably correct in your understanding, but then I read, from just this page, the comments made by those discussing RDS's behaviour:
"it's not my logic"
Can I just but in here and point out that "about to violate WP:3RR is not something you can anticipate"
"It is misleading to say that "he explicitly calls for the 'challenge and defiance' of copyright law"
"we need to allow latitude for those who don't get it'"
"Ghost is lucky not to find himself blocked"
"never have I said that he should be banned"
"if he will not comply, he cannot continue to use the site"
"Please don't falsely accuse other users of ulterior motives and of actions they certainly did not undertake"
"Rightly or wrongly you have pushed him into a corner back against the wall"
"..his departure wasn't and isn't the issue"
There does seem too a confused hymn sheet here. The English have this marvellous word for people who take their responsibilities too seriously and officiously, it called a Jobsworth have you heard it? Giano | talk20:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the whole thing seems pretty stupid all around, but given that the Foundation has chosen to have a very strict policy about fair use images, and that policy includes a ban on fair use images on user pages, the matter, while stupid, seems pretty clear-cut. If you keep restoring them to your (or anyone else's) user page, expect zealous enforcecement of the (possibly misguided, but entirely clear) policy. - Jmabel | Talk20:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I am coming to agree with Jmabel (above). The upside is that it gives those who never had the opportunity to be a prefect at school a few moments of glory enforcing those rules which to most seem pointless and frankly rather silly. Giano | talk21:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jmabel. The only thing I have been trying to get across is that we can't have fair use images on user pages. I simply have not been able to comprehend why others continue to stray away from clear-cut foundation policy, and continue to ask for exceptions and discussing issues marginally related to unnegotiable guidelines. — Rebelguys2talk
Rose-mary has edited Wikipedia solely for the purpose of pushing a PoV on Phaistos Disc and some related articles. She prefers to edit while not logged in, and she has a dynamic IP in the 80.90.* range, which has the effect that 3RR violations, while common, are difficult to prove; the article is now semiprotected.
She is also, in the manner of trolls, persistently uncivil; see this edit and almost the entirety of Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive6 (and large parts of 2 through 5, but she's been getting worse.)
If this incivility warrants a long-term block, the article could be unprotected, and her anon identities would be (in effect) on probation. If they were uncivil revert warriors, they would be immediately blockable as sockpuppets. Septentrionalis17:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before my time. Rose-mary's IP is Luxembourgeois. (The other reason I don't want to solve this by sprotection is that the same PoV-pushing does take place on other articles; I am involved because I was watching Pelasgians.)Septentrionalis22:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654's blocks
Last night, Raul654 blocked 24.6.0.0/16 -- and although he tried to unblock it twice and I myself once, my IP (a Comcast IP that is part of that range) appears to be still intermittently blocked, suggesting a database problem. Can someone look into it?
Also, Raul, if you see this -- I also see that you blocked a lot of individual IPs indefinitely. You really shouldn't do that unless you're sure they're open proxies. --Nlu (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sanka123 sock
207.44.237.168(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) is clearly a sockpuppet of currently blocked user Sanka123 (see IP's edit history; edits on talk pages are signed with username Sanka123). S/he is currently editing the IP address in the {{unsigned}} templates that I used to sign his/her comments on my page to suggest that they were made by a different IP. S/he just did it again, after I requested that s/he stop doing so. Didn't want to report this on WP:AIV because I'm not sure it belongs there (it's a more complex issue). Can s/he be blocked for evading the block on Sanka123? If not, could somebody else start warning him/her not to change the IP address? (Warnings from me will be ignored and will probably just bring further threats to get me banned for "harassment" when Sanka's block expires; maybe if someone else delivers them this user will actually listen.) Thanks. Hbackman21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Harassing? Specifically, I did not want another California in Washington (who does? lol) Seriously, I didn't want the page move wars to go to Washington as well. These are the same steps that happened when the California page moves began, and I didn't want a war starting. I shouldn't be the one accused of harrassment, actually. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SPUI, if there's a 'gang' going around and reverting your page moves, it might be best to consider very carefully whether or not your moves are supported by consensus, and whether or not your idea of a 'correct title' is actually the only reasonable option. I have no further comment, because I really don't want to get sucked into what is a bloody stupid naming dispute. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I don't see you disrupting the actual Washington articles yet. However based on your actions with California your actions with Washington do smell of a prelude to multiple page moves. Gateman199723:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just blocked two abusive sockpuppets of User:Licinius per CheckUser who have been playing up (even on the RFCU page). I've also given Licinius himself a one-month holiday from Wikipedia, as on top of the sockpuppeteering, he seems to have been trolling something chronic. Just putting a note here for oversight purposes. Ambi22:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Sarfatti
An anon (71.139.55.87 (talk·contribs)), probably Jack Sarfatti (some of the edits from this IP refer to JackSarfatti (talk·contribs) in the first person, some in the third person), recently bombarded diff1diff2 my userpage with some pretty heavy duty legal threats. He's apparently under the impression that I put some information about him changing his name into his article. I banned the anon account for 48 hours, but after reading WP:AN/I/Archive48#Sarfatti, I wonder if I should consider a longer (permanent?) ban, given his past record and our past dealings with him. These anon accounts have been pouring oceans of email textdumps into Talk:Jack Sarfatti lately, and there were legal threats against me there as well, but only when he brought it to my userpage did I think to ban. I haven't been an admin long, and this was my first ban (exciting! now I'm drunk with power!), so I'm not really sure how these things work. At the very least, maybe I'll start keeping track of all the IPs that do textdumps into the talk page.
By the way, not that this matters as far as our policy and response goes, but as for this name business, I never added anything about him changing his name to his article, I think he just hasn't gotten the hang of how Wikipedia works, and who is writing what. Furthermore, by his own admission with these vandalisms, he did in fact get his name legally changed, so the information that he's complaining about is not wrong (though perhaps a little misleading). -lethetalk+01:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Join the club, User:Lethe. Sarfatti came after me just for replacing the birthdate once in the article after he'd deleted it (it's a well-known date that he has often mentioned in his Usenet postings due to a mystical importance of some kind). He declared me his political enemy and followed up with off-Wikipedia threats. For his other hijinks Wales banned him permanently but he is irrepressible. User:Mperel is trying to bring the article to a better place and with luck and support he/she may succeed. It is probably worthwhile to track the IPs he's using though it may not be possible to block them cleanly. S-protecting the article/talk page may be a necessity if he is being disruptive. -Will Beback07:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reverting most of Mperel's efforts. She is of the opinion that Sarfatti is a "brilliant physicist", and wants the article to be much more in line with that thinking. On the other hand, I think Sarfatti is a crackpot of the purest breed, and do not want a Wikipedia article that makes him look like a scientist. Therefore I don't think Mperel will have much success with her efforts. I suppose this is the ultimate reason why Sarfatti wants to get me, claims about his last name notwithstanding. -lethetalk+17:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Brilliant:" and "crackpot" are sometimes difficult to distinguish. My impression was that Mperel is trying to write a article that Sarfatti would approve of enough to stop interfering. If that isn't possible then the effort is wasted. -Will Beback21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MPerel does seem to have good intentions, though I don't agree with her goals (in particular, I think an accurate portrayal of Sarfatti is necessarily negative, and so he wouldn't be satisfied with it), and don't really appreciate the way she insinuates that I have ulterior motives. -lethetalk+21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and indefinitely blocked all five of the sockpuppets who've been savaging this article. They were all attacking other users on talk pages and reverting to Koenig's POV version of the page exactly thrice. --Cyde Weys05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spammers tonight
We have a fairly major spammer attack underway at:
and probably elsewhere, that I just haven't seen. All edits are coming in by open proxies, and there is typically only one edit per proxy. Antandrus (talk)05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a rather slow-moving spambot, i.e. edits only every couple minutes. How do we put something on the spam blacklist? I could protect the pages (there's at least six) but shooting it nearer the source seems like a more elegant solution. Antandrus (talk)06:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked user:207.229.174.14 for 24 hrs. He/it has made hundreds of edits in the last couple of days, many simply substituting "anabolic steroid" for any use of the word steroid in all kinds of articles, including medical. Most of the changes are inappropriate, many are flat wrong as different steroids are being referred to. There is no user page. Is he using some kind of bot or is he on a one man mission of stupid vandalism? I have reversed dozens of the edits but suspect there are many more. Is there a way to simply mass undo everything he has done? alteripse05:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user Striver has create the Eric L. Haney page already with an afd tag because by his own words:
Im tired of geting my stuff deleted, so i dont even bother anymore, just create them with the AFD sign on it and get it over with. --Striver02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[92][reply]
It's hard to view his contribs in this regard as anything but trolling. I do note from his block log that you are the blocking admin for all but one of his blocks. To avoid accusations that you personally have it in for him, should the need arise again perhaps you might post here and not block him yourself, but rather leave another admin to do so. To quote the great philosopher Nelson Muntz"Never hurts to have a second set of prints on a gun". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk15:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive that a much lnger i not indef block is warranted here. I will do it, but wnated to get Fred's take on overturning his block first.Gator(talk)15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has participating on any vote I am a part of in the opposing corner. User does not regularly vote on featured lists or vfds. Since I have a history of getting stalked by user:Davenbelle (23:01, 11 January 2006 Viajero deleted "User:Davenbelle" (per request of user via email)) and since he claims to have left wikipedia I suspect he may be a new alias as he has very few edits [93] prior to davenbelles departure. I also find this rfc vote being his 8th edit rather strange. --Cool CatTalk|@14:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does AKMask know this discussion is taking place? I've informed him - there may be an explanation or all this may be a coincidence. While I do find this conspiracy intriguing ;-) It may be better to assume good faith, at least until a serious problem appears. Appearing on three polls/RFCs could be a perfectly reasonable coincidence... AFAIK even if he is stalking you, I don't think the administrators here can do anything about it. --Latinus15:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not assume good faith when stalked. Appearing on two polls is ok and can be a coincidence if the person regularly votes on afds and rfcs or if the votes are related. We dont observe this. There are wikipedia policies just AKMask isn't exempt of one being Harassment which covers stalking. If he is stalking me he will perhaps get away with a warning, if he continues he will eventualy end up getting banned.
People have been banned from wikipedia indefinately for stalking in the past. Infact Jimbo personaly banned the person in question and it is rare for Jimbo to get involved on anything on wikipedia that direct.
The point of Administrators noticeboard is to notify the administrators. Thank you for notifying AKMask you saved me the trobble. Know that notifying him was always optional.
Rather simple explanation: I am a member of the Star Trek wikiproject, and was poking around those topics for a day or so before joining. As for the Turkish Kurdistan vote, I saw the link on his talk page while we were discussing the star trek page (look it up on his talk page) and a former girlfriend/summer fling of mine went to Turkey on Exchange. Minor interest. And I regularly participate in VfD's... over a hundred votes, actually. With a user at around 750 edits, thats a bunch. The RfC was last fricken year. Theres no way thats relevent. If I were truly wikistalking I'd have continued to vote on more current RfC's that you're involved in. Or I would've voted against one of your RfA's. This is purly coincidence from a shared wikiproject and reading your talkpage. -Mask19:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I never made an edit to the RfC you have linked.... I reviewed the date, then the history. Never touched it. -Mask19:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a disinterested party who has interacted regularly neither with AKMask nor with Latinus, and after readily conceding that we oughtn't perhaps to clutter the noticeboard with this discussion, I think it is eminently clear that what Mask is doing is not wikistalking, and, more importantly, in no way proves deletrious vis-à-vis the project. One observes many AfD, FAC, and RfA votes by Mask; notwithstanding questions about whether Mask is Davenbelle, toward the proving of which proposition Cool Cat adduces Mask's having failed to make many edits prior to the departure of Davenbelle, surely Mask's voting on a few Wikipedia questions with which Cool Cat was involved does not wikistalking make. Finally, assuming arguendo that Mask has voted on sundry Wikipedia questions in order to express disagreement with Cool Cat, wikistalking would be demonstrated, in my mind, only to the extent that it was plain that his sole purpose for voting was to express disagreement; I can imagine, for example, that if Mask thought Cool Cat to have exercised bad judgment in voting in the past (and I surely don't impute malign motive or bad judgment to Cool Cat, about whom I know nothing), he might frequent pages at which he/she voted in order to express contrary viewpoints in such cases as Mask found Cool Cat's votes to be poorly supported. Joe19:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting on vfds and afds as a personal cause against a user is wikistalking. From where I am standing this is the case. AKMask how many votes have you shared a vote with me prior to the encouter at List of Starfleet ship classes ? Just what I thouht, none. I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences. --Cool CatTalk|@19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you are quite wrong. see this diff to my usertalk from december where you THANK me for trying to fix some copyright issues on a featured list vote you were having. I wanted it to pass, I did some image removal, you thanked me. We've shared votes. -Mask20:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, If I recal correctly you originaly voted oppose to that too. I still however do not feel your vote on the Afd was in good faith. I am way beyond frustrated. --Cool CatTalk|@20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did, because of copyright issues. It would be silly to support something that would get us sued. I then listed my problems, fixed them, and changed to support. As for you feeling whether my vote on the Turkish AfD was in good faith, that is of absolutly no concern to me. It was, it will be counted, and thats it. Your feelings on my vote are fluff. Take a wikibreak if you're that frustrated. -Mask20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find this most insightful. You act like a dick and annoy people then suggest they take a wikibreak. Seems like you got this all worked out. Except it wont work. --Cool CatTalk|@22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not acted like a dick anywhere, and have not done anything out of the ordinary to annoy you or anyone else. If you get annoyed by my general presence, well, I'm afraid I can't help that. As to it not working... what wont work? I hardly think I'm going to end up blocked because you don't agree with me. It happens. Sometimes you'll win, sometimes my side will. But thats just how it goes. The wikibreak is something I'd suggest to anyone who says they're way beyond frustrated. Do you support someone who is under a lot of stress continuing to place themselves in a situation where more can be added? I hate seeing posts where users blow up and declare they quit or leave in a huff. I don't like seeing that happen to anyone. My remarks were intended for nothing beyond the statement that it appears obvious that Turkish Kurdistan is going to be no consensus, hence keep, and you can't really change that. Take a break, cool down before you get so frustrated you up and quit. -Mask23:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RJII POV edits
RJII continues to make POV edits even after he was banned for two weeks for it. [94]
Frankly, I do not have the energy to put up with any more of his bullshit. For an explanation of why that edit is POV (if it isn't blatantly obvious) see the talk page of that article. -- infinity017:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators, please do not fall for this this time. He is trying to get me banned from Wikipedia, knowing that I'm on probation and taking advantage of that (just like he did last time). I have not done anything wrong. My edits are well-sourced.RJII17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you ever stay banned? I mean your last 2 or 3 accounts were indef blocked, the most recent on a "voluntary" 6 month arbcom enforced wikibreak, and this current one on probation... don't you have anything better to do with your time?--64.12.116.6517:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it. Consider it. I'm not who you think I am. You've been harrassing me about this for awhile. I don't who you think I am. This is the only account I've ever had on Wikipedia. RJII18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is harrassment. You're using my probation in an attempt to get me banned from Wikipedia hoping that administrators will just assume I'm the bad guy because I'm on probation, just like last time. My edits are sourced and NPOV. RJII17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are sourced but not NPOV. You selectively quote things which is against NPOV. In a phrase, you make POV edits. -- infinity018:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not POV edits. They are NPOV edits. You are the one that makes POV edits that I'm trying to fix. Don't twist it around. RJII18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are edit warring on An Anarchist FAQ, and given both of your histories, I'm inclined to WP:1RR both of you on anarchism related articles. Hash this stuff out on the talk pages, not in the edit comments, please, and not here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the last edit (which removes the description of a joke as being a joke, a disservice to the reader) the two versions strike me as being about equally good, and equally POV. - 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr.Do! uploaded warez?
Mr.Do!(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has a history of two things: Editing arcade game-related articles, and uploading vandal files. I first came across him when he uploaded a map of the USA with Iraq colored green. Amusing, but not good. Now he's linked to copyrighted MAME files, first uploaded to commons: [95], second uploaded to eo: [96]. First of all, can someone tell eo that they need to delete this file? And second, I was ALMOST about to block him indef, but considering his edit history, I'm thinking maybe he's just an adolescent who's ignorant of how all this works. So I bring it to the community. Thoughts?
Edit (before saving): [97]. He made an account on eo solely to upload the file. That shows premeditation and a knowledge that it wouldn't fly on en. I'm blocking indef, but I won't challenge if others disagree. --Golbez21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Eagle explains here why he thinks it appropriate to replace cleanup tags with stub tags for articles under 225 words (and to remove cleanup tags where a similarly-sized article is tagged for cleanup and as a stub (I agree with Zoe's reasoning and block--although I'd imagine that, inasmuch as the bot seems to be performing other salutary tasks, once the cleanup/stub function is removed, the bot should be unblocked--but I thought if might be helpful for users to see the reasoning of the bot's owner). Joe23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
talk 00:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC).] No, having the worst remarks in edit summaries isn't a mitigating factor at all. Edit summaries are the worst place for personal attacks, because they stick harder than article text does, and that's why Wikipedia:No personal attacks says that "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." It all sounds rather abstract and bloodless without illustrative examples, so here are a couple of the edit summaries at Ken Livingstone: "I see the jewboys are busy determining the shape of this page. No great surprise there!" And a few minutes later: "Instantly, a 'no personal attacks' warning. You can't pick on the jewboys. No way." Me, I'd have permablocked. Possibly, on a good day, pending an abject apology. Don't reduce your block, a month's fine. Bishonen 
19:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
19:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) - 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC) (posted via NathanHP)
nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 01:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Skullneg.gif){kind=link}
![[21]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prognathism.png){kind=link}
bon giorno #c 06:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
bon giorno #c 06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ready Aim Fire! 09:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ready Aim Fire! 11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)