Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SirIsaacBrock (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 13 July 2006 (→''Exhausted the Community's patience'' Ban of [[User:SirIsaacBrock]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion



    Visual archive cue: 119


    Provocative epitaph to Blu Aardvark as Wikipedian

    Blu Aardvark started off, as many of us do, as a good earnest newbie Wikipedian. He did a few questionable things and got a taste of some of the Wikipedia community's officiousness. He did not handle it well and flamed out in a puerile fashion. He then co-founded a criticism site, quite likely with good intentions, but just stood by when it got out of hand and other members launched some vicious attacks. He had a change of heart and tried to come back to Wikipedia, but the community was unforgiving and reacted with anger. This time he left with class and maturity, trapping us in our own officiousness in a nice coup de grace. It sounds as if he has matured and learned from the debacle; let us hope that, in time, the Wikipedia community will as well. Martinp 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, his final actions were nothing more than an attempt to sow confusion by playing the "Ohh look at me, I'm making good edits but you're blocking me anyway!" card. That is to say, he wasn't editing because he truly cared about making the encyclopedia better, only to try to make us look bad. --Cyde↔Weys 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We really should avoid talking about other user's motivations, since it is complete supposition. - Aaron Brenneman 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're not prepared to make determinations of an editor's motivations, we should probably avoid any activity on Wikipedia (particularly administration) in which we will be required to do so as a matter of course. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, I'm always up for a lecture from Cyde Weys about how good Wikipedians should behave. Herostratus 01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've always found anti-semitic insinuations the work of good, earnest Wikipedians myself; I'm glad we all see eye-to-eye on the matter. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't sarcasm fun? Let's please stop sniping at each other and let this mess be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vaquero100

    I'm not sure exactly what he believes, but Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) is moving articles about Catholicism despite the fact most, if not all, other editors who edit the subject disagree with him.

    Vaquero100 has changed references to the Roman Catholic Church to drop the Roman part and generalize things when the article in question didn't include any other Catholic devotions. Apparently, they want to remove mention of "Roman" Catholicism from Wikipedia. While the Roman Catholic Church is commonly referred to as just "Catholic Church", we need the Roman prefix to distinguish ot from other varieties of Catholicism. If both names are valid, things shouldn't get moved (just as with variety English spellings)

    And just today, he has been making moves like redirecting Consecrated life to Consecrated life (Catholic Church) or Catholic spirituality to Spirituality (Catholic Church). The last one is particularly annoying for a naming conventions nut like me (so I undid the move). While it indeed discusses several different Catholic denominations, titles should generally not contain modifiers in brackets wherever possible.

    This user is basically annoying others to further their own POV. Can someone please talk to him?

    Disclaimer: I don't usually edit religion related articles and I don't plan to in the future. - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is going on for some days, including remarks that the "Roman" designation is a Anglican/Lutheran/X slander of The Catholic Church. --Pjacobi 12:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, heavens! If he thinks that the Anglicans are out to get him, he should talk to members of the Greek Orthodox Church, which might well have a thing or two to say about the RCC being "the Catholic Church." (The "Roman" distinguishes from Greek, Syrian, Russian, inter al.) And that's not even to get into the question of "the" Catholic Church, which is tantamount to saying, "the one true church." Very nasty, there. Geogre 13:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given a polite warning. Let's hope it is heeded. Geogre 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a continuing pattern. Last month he moved most of the articles in Category:Roman Catholic Church in Europe. [1]Septentrionalis 19:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That's (Roman Catholic) POV-pushing. The Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself the Orthodox Catholic Church, and believes that the 'Church of Rome' (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) is not the legitimate Catholic Church. Anyway, all other encyclopedias use the terminology 'Roman Catholic' to refer to that church, so how bad can it be? --Tēlex 19:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the point I tried to make to him: we need to use the terms our readers expect. True and false are beside the point: useful and unuseful matter more. (And I pointed out to him that I, as an Anglican, consider my church catholic but absolutely not Roman Catholic.) Geogre 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not to defend Vaquero's actions, but POV pushing can go both ways. Isn't it POV not to allow a self-naming, on the basis of disputing a religious claim implicit in that name? Note that RCs would argue that the Orthodox are not in fact orthodox. The claim is disputed, not the self-identifying name Orthodox. The reasonable approach would seem to me to allow both, with or without Roman. Gimmetrow 16:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very old argument. Every time it's been discussed, as far as I recall, there has been strong consensus for the status quo. The qualifier Roman Catholic is not, to my knowledge, offensive to Romans, and the assertion that only Romans are "The Catholic Church" is offensive to many outside the Roman tradition (I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church to, y'know). But this is probably not the place for this argument. To quote the great philosopher Obelix: ils sont foux, ces Romains ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Appearing to dismiss my statement as "very old" is not helpful. I actually want what appears to be the status quo to remain - there are articles titled both ways. People (on both sides) trying to upset that balance. Gimmetrow 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How can one recall a strong consensus where there has been none? A majority vote does not constitute a consensus! And be advised, there are Catholics who do take offense at being qualified as Romans. You apparently also don't understand that many Catholics take offence at being called "Papists." Recognize also that there are Anglicans who are not offended by Vaquero's use of "Catholic Church" (as evidenced by several citations of such use on Anglican documents). Plenty of evidence has been given to show Vaquero's use of "Catholic Church" to be in compliance with published Wikipedia naming conventions. The opposition thus far has always been POV or unsupported. It is not ambiguous just because you said so. A less commonly-used alternative name should not be used just because you prefer it. If you make a claim in opposition to this, back it up with facts that are relevant to the naming conventions! If you do this, perhaps a true consensus can be achieved. SynKobiety 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite you to look at the archives. Ths is a very old argument. The question is not about self-description, it's about whether one should allow one particular sect (albeit the largest) to arrogate ownership of a description used by multiple other sects, on the basis of membership numbers. Take it to mediation by all means, but warring over redirects is not going to fix the problem. Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain, then, why particular sects are allowed to "arrogate ownership" of the descriptions Church of Christ and Apostolic Church which are used by multiple other sects? Why is the Church of England allowed to arrogate ownership of that description when it is clearly not the only Church of England? -SynKobiety 21:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tobias Conradi

    I'm posting this here so the community can review the actions of User:Tobias Conradi since the block has been questioned by a friend of his who is an admin, and I wish to avoid any type of unblocking war. User:Ezhiki has already unprotected his (Tobias's) talk page. pschemp | talk 16:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there! I've noticed that you extended Tobias's block and labeled User:Hauke as a sockpuppet. I've been in contact with Tobias, and according to him Hauke is a friend of his. Please file a checkuser request if you have doubts; the results will be negative.

    I would also like to reconsider your approach towards Tobias. I will agree any day that he may be stubborn, difficult to deal with, and lose his tempers easily, but he is not here to compromise Wikipedia, nor is he sticking to some malicious plan of sorts (please check his contributions history).

    I spoke to Tobias last Friday, and promised to investigate what happened myself. From what I found the whole thing looks like a relatively simple misunderstanding, that gradually elevated to the exaggregated mess it is now. Let me outline the things the way I see them. Tobias definitely deserved a portion of his block, but not all of it.

    I am crossposting the following summary to the talk pages of all involved parties.

    1. The stub about Eisenkappl, which Tobias created, was deleted by User:Jimfbleak on June 30. Jim later explained that the deletion was due to the stub not providing enough information for a reader to understand what the stub's subject was. This is a valid reason, however, it was not explained in the deletion summary.
    2. Tobias re-created this article and moved it to Bad Eisenkappel, making an inflammatory edit summary ("fight against admin power abuse...") in the process. While making a summary like this is not constructive, it should be understood that it was made in response to Jim's deletion, for which no reason was given.
    3. Tobias later added a "this user is a deletionist" note to Jim's user page. Again, this was not very constructive; Tobias should have requested a reason for the stub's deletion instead of losing temper.
    4. The new stub on Bad Eisenkappel was deleted by User:InShaneee. No reason for deletion was given in the edit summary.
    5. InShaneee then blocked Tobias for 48 hours for "vandalism, personal attacks". When I asked for details, InShanee explained that Tobias was blocked for "disruption" and "for placing "this user is a deletionist" on other people's userpages". While the latter is true, the former referred to moving Eisenkappel to Bad Eisenkappel. While I see how such a move can be interpreted as intentional vandalism, the "Bad" portion is actually a part of this village's name, as a google search would attest.
    6. At this point of time, the situation from Tobias's perspective looked very much like admin abuse—stubs he created were deleted by two different admins, both of whom gave no reasons for deletion. Tobias himself was blocked for "vandalism/disruption", the meaning of which was also not explained. This edit of Tobias's is a good illustration of the way he felt.
    7. A moment later, Tobias was further accused of violating WP:POINT—no details provided.
    8. Understandably, Tobias's aggravation grew.
    9. InShanee protected Tobias's talk page in order to prevent him from removing the warnings and extended his block for incivility.
    10. In response to his talk page being protected and his account being blocked, Tobias launched an anon IP campaign. While this was a direct violation of sockpuppeting guidelines, the user could not contend his block from his account as his talk page was blocked from editing at that point.
    11. In response, Tobias's user page was protected from editing by User:Pschemp and his block was extended for sockpuppetry.
    12. On July 2, User:Hauke account was created. Soon after it was labeled by Pschemp as a sockpuppet of Tobias and blocked. According to Tobias's email communication to me, Hauke is a friend of his, not a sockpuppet account. I asked Tobias to stop sockpuppetry on June 30, no matter how unfair the situation seemed to him, to which he agreed.

    Summarizing the situation: while I in no way want to defend Tobias's less than stellar behavior in response to the accusations against him, I can see the situation from his perspective. Hopefully, this summary will allow you to do the same. I cannot, however, justify the behavior of the administrators involved in this case. Instead of trying to study the situation and finding out the cause of Tobias's aggravated response to the actions against his, the administrators pretty much reacted on emotion, thus complicating and elevating the situation, instead of trying to relieve it. Denying the user his right to contend his block by blocking both his talk and user pages is especially worrisome.

    My opinion is that both sides largely ignored WP:AGF, refusing to listen each other. I thus urge the involved parties to shorten Tobias's block from unbelievable six weeks to a total of seven days (three of which he has already served) for not assuming good faith, for refusing to inquire about sanctions against him at the earlier stage of the conflict and resorting to inflammatory edit summaries, and for failure to challenge his block through legitimate means (such as placing an unblock template request at his user/talk page when it was still possible). I ask Tobias to apologize to the people to whom his was incivil. I also urge User:InShaneee, User:Pschemp, and User:Jimfbleak to apologize to Tobias for not providing the reason for their actions and to impose a self-block for refusing to assume good faith, for acting on emotions instead of reason, and for denying the user right to be heard through his talk page.

    Being a proud Wikipedia administrator myself, I would not ask anyone to do something that I personally would not be ready to do in a similar situation.

    Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason for my extensions was sockpuppetry which he clearly repeatedly engaged in and he was clearly told that this was the reason[2]. Considering that he used multiple IP's for the the socks, it is quite easy for him to set up a new account with a different IP that would of course not show the same as his on checkuser. The new account also edited tango articles, (Tobias's listed interest) and used the same grammar as Tobias right before requesting that the protection on his talk page be lifted[3]. At the very least that qualifies as a meatpuppet. I'm sorry, but Tobias used up his allotment of good faith quite a while ago with his personal attacks and repeat sock use, and I will not unblock him, nor will I apologize. I see you are his friend, but that doesn't mean his actions were appropriate. You forgot to mention his many other infractions up there, such as removing warnings from his talk page, calling decent editors vandals, and his history of incivil remarks (and prior blocks for this incivility!) and personal attacks in edit summaries. Some examples just from edit summaries:
    1. 19:38, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tobias Conradi (→Name calling - delete nonsense again you asshole) <- And how would you assume good faith about this comment?
    2. 19:35, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tobias Conradi (→Name calling - delete nonsense)
    3. 19:24, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jimfbleak (→James Janderson - jimmy likes deleting)
    4. 19:16, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Jimfbleak (This user is a deletionist [4])
    5. 20:18, June 27, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Samsara (ubuntu vandal) (top) [rollback]
    6. 13:28, June 27, 2006 (hist) (diff) Ubuntu (Linux distribution) (rv vandal rmv of cat) <- note user Samsara is not and never has been a vandal
    Also, his blanking without archiving of most of his userpage and some of the civility warnings on it as soon as you unprotected looks very bad. Sorry, but the facts are, when you use sockpuppets to evade your block (which was originally short) your block gets extended. He had plenty of opportunity to use {{tl:unblock}} and has done so in the past, and has not put that up since you unprotected his page, so your accusations of him being not allowed to contest the block are baseless. Email is always possible too, and he seemed to be able to use that just fine to contact you. Also, he admitted to using the socks, so I see no reason to overturn the block. Just because you admit to your bad deeds doesn't mean that it nullifys your action or justifies them. A wiser user would have sat out the orginal short block. Please speak to InShanee about the original block, as I had nothing to do with that. I only dealt with the sockpuppets. pschemp | talk 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppetry just isn't on nor are incivil edit summaries. Support the initial block and the extensions, InShanee and Pschemp acted correctly here, and I see no reason for apology or self blocking(!). Civility is a fundamental requirement here and block evasion is just not good. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments so far. I would like to reiterate that I am not trying to present the matter at hand in a way that would make Tobias look like an angel. My main point is that the whole mess started as a misunderstanding. When you create an article and it gets deleted without explanation, and so does one that you re-create, and then you get blocked for something you did not do (part of Tobias's block was for "disruption and vandalism" because the title of the new article he re-created happened to start with the word "Bad", which was interpreted as vandalism), you have all the reasons to be angry and confused. It is true, Tobias's choice of the way he decided to convey his anger was largely unacceptable, but that does not change the fact that some of the very early actions against him had been unfair. All I am asking is understanding and apologies for what became a spark for further hostilities by both sides. If the community decides to apply the rules without looking further into the human factor, I will, of course, submit and withdraw, but it will indeed be regrettable. With all Tobias's downsides, he is a valuable editor. Knocking him in the head and kicking him in the groin every time he makes a mistake, harder and harder every time based on his "previous conflicts" history, will not make him a better Wikipedian. Understanding his concerns and helping him out in conflict situations will, although one would be naïve to believe it will happen overnight.
    I will welcome any further comments.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no apology or indication on Tobias's part at the moment that he regrets any of his actions or considers them mistaken. He is of course, free to contribute civilly when his block is over.pschemp | talk 18:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He will not be able to personally apologize for the next five and a half weeks, which is the duration of the remainder of his block. In the meanwhile, you are welcome to contact him directly about his intentions to apologize; I cannot speak for him in these matters, only make suggestions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He is welcome to make an apology on his talk page, and certainly is able to do so as his vast amounts of editing it today have shown. I would consider reducing the block should he show geniune contrition, but I think completely removing it is incorrect. pschemp | talk 18:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked users can still post to their own talk pages unless there has been egregious vandalism or uncivil behaviour or other abuses, as by practice, we do not protect talk pages of blocked users unless there is a need. So he can comment there, if after reviewing this thread, he wishes to do so. My suggestion is that he consider his actions so far and think about the consequences. If some contrition were shown, some understanding that even if things go badly you still can't be incivil, some agreement to abide by the norms here, I'd be inclined to look more favourably on a request to reduce the length of the block request, should one be made. As yet I've seen little sign of that understanding. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update - This user has yet to apologize or admit he did anything wrong. I've offered to reduce his block to one week should he do so. pschemp | talk 03:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Site search indicates discussions of edit warring on the German sister project all the way back to 2004, where Tobias Conradi has been previously blocked, and "This user became closed" (banned) after his (Google translated) 19:44, 17 February 2006 edit summary "If your brain so for a long time needs is that not my problem. Go perhaps to your delete policeman coffee drinking...." Apparently, that means something inflammatory that was not tolerated there!
    Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi to which he refused to respond, refused mediation, and refused to respond to arbitration.
    As he is long established user (2+ years) on multiple *pedia that is very familier with the dispute resolution process here, and has a long history everywhere of inflammatory edits and edit histories, sockpuppetry, page move vandalism, and previous blocks, please do not reduce his block to one week. Eight weeks is a good start.
    --William Allen Simpson 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This is the mildest example from Tobias's talk page of a reaction to a perfectly civil and logical note:

    but am now block by my new stalker Pschemp. I updated tango.info at 4:23 and Pschemp voted on Afd at 4:25. What else is this than stalking?
    Seriously, you need to stop calling people stalkers. There is no stalking here and to say so shows either bad faith or a lack of understanding of what admins do to carry out what they are asked to do. You've demonstrated a history that suggests that it makes sense for admins to watch your contributions and see what you're up to. That's not stalking, that's admins doing what the community asks. You are hereby warned to stop using that term, or other pejorative terms, when referring to admins carrying out their duties, or I will consider you in further violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and will extend your block further (after presenting it for review from my peers). Do not remove this notice, and do not call it nonsense, as it is a formal warning from an admin. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If admins stalk it is not stalking? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to the apparent inability to discuss things in a rational way, (edit summaries such as this, putting words I never said into my mouth:)

    (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tobias Conradi (→Tobias Conradi - reply to Pschemp, who holds up wrong allegations and wants to force novice users to change their user name)

    I have left a note to Tobias and will no longer attempt to reason with him. Anyone else in the community is welcome to.pschemp | talk 00:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New puppets

    Blocked indefinitely. Tom Harrison Talk 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request

    Mike Garcia must be banned for trolling, vandalism, harassment, inaccurate edits. He is not as valuable as Hephaestos, who went away because of him. Zzzzz 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted this user from vandalizing my talk page and Hephaestos'. I just sent him a message on his talk page why he is doing this. Mike Garcia 21:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares why he's doing it? I've blocked him for trolling.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to bring to the administrators attention that Zzzzz has filled his talk page with {{unblock}} accompanied by the edit summary "FUCK YOU! WIKIPEDIA ISN'T KNOWLEDGE IT IS SHIT!" Ryulong 22:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've protected his talk page since he was continuing his trolling there. No reason we have to put up with this. Antandrus (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Either a sleeper account or one that has been compromised. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think that Zzzzz account might have been hijacked, he was an excellent editor who wrote 5 or 6 Featured articles, something that any troll won't do. I'm in big shock about this. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Zzzzz (Talk | contribs | block) moved User:Zzzzz to User:Johnny the Password Cracker" [5] kinda looks like a hijack. --Conti|✉ 01:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I told Zzzzz to email me in his talk page to sort this out, fucking Johnny the Vandal likely hijacked that account, I'll try to deal with the situation, maybe a checkuser is in place. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I told User:Rebecca in IRC to do a checkuser for Zzzzz account, and comfirmed the highjacking, Zzzzz Ip is a major one in the US while the vandalism came from an IP in Italy, this is bad. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why doesn't he change his password? Mo-Al 02:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be accurate and as Zzzzz didn't do these actions, I have unblocked and reblocked indefinitely as "compromised account per AN/I and checkuser - temporary block until situation is fixed by the real Zzzzz." For the record, and all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing the real Zzzzz can do to fix the situation, is there? The hacker would have probably changed his account's password. Kimchi.sg 07:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If he can convince us that he is he (email, IP address, etc.) then his account password should be reset to allow him to regain control. If there is no way for an administrator to do it then a developer (I suppose) would have to do it and I would recommend adding a feature for it. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-06 07:51Z
    There isn't a method for administrators to do this, and I don't believe the developers are willing to do so for security reasons. There are Mediawiki extensions available (and it would be no problem for the developers to create one of their own) to do password resets, but the problem is that a) it can be abused very easily if given to the wrong people, and b) it's nearly impossible to be certain the person requesting the reset password is the real user. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy's password is "zzzz", for example ZZZZ 10:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This account ZZZZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have been hacked as well (or, as the vandal seemed to indicate, the password was simply the username), and was used to do some page move vandalism. This account has been blocked indefinately, I suppose until the user can convince us somehow that he has regained control. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Update in the case of User:ZZZZ: Checkuser confirmed that the account was indeed compromised. However, since ZZZZ had not set an email address, we have no way to get in contact with him, confirm that the password has been changed, or even confirm that we're talking to him and not the vandal. Therefore the account was blocked indefinitely as compromised. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 02:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would just like to note that the individual responsible for the ZZZZ affair is the same that was responsible for Sunholm/Sunfazer and all the vandal socks associated therewith. IP continues to be 82.42.145.158 and should not be unblocked for any reason. This is a very slick individual who is trying everything he can to cause problems. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a textbook case of an incredibly weak password. If Zzzzz wants to continue contributing to Wikipedia he's going to have to make a new account and use a strong password this time consisting of a random combination of letters (both uppercase and lowercase), numbers, and punctuation. For example (don't use this!), sh0G/3Wb9# would be a good password. --Cyde↔Weys 13:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You bastard, now I have to change my password--Sh0G3Wb9 05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked this account for being created solely for either trolling or telling a bad joke. --cesarb 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I unblocked per email I got with Zzzzz, he did had a very very weak password and he now changed it. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He sent me an email too. I didn't unblock because I couldn't be sure it wasn't the vandal. Were you sure? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ste4k being disruptive

    Ste4k has been engaged in some very hostile and disruptive editing behavior on the articles Charles Buell Anderson (and likely others, such as Endeavor Academy and A Course in Miracles). For instance, he/she has removed multiple times from the section Charles Buell Anderson#See also a link to A Course in Miracles. As a look at http://www.endeavoracademy.com shows, this is the name of the primary text used by Anderson's organization, Endeavor Academy. Yet Ste4k has repeatedly removed that link, with bizarre edit summaries such as "See also - removing incorrect POV"[6] and "See also - Removing POV again. Please ask if you don't understand the topic, thanks."[7]

    When I restored the link (because its relevance is rather blatantly obvious) Ste4k left a message on my user page alleging that I had added "unsourced information" that had not been "published by reputable sources" and carefully avoiding the fact that there was no "information" whose truth or falsity could be supported or debunked by "reputable sources", but rather a link in the "See also" section. Ste4k also added twenty articles to the "See also" section, including Nuclear weapon, District court, Heaven and Hell, asking that I explain how each one was irrelevant to the article (also accusing me of vandalism via a template inserted in his/her edit).[8] When challenged to explain why those twenty links were relevant, Ste4k gave such rationales as:

    Ste4k ended with an extremely insulting postscript: "Please learn to study the subject before making blind edits, and please discuss your hopes to improve the page with other editors in discussion."[9]

    This is far from the only instance of Ste4k twisting policy and bending the facts in such a way as to make it impossible to believe that he/she is acting in good faith. He/she has initiated an AfD for Charles Buell Anderson in which he/she makes the claim that to write in the article that some of the couples who have attended Endeavor Academy have come away with complaints, based on segments of CBS's news show 48 Hours where they spoke with couples who have attended Endeavor Academy and have come away with complaints, would be original research. Someone needs to explain to Ste4k that wikilawyering and incivility of this sort are not tolerated on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, Ste4k is apparently concurrently involved in multiple controversies. I have found written Ste4k a couple times about his AFDs. He likes to quote policies at well-established users (and administrators) who have much more experience than himself. In his defense, I think he is usually acting in good faith - just not communicating in a way compatible with Wikipedia. I would call him a "verifiability warrior"; he wishes to delete anything without (what he considers) reliable sources. (One disagreement I have with him is due to his wanting to delete entire articles if he didn't see citations in the article.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-06 07:43Z
    He nominated Kedarnath Agarwal for an AfD; the votes were unanimously for keep. When I suggested that this was not an ideal nomination and also suggested one or things he might want to do differently, he was particularly unpleasant and aggressive on my talk page, while deleting all the messages I left on his own talk page. Hornplease 06:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. This editor has been very aggressive. I can't tell if it's POV pushing, or just plain old pushing. A slower approach would help. -Will Beback 09:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ste4k also wound up in a verifiability/notability dispute over A Course in Miracles (book) with Andrew Parodi, in which he solicited both a Third Opinion request and a Request for Comments on the article, then accused me of "deliberately starting an argument with me about topics I did not wish to discuss" [10] when I provided a third opinion and some comments. The dispute, which went as far as an aborted mediation attempt, wound up apparently driving Andrew Parodi off of Wikipedia. I don't entirely blame Ste4k for that -- the dispute was somewhat poorly handled on all sides (including my attempt to mediate it), and Andrew's remarks seemed to have a habit of poking Ste4k with a sti(k rather than trying to actually resolve the conflict -- but it's another example of a very combative and disruptive style. Kickaha Ota 19:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for inviting me to the chat. Per the original matter under discussion, there are at least two, known to be three, and possibly more different types of material, books, courses, educational systems, etc. that are referred to as "A Course in Miracles". It doesn't help anyone to assume bad faith on my part simply because of a lack of research on anothers' part. Nor does it make much sense to simply add material that is nonsense, avoid discussing it rationally in the talk pages, and then run hither to the incident board to make false accusations. Thanks. Ste4k 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the second matter regarding the 48 Hourse material, as I mentioned earlier, if anyone would like to write an article using that source as reference, then they should include into the article material from the reference. Listing it as a reference to content without any context is misleading. The page in question is a biography and the article in question is seven years old and contains prophetic statements that have turned out to be untrue. Per the biography in question nominated for AfD, it is plain that there isn't even a reference to this man's date of birth, family status, hometown, importance to the community, etc., etc., According to the one reference that has information speaking about the man, it is a primary source, and it shows that the man was in the Marine Corp as Private First Class. That in itself is simply not notable enough for a biography. He hasn't earned any medals, and the story about Nagasaki takes up 90% of the article since there isn't anything else about this man that is known. Ste4k 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • KickahaOta, that RfM was not aborted, is still live there, and I have been waiting patiently to see what happens next. Ste4k 02:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you prepared well for the mediation, and I hope those preparations were useful in updating the articles. Unfortunately, unless Andrew decides to return to Wikipedia, the mediation won't happen, since it requires two active parties. That's what I meant when I said "aborted". Sorry I was unclear. Kickaha Ota 19:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaaand the mediation just opened, proving once again that me == teh n00b. Kickaha Ota 14:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What does one do about a problem user who bombards one's user talk page with false warning templates? Ste4k has been doing so, making false accusations of personal attacks (an example of what Ste4k classifies as a personal attack can be seen when she selectively quotes a sentence beginning "What is a problem is you trying to make that decision for everyone else ..." as "What is a problem is you..."[11]) Ste4k has also falsely accused me of vandalism [12] (for removing, as mentioned above, a set of twenty links she inserted into the "See also" section of the article on rationales as vague as "Hell - Related to Religious Figures") She also claims that I "Remov[ed] direct quotes from a cited source supplied by Nscheffey (talk · contribs)" when in fact, the source she refers to is not directly quoted at all, and responds to the fact that I had to restore information she removed on incorrect pretext, twice, by informing me "Please refer to policy listed at WP:3RR." What can be done about an editor who abuses Wikipedia and attacks other editors by misapplying the mechanisms meant to deal with actual wrongdoing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vaquero III

    User:Vaquero100 posted a message to my talk page concerning the Roman v.s. Catholic naming dispute and another move he made. He asked for input by neutral administrators. I recommended he start a centralized discussion (like I did Gimmetrow) and let him know I'd post here. I would like to sollicit opinions from editors (with as little edits to religious articles as possible - to avoid bias) and administrators with experience in starting a centralized discussion to get this mess resolved. - Mgm|(talk) 15:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Be aware that he appears to now be SynKobiety, or at least to be motivating/controlling that account. If this is a second account or a "meat puppet," then I'll be disappointed, but SynKobiety has only edited on this one subject and seems to step in already knowing the history of the arguments. Note that I'm not suggesting any action be taken, else I'd have taken it, as both users are very civil. They're just very zealous and no doubt sincere. I remain unmoved, however: as I say often (and hope to get recognized as "Geogre's 2nd Law of Wikipedia"): Wikipedia is not the place for negotiating ultimate truth nor overcoming historical wrongs and slights. I suspect that these users are interested in correction of a usage employed by all other reference works. When they all respond by dropping the "Roman," we will. Until then, usefulness to our readers demands naming where expected, which is RCC, not "CC." Geogre 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assure you that I am not Vaquero, nor do I know him. I realize that I have only edited relative to the Catholic Church naming issue - you have to start somewhere. I was moved to contribute when I saw the bias in Wikipedia related to this issue and when I researched relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I welcome you to discuss the most commonly used name for the Church in question and the most common understanding of "Catholic Church." I believe that it has been demonstrated that most readers expect that "Catholic Church" refers to the Church lead by the Pope and that the Church lead by the Pope is called the "Catholic Church." If you doubt this, please read what was written at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name and what Vaquero has compiled at CC vs RCC. I don't believe that you really intend for Wikipedia to be just an on-line re-compilation of printed reference works with its content determined by the editors of those works. SynKobiety 02:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I do, but I'm weird. (Actually, I think our content can be superior, is already more vast, but I think we serve readers conditioned by printed references and so, until our readers expect differently, we should name according to greatest use, and this is separate from the theological, historical, and political arguments, which, for me, also come down to using the longer name.) Geogre 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    George, I suspect that you are afraid to look intellictually sound arguments. You keep reasserting your own opinion without making reference to actual WP naming convensions or policies. This seems to me to be unbecoming of an administrator. If you are unwilling to engage the arguments based on WP standards, I would hope that you would simply refrain from expressing any opinion at all, because your present approach is fundamentally illinformed, and intellectually and morally dishonest. Vaquero100 03:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this User talk:Geogre#Nasty discussion represents the quality of thought of WP administrators, WP is in trouble. The refusal of WP editors and administrators to actually engage a dispute based on WP conventions and policy is evidence of an ingrained bias in the WP community. A more thorough supervision of administrators, their editing biases and the degree to which they base their editing on WP conventions and policies appears to be severely lacking on Wikipedia.Vaquero100 03:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, darn. I'm sorry that you're disappointed. Please do devote some time and energy in getting all other reference works to change to match your own preference, and then you will have a cast iron reason for us to change. However, the lack of other administrators rushing in here might in fact be evidence that Wikipedia is run by a purblind cabal that fears intellectualism. It could also be evidence that you are asking for everything to match your private view and no one else agrees or sees any profit in trying to prove the obvious. Geogre 12:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And still you fail to engage WP conventions and policies. Wierd indeed. Perhaps we should call the article "Papist" or some such thing. It might better reflect the perspective of some WP administrators. Vaquero100 19:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Having reviewed said discussion, I will agree that it is not Wikipedia at its best. There has been a lot of sarcasm & emotion on both sides. However, I can't help thinking that no matter what Geogre wrote, both Vaquero & SynKobiety would reject it & reiterate their entrenched opinions. It's obvious that there is an impass here, & until someone can find a way to break thru to some kind of consensus the best thing for all parties to do is step away from this conflict & not do anything to further enflame either side -- including renaming the articles in question. -- llywrch 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In 12 years of elementary and secondary education from priests and nuns, I never once heard anyone object to the term "Roman Catholic", or express the belief that it is in any way a derogatory term. I've asked a few others, and similarly can't find anyone who's ever even heard any objection to the term. I have to believe that those who object to it are a tiny minority. The simple fact is that there are other churches that also use "Catholic" in their name, including long independent bodies like the Assyrians, as well as traditionalist breakaway sects formed after both Vatican I and II. There are some who would argue that only one church has the right to use the word, but that is a POV which I believe has no place in an objective encyclopedia. Just my 2¢. Fan-1967 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not arguing whether or not only one church has the right to use the word Catholic. I am arguing that there is one Church that uses the exact name "Catholic Church." Naming conventions explicitly state:
    Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
    • Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
    • Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
    • Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
    • Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?
    -SynKobiety 22:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know this was continuing here. All I can say is that I have most emphatically not been sarcastic. I am not interested in discussing the righteousness of the name change, either way. I don't think that we're in a position to follow dictionaries in descriptive definition, either. I was sincere in referring continually to the one argument that I think is the stopper: we have to be useful to our readers, and our readers need for us to use the most precise terminology. Therefore, as all other reference works use "Roman," we should, because that is where our articles can best be found. I do, indeed, have suspicions about why these two editors are motivated to have a name change, and I am quite, quite certain that such a change would offend readers. Therefore, I see no advantage to a change and a huge disadvantage, but I am not going to engage in discussing the personalities involved. My attempts to side-step their emotions were not sarcasm; they were, I hope, a refusal to engage. There is no way we're going to get anywhere at all if we start talking about personalities, ignorance, etc. It just won't move us forward, so, if I have someone say something nasty, you must expect a "I wish to subscribe to your newsletter" sort of response (a non-reply, in other words). I'm sorry that it has been perceived as an attempt to antagonize, as I am really just trying to avoid antagonism. Geogre 18:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From above: "Oh, darn. I'm sorry that you're disappointed. " - Geogre 12:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Isn't this sarcasm? -SynKobiety 22:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't intended that way. It was perhaps dismissive, but that's what I've been saying: I will dismiss attempts at getting personal. I may start using H.L. Mencken's form letter response: "Dear Sir/Madam, you may be right." I.e. it's just not going to do any good to have people question my intelligence or motives and have me defend them, nor for me to attack your intelligence or motives and have you defend them. Those are keys to fights, not discussion. My comment was saying, "Think of you what I will. I wish you weren't disappointed, but there it is," with a little barb tossed in as payment for trying to take the discussion to the personal level. Geogre 13:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite your best interests (which I fully understand), it did come across as sarcastic. Unfortunately, so does Mencken's famous quotation you quoted; the nature of Internet discussions have taught us to expect that everyone tries to have the last word in every discussion. May I suggest being honest? Simply write something along the lines of "I do not wish to discuss this subject further with you." -- llywrch 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello? Hello? Is there anybody out there at all who is willing to engage a conversation based even remotely related to the WP policy and naming conventions? I am not asking for WP administrators to play the relativist or some Solomonic chop the baby in two. Can we find an administrator who will not play politician but used their intellect????Vaquero100 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We are using our intellects. (BTW, claiming that people involved in your discussion are admins who are playing politicians & do not "used [sic] their intellect" could be understood by some people as incivil language.) We are maintaining the status quo until you, the people who agree with you, & the people who disagree with you all reach a consensus -- or at least agree what to disagree about. If you concede on some points, I expect that your colleagues who disagree with you will likewise find some points to concede on -- or find themselves embarassing themselves by appearing to engage in a disruption. -- llywrch 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Karl Meier is blanking articles

    1. Tactics of Kurdistan Workers Party
    2. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict
    I find such things disruptive and this appears to be a repetive pattern. I havent looked hard enough to find other similar edits. --Cat out 12:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not blanking articles, and you know it. Please don't make disruptive false vandalism claims. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I felt it was vandalism I would report it at the vandalism page. This isnt a vandalism claim, just a disruptive editing behavior I was told about. --Cat out 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what to say about the Casualties article but it appears that User:FrancisTyers agreed with User:Karl Meier on the Tactics article to the point of actually submitting it for deletion. (→Netscott) 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do no mind afding of pages (which is a conensus gathering process). I do mind however the blanking. There is a great difference. --Cat out 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if User:FrancisTyers's contention that, " 4. article is a POV fork of Kurdistan Workers Party where the timelines were rejected countless times for inclusion." is correct regarding the Tactics article being a pov fork then User:Karl Meier was right in redirecting it. (→Netscott) 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FrancisTyers is entitled to his opinion. Thats fine. Redirecting a page like that however is not aproporate. We have a {{Merge}} and {{afd}} for a reason don't we? Why the rush? --Cat out 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the rush? Many times being bold is more efficient... obviously there was contention over the redirection and Wikipedia is proceeding normally regarding such contention. The point you're making is evident but specifically utilizing the term "blanking" is associated with vandalism and in this case such a term is not applicable... redirecting is what was being done... if it were not for good faith the appearance of admin baiting in the utilization of such terminology would seem a likely explanation. (→Netscott) 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not baiting admins. I am merely relying something posted on my talk page to the proper place. My initial invenstigation rvealed similar behaviour by Karl Meier on at least one other article of similar content (both about Kurdistan Workers Party). --Cat out 12:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Xed blocked indefinitely

    I have indefinitely blocked Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for his latest comment following a long and storied history of personal attacks, disruption, edit warring, etc. He's had many warnings and never reformed, and his latest was simply the straw that broke the Jimbo's back :-P Please review. --Cyde↔Weys 14:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse. Though no one cares what I think. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. While Xed is capable of some phenomenal work when he wants to, it happens so rarely these days that he's well and truly become a net negative. I couldn't find anything useful he's actually done since the start of May, despite regular edits and a myriad of conflicts during that period. Rebecca 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Seems as though endorsement is a given... let's start a do not endorse section: (→Netscott) 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see a problem with people stateing their opion that certian wikia projects are going to have issues. Based on wikipedia experence we know that project is going to have problems.Geni 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A blatent troll that bases his efforts upon the encyclopedia in a destructive and slanderous manner. He must be silenced for the good of the project. This editor is not present to build an encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite true and in any case if find it interesting you belive we have the power to silce people. Did we take over serveral major goverments whiles I wasn't looking?Geni 22:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I beg to differ. A quick check of his contributions is sufficient verification of his intent on the encyclopedia. Trolling isn't permitted at wikiepdia. -Randall Brackett 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your explantion of how Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is trolling should be interesting. Details of how it is destructive and slanderous would be nice because there are 163 people who would probably like to know what they have gotten themselves into.Geni 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Xed's comments were not merely constructive critisisim. They were shameful, blatent, malicious personal attacks and misaccusations. Please don't compare these two. Xed was an obvious troll who was unrepentant in his actions. -Randall Brackett 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Xed was rather heavily involved in the early stages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Of course he does have authority issues but ignoreing him generaly solves that one.Geni 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduce to maximum of 30 days without an ArbComm ruling (or Jimbo acting himself) indvidual editors should not block a user for more than 30 days. 72.60.226.29 05:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse—After reviewing the reason why Cyde had to ban Xed indefinitely, I felt that Cyde had no other choice but to do so—It just had to be done because Xed was indeed "user-crapping" (Attempting to discredit and/or ruin the image of the user). It may be possible that Xed might be using sockpuppets in the future, so Xed's past actions should be sent to the ArbComm ASAP. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo has unblocked. See Xed's talk page and the block log for explanation. Let's see if he can restrain himself. Just letting all interested in this discussion aware. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have warned Xed that this is the last time I will protect him. I have felt that since he is getting blocked for personal attacks on me, he should be given much more latitude than if he was treating anyone else in the same way... I am me, and somehow I signed up for this job in a way that other people have not. I do not mind criticism, and I do not mind trolling, in the way that other people might. But I am finished protecting him. I think I have done my fair share here to make sure that he can not with any plausibility claim that he is being blocked merely for expressing respectful dissent. If he engages in vicious personal attacks not based in facts but rather in falsehoods, well, at some point there is nothing more I can do to assist him.--Jimbo Wales 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. Since Xed thanked me by immediately trolling, I have simply restored the former indefinite block. Please do not consider this a formal Jimbo-block, but rather me restoring the status quo, which was that we were on the verge of a community-consensus block. I wash my hands of him.--Jimbo Wales 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia Wikiquote MAJOR problem.

    I would like to report a problem spanning Wikipedia and Wikiquote. User:Crestville is causing sever vandalism on Wikiquote, and ignoring talk page warnings. So, I tried to contact him here. He is very arrogant in his responses and tried to blame it on an imposter. However, there is no imposter. I need him blocked here, and I am working on blocking him on Wikiquote. You can contact me on Wikiquote under the same username I am using here. Good day. Wazzawazzawaz 23:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't pay this any mind. I suspect Waz is a sockpuppet himself - that's probalby why he has pasted here, following the link on his own userpage, rather than go to the proper page which would be the vandal page. Has created an account - User:CrestvilIe - with a name similar to mine (in lowercase it is indistinguishable but in upper case you can see I am CRESTVILLE while he is CRESTVILIE). He has then proceeded to vandelise pages on wikiquote.
    Despite the obvious silly trick I then proceeded to recieve messages from a new user called User:Wazzawazzawaz - who had not even taken the time to create a convincing userpage - accusing me of the vandelism, despite the fact that if they had followed the link on the history page it would have taken them to the imposters page. This continued with my imposter vandelising something, then a few minites later wazzer would reappear and chastise me for it. It seems clear to me that wazzawazzawaz or whatever is a sockpuppet for my impersonater and this is just some silly joke. I must say, however, it is flattering to have both an imposter and a stalker. I must be a mini-wiki celeb.--Crestville 00:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How are you sure crestvilie and wazzawazzawaz are the same user. Wazzawazzawazza is a MAJOR contributer over on Wikiquote. Wingmanattack 00:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to Crestville's explanation I feel this should still be neutrally investigated. Wazzawazzawaz seem to be correct in calling Crestville arrogant, because as you can see on User:CrestvilIe's page Crestville has called him a "jacko loving sockpuppet.” Wingmanattack 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You'll need to discuss it with an admin on Wikiquote. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd say have CRESTVILIE if they committed vandalism on WikiQuote and investigate any possible incivility by CRESTVILLE on Wikipedia separately. Can checkuser requests span projects? - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chuck Munson

    Two anons, 68.106.125.28 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and 38.118.8.26 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (probably the same person) keep inserting unreferenced and libellous material into the article on Chuck Munson. This is a page that few people have watched I believe, so if someone else can keep an eye on it, or semi-protect it, that would be nice. Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 00:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Timothy Usher's anti-Bishonen campaign

    I've been ignoring Timothy Usher's misdirection campaign against me as best I can, after once posting my view that what he calls our "dispute" is all on his side[13], but when he posts outright lies in a place this public, I suppose I should respond. I didn't undo His Excellency's second block. Timothy Usher, as I reminded you on your talkpage a few days ago, I didnt shorten or offer to shorten that block, as I thought it wrong to be the one to do it again for the same user. "If nobody else out of 900 admins would unblock/shorten, I would rather have let the block stand. But WooHooKitty [himself] reinstated [his] week block.[14] Again, if you have a problem with my admin actions (and you seem to have an enormous, overshadowing, obsessive problem with them), please consider an RfC against me. I would be most interested in seeing your repertoire of accusations complemented with links to things I've actually said or done. Bishonen | talk 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    My "enormous, overshadowing, obsessive problem" with your administrative actions is entirely limited to your ongoing patronage of His excellency.Timothy Usher 02:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a completely disinterested party in this dispute, it's pretty clear from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:His_excellency that yes, Bishonen, you have unblocked His excellency indefinite blocks twice. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not. The log shows a mere technical problem, which like several other admins I tried to fix but failed. (The person who finally fixed it, also shown in the log, was more tech savvy than me: User:Raul654.) I'm not very happy about Zoe's comment sitting here, with such a respected user expressing that I've been saying the thing which is not, but Zoe hasn't been editing for a while. When she does, I'm hoping she'll withdraw it, per HE's explanation below and my own post on her talkpage. Bishonen | talk 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen has explained the situation on my Talk page, and I'm willing to redact my comments above. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As an interested party: actually the last block removal was on my request. The block was for 1 week, and as you see, she did what she did after the block was supposed to have expired. The autoblock system kept extending the block on me because of some error (something to do with autoblock choking on caps or spaces or underscores in the ID), and though I my block was supposed to have expired on July 5th, autoblock was pushing it forward into the 7th. She wasn't reversing anything, just undoing a system problem because she happened to be on the IRC channel when I made the request. Several other admins tried to fix it before her and couldn't.The block prior to that has an ANI entry regarding it, and the vast majority of observers in that situation agreed the block was unreasonable given the offense (the single use of the word 'bigot).
    On the rest of this nonsense (all of this is irrelevant to this ANI entry), on every single instance where Bishonen either reversed a block or questioned the validity on it, several if not a majority of others observing the ANI entry on the blocks in question noted the same things she did: that the blocks were unreasonably harsh considering the alleged violations they're founded on, or that the violations they were grounded in were not actual WP: violations at all. Bishonen was simply doing her job, and an objective view of her decisions would suggest she made the right choices. It should be noted that Timothy Usher has a long standing conflict with me, and that he has made it a point to go from talk page to talk page where I had participated and make remarks against me. Another behavior characterized these actions as 'stalking'. Indeed, Timothy Usher had apparently gone so far as to 'google' my old ID, begging the question of what he intended to do with any information he'd recieve.Clearly, he's made his grudge against me a personal matter separate from any 'content dispute'. Amongst the blocks Bishonen commented on, criticized, reduced or reversed, are those that were put in place on Timothy's request. It is apparent he has taken these personally as well, and is now stalking Bishonen too. It is clear he is now using the same offensive methods against Bishonen. Perhaps this deserves an ANI entry of its own. His Excellency... 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bishonen's pro-His excellency campaign

    Some recent comments by Bishonen's protogé His excellency: [15], [16]. Bishonen, you've every right to take pride in your tireless efforts to keep such posts coming. They really improve the encyclopedia, and they couldn’t have happened without you. Good work.Timothy Usher 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's lucky sarcasm can fix problems like this. Stephen B Streater 09:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Timothy Usher's comment here is unambiguously a personal attack in my view. It must be nice to have no shame. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If your point is that no personnal attack justifies another, I agree. His excellency is blocked for a year, and I support that. Unless there are necessary records to be completed, I suggest we drop it and move on. Tom Harrison Talk 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that Raul has unblocked His excellency again. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Raul has done so at the request of Bishonen, according to His excellency [17]. Its more like a wheel war now. Kevin_b_er 21:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer rather to Raul654's own message on His excellency's page[18], that's the horse's mouth here. Uh, how is it anything like a wheel war? Bishonen | talk 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't know anything about this situation, but I'd just like to add that Bishonen is a very good admin and a reasonable person, so Timothy, I hope you'll try persuasion if you disagree with her in future, and not allow any more animosity to build up between you. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion about Bishonen, or any basis for forming one, outside of her work on behalf of His excellency. In aiding him, she is knowingly, and by now it would seem quite wilfully, subjecting other editors to his relentless personal attacks and copious streams of racist, sectarian, anti-Semitic and homophobic invective. Her reasons for doing so have never been clearly and overtly expressed, and by this time I've given up any expectation that I'll ever hear them. I've asked her not to keep bringing him back, but she's refused. I can think of nothing else to discuss, and have nothing much to express other than the strong desire not to partipate in any forum to which HE is also invited.Timothy Usher 01:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of misstatement has to come from either malice or incomprehension. There has been no work by anybody "on behalf of HE," so cut that nonsense out right now. If Bishonen hadn't shortened the block, I would have. If I wouldn't have, someone else would have. Had that person not, someone else would have. Give it up. The reason the blocks have been shortened is that they were out of process. That's it. No statements for or against the user, only a discussion by admins with admins on whether the block for "personal attacks" was appropriate. One person seems to think it was. Several don't. The Personal Attack "policy" merely says that it is our policy not to launch personal attacks. There are no sanctions specified. Further, the speech you consider yourself so maligned by appears to several other readers to be inflammatory but not insulting, and the rest of us see your own words as being pretty inflammatory, too. You're not getting your way. That's too bad, but it has nothing to do with anyone working for or on behalf of your bete noir (or is that Bishonen now?). Geogre 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I reject the implication that there is some sort of moral equivalence between Timothy Useher's conduct and His excelleny's. As far as the propriety of the many blocks, "One person seems to think it was. Several don't" is also a misstatement; I'm sure it is no more from malice or incomprehension than Timothy Usher's. If you find his conduct so worthy of condemnation, follow the process you recommend: start an RfC. It's astonishing to me that some are eager to bend over backward to give His excellency every possible benefit of process, but are quick to condemn Timothy Usher for, apparently, having the temerity to protest sustained and vicious attacks. Every time Amibidhrohi/His excellency has been unblocked, or his block has expired, the attacks have resumed, and have gotten worse. After this has happened two or three times, it's hard for me, and maybe harder for Timothy Usher, to see how a reasonable person expects a different result the next time. Tom Harrison Talk 03:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read what I responded to, Tom. Timothy's behavior is certainly crossing the line between sense and disruption, but I, unlike some people, don't believe in blocking and blocking and blocking some more because of "insults." The equivalency is on the offense: HE provokes Usher, and Usher provokes HE. That's the only thing that unilateral blocking is concerned with. I responded, though, to Usher's continuing accusations that anyone insisting on process is working "on behalf of HE." He has gotten obsessed with Bishonen as HE's friend. He is continuing to accuse everyone who doesn't do as he wishes of being on HE's "side." That's nonsense, and now you're effectively repeating the same gesture by saying that we must all be in favor of HE because we're in favor of following the rules. The choice is not Usher and HE. The choice is behaving like responsible administrators who know that there are rules and apply them fairly and evenly and taking sides. Geogre 12:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested that the ArbCom review Timothy Usher's conduct in this matter. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Community ban on User:Hogeye

    User:Hogeye was blocked for a month for disruption on anarchism related articles. Since then he has been consistently and almost on a daily basis (although with notable and lengthy lulls) been using open proxies to evade his block. Ideally I'd like to see a ban and indefinite block put in place, but I'd settle for something that we don't have to reset the block every couple of days :)

    20:15, 7 July 2006, Sarge Baldy (Talk) blocked Hogeye (contribs) (expires 20:15, 7 August 2006) (Unblock) (resetting due to ban evasion)

    See the category here. Note that most of these are not sockpuppets in the conventional sense, but just open proxies that are being used to circumvent his block. - FrancisTyers · 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I spent most of my time on wikipedia yesterday reverting Hogeye's sock edits at Anarchism, so I am fully supportive of this proposal. Their socks also reverted changes I made to other articles recently, including this page, making three personal attacks in the process: [19], [20], [21] and [22]. This user constantly evades blocks and edits disruptively, and it's about time they get banned permanently. The Ungovernable Force 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As the one who protected the Anarchism article for a month while trying to make Hogeye discuss his changes (before the first month-long block), I would not oppose it. --cesarb 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They have a new sock: User:Drowner.--The Ungovernable Force 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this spam?

    I have found many hundreds of links to the website sacred-texts.com, from almost every conceivable religion-related article on Wikipedia, in multiple languages. I am unsure whether this is a reliable source (despite its .com domain) or mass linkspamming. Unsurprisingly Alexa lists Wikipedia among the top sites linking in. Any thoughts? Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My suggestion is to look at the website and see if they provide anything meanful that the articles cannot provide. If that is the case, keep'em. If not, whack away my friend. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 11:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good stuff - I often link to it. Of course there may well be some superfluous links but there's no need for a mass purge. Haukur 11:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's sad that the standards above can't be applied to fisheatersDotCom. Someone should re-investigate the blacklisting of that site. 64.12.116.65 14:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like a free site similar to the Gutenberg Project (or Wikibooks), providing full texts of out-of-copyright works on religion an mythology. Of course, the site should not be referenced directly; the direct reference should be to the book itself. For example, "Joseph Ford Newton, The Builders: A story and study of Masonry. Cedar Rapids:The Torch Press, 1914. Online version hosted at [site link]" I've seen a lot of lazy embedded URLs used as references that will be useless if the link changes or the site goes down. Giving full bibliographic details is also part of the citing sources policy. But the site seems good. Thatcher131 12:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite a lot of these texts are public domain, which means that they're suitable for Wikisource. I wouldn't consider them spam, but if the text exists on Wikisource, there's really no reason to include a link to some other external source. The majority of LDS texts, for example, are on Wikisource, so the links to http://scriptures.lds.org can, for the most part, be replaced with interwiki links to Wikisource.
    There's also a template, {{Sourcetext}}, for ease of interwiki. :-) Jude (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That site provides interlinear versions of some texts like the Qur'an, and so is very useful to link to for that purpose. - Merzbow 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Essjay and Pschemp revert warring to improperly speedy keep {{unblockabuse}}

    See the history of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 8. None of the conditions satisfied in Wikipedia:Speedy keep is met. --SPUI (T - C) 16:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You forgot to mention Psy Guy. If you disagree, the proper thing to do is to take this to DRV. pschemp | talk 16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SPUI is currently under not one but *two* Arbitration Committee imposed probations for being an unrepentant disruptive user. I strongly encourage someone to remind him of the provisions of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#SPUI, preferably with a ban from the page he is disrupting and a suitable block. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, probation is not a "get your whacks in free" card for SPUI's opponents, use your judgment and good sense and warn him first even if you don't have to, and don't dismiss his opinion just because he gets on your nerves. Mindspillage --SPUI (T - C) 16:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "And as for SPUI, don't deliberately test our patience or I won't have any sympathy when you're blocked again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)" Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a complaint with me or are you just assuming bad faith? --SPUI (T - C) 16:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you disruptively and deliberately nominated the template in bad faith, and then revert warred with not one but three admins on the closing of it as a speedy keep after overwhelaming demonstration of your disruptive intention. And now, you're attempting to further disrupt the site here because you can't revert anymore. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for assuming bad faith. I came across the template, was disgusted by it, and nominated it for deletion. What's bad faith about that? --SPUI (T - C) 16:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously you haven't seen some of our more tenacious vandals post highly offensive personal attacks and repeatedly but up the unblock template with nasty messages in it. For those of use trying to clear out the unblock category and help those who genuinely need unblocked, it is quite disturbing and disruptive behavior to deal with. pschemp | talk 16:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you disagree with an unblock request, leave it and say so below. Deleting it just escalates it into a revert war. --SPUI (T - C) 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is indeed clear that none of the conditions for "speedy keep" were satisfied. That said you probably didn't have much of a chance to get this deleted even if the nomination had been allowed to run its course. Haukur 16:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    But that doesn't excuse the speedy close, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, someone neutral stepping in here: I don't see anything improper in what Essjay did. The debate was closed, by pschemp, someone who didn't participate in the debate, and you reverted her to reopen it. If you disagreed with the closure then you should have taken it to DRV. Admittedly the decision to speedy keep here was unusual, but it was a speedy keep by overwhelming consensus, and in any event, the nomination was equally unusual in itself. As a final point, *fD is not a place to debate policy, that's what talk pages are for. --bainer (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    TFD is a place to delete templates. Thus I took this template there. What should I have done? --SPUI (T - C) 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The point continues to be that the speedy close was without merit. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So tak it to DRV if you disagree. Easy simple solution, no reverting needed. pschemp | talk 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion this suggests that SPUI is continuing the pattern of provocative behavior that earned him his probation. No action on this occasion, but a firm warning that our patience is not limitless. --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... I see something I don't like, I attempt to get it fixed, and I'm accused of disruption and threatened with banning. You really know how to make people want to contribute. --SPUI (T - C) 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I'm wrong SPUI, but I think what you were actually intending to do was to change the practice of protecting the talk pages of people who overuse the unblock template. Obviously trying to have a template deleted is the wrong way to go about this. And Jeff, the speedy close process is indeed normally for certain situations. But here there was already a fairly clear consensus to speedily keep the template, and as I said before, an unusual nomination makes an unusual closure less out of place. --bainer (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as that practice is both a bad one and not in the protection policy. Where would you suggest I go to get said practice ended, given that it's not actually allowed anywhere? --SPUI (T - C) 16:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. Wikipedia:Protection policy#Protecting the talk page of a blocked user covers the protection of a talk page if the talk page is abused. Repeated re-posting of the unblock template is exactly that. Deleting administrative templates is definitely the wrong way to go about changing administrative practice—maybe a discussion on WP:AN or the village pump would've been in order? -- 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    "However, if users abuse this feature, and continue with vandalism on their own User Talk pages, they can be protected from editing, thus disabling this one ability blocked users have at the time of blockage." Are you saying that placing an {{unblock}} template on one's own talk page can be vandalism? --SPUI (T - C) 17:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SPUI, raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy would be a good start, or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), or the mailing list. Or discuss the practice directly with the people who engage in it. I don't feel strongly about this issue myself, but I'm sure that there are plenty of others who'd be interested in discussing it. --bainer (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you can judge how a community consensus is going to turn out in a atter of hours for a process that takes a little less than a week? That's interesting. I'm quite aware as to when a speedy keep is viable - this wasn't it. Agree with the nomination or not (and I don't), there was no reason to work out of process here, and the complaint is absolutely valid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, If you disagree, take it to DRV. Simple. No revert war needed. pschemp | talk 17:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is there, where the expected endorsing of the improper speedy keep is happening. --SPUI (T - C) 17:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with this, it is exactly where you should have put it in the first place. pschemp | talk 17:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff, the deletion policy includes the possibility of closing any debate early where a consensus is apparent, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Early closure. I would think that the consensus was pretty obvious here. Besides, there's nothing that the folks at DRV love more than out of process closures, and it's the proper place to contest the decision. I think though the fundamental point remains that TfD is not a place to debate policy or practice. --bainer (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that page you cite also says: "Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea." Haukur 17:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if they fulfill the obvious criteria. This, of course, did not. DRV also loves applauding out-of-process decisions they agree with, so the point, unfortunately, still stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In practice, closures of this type are covered by the Snowball clause. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is not policy, guideline, or anythin but a divisive essay people use to shirk previously-agreed policies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Great, we now have parallel discussions and separate fiefdoms. <sigh> On DRV, there is significant objection to the speedy keep, even though no one among them (well, almost) thinks that the thing should be deleted. The point is that "speedy keep" is rapidly turning into a weapon. I think, personally, that 24 hours would be a speedy keep or speedy delete. We really ought not be removing listings before the earth has done a half a turn, if nothing else. For all Tony knows, there is going to be someone in Jakarta with a compelling argument for the delete. The point is that we can't know if there is unanimity if we don't give .75 of the earth a chance to be awake. Is SPUI making a point? Probably. Is there reason to remove a nomination in twenty minutes? No. The futher debate is going to be supermajority anyway, so let it run. So far as I know, SPUI's not on an instant revert ban. Again, though, this isn't about him or you or you or you: it's about what a "speedy" decision is, and a speedy decision should at least let the world turn. Geogre 17:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since hardly anyone thinks the thing should be deleted, the review is a complete waste of time. Procedures are fine when used sensibly, but abusing them in this way is very bad for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, Tony, claiming it as a fait d'accompli and then saying that the discussion's length of time proves you were right does not make it right. DRV is necessary for admins and regular users, and AfD, CfD, and TfD are necessary for regular users and admins alike. Announcing that your opinion is sufficient to shortcircuit the world is not appropriate. If nothing else, I hope you'll take from the discussions here and DRV the message that you handled it incorrectly and, in the future, will allow 24 hours and have some faith in Wikipedians to decide for themselves. Rely on the strength of your arguments and the obvious logic, not on power and coercion. Geogre 03:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the discussion takes place in TfD or DRV, I'm confident that the close will be vindicated. However by closing early I offer the possibility of accepting the blatantly obvious. I can't coerce anyone, I can only essay a sensible close. And that's obviously better than just sitting around while an ill-conceved nomination is robotically put through the motions. --Tony Sidaway 02:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worse for Wikipedia when we abandon legitimate processes for the sake of what we assume is the right answer. It's obviously better to allow a process to run its course than to have protracted discussions like this because people can't be bothered to follow the overwhelmingly accepted guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AOL Vandalbot

    We have an AOL vandalbot active on the 207.200 range, and I'm finding quite a few unreverted edits, since it has been running for a while.

    Please look for edits from this range (and potentially others) in groups of three. This [23] is typical. It inserts minor typos, evidently in a manner calculated to bypass our anti-vandalbots. I tried a brief range block but it came right back. Antandrus (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Having discussed this further with Antandrus, we have come to the conclusion that the majority of vandalism is coming from the 207.200.116 range (and some from 207.200.112). Vandalism begins again as soon as the block expires. Longer blocks on 207.200.116.0/24 and 207.200.112.0/24 may be appropriate (I recently range blocked 207.200.116/24 for 30 minutes). Thanks TigerShark 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 116/24 block seemed to stop it for the duration, but it started again as soon as the block ended. I have now blocked 116/24 for 1 hour. Thanks TigerShark 00:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The weird thing about that is that it would need to be an AOL user who remains connected via dialup, as I think their broadband issues stable IP's. This means that some vandal is actually dialing in and leaving it going or there is an open relay somewhere. I wonder if that's possible. Geogre 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad to see you're not affected by this particular range-block. The bot seems to be set to run non-stop, and immediately detects when the block lifts: you will see it return immediately at 02:35 UTC, unless the vandal has given up for the time being. Don't AOL users get a new IP on each page load, in some cases? I wish I understood how AOL assigns its proxies but it's not obvious to me.
    Another thing I wish some more of us had was SQL access: I want to query and check all 207.200 edits from the last 36 hours, but it's hard to do just using recent changes. Antandrus (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if the talk pages of AOL IPs, and other IPs, were labeled as stable, regular dynamic (changing with each session) or super dynamic (changing with every page load), if it is possible to get the information. It would help a lot with blocks and talk page messages and warnings. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, if we have a real -bot going, we have to range block. What I don't want to see is out of process blocks for days and weeks and months and (as one person decided to do), indefinite. I'm using an AOL-owned ISP for the time being, and I'm not at all fond of it; however, I can't figure out when and how I get a new IP, either. AOL doesn't appear to assign with every page load, but it doesn't appear to assign at timed intervals, either. I'm sure, if I were more knowledgeable about TCP/IP, there might be some resource call that I could figure out is triggering it (or just AOL's servers are working on their clock, so they reassign themselves based on their server load). It appears that each region of AOL's domain (and we all know that a region might not be geographic, given the looping of backbone resources) gets a different range for some period of time, and that's why some AOL users have never been collaterally blocked, while I'm getting a collateral block 3-4 times a day. We all wish the vandals straight to their high school principal's office, but there are good users who suffer for their sins. Additionally, at this point we can't get any legitimate AOL accounts, as the vandals are registering names so fast that an AOL user can't even sign up, much less get a single edit in. If I weren't an admin, I'd be unable to contribute at all. Geogre 13:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of months ago there was great excitement and discussion of a range of semi-static (172., I think) AOL IPs that individuals could use based on some kind of configuration. Not being an AOL user myself, I've obviously never tried it, but unless I've totally lost my mind, this was supposed to be at least a partial solution. I can testify that I do sometimes run into AOL addresses in the 172. range, and that it does appear they are far more stable than the normal AOL IPs. Is this something that just never got wide enough disclosure, or is there a problem with the solution that I just missed? (Someone who actually remembers what the details were and how to set it up filling in the gaps here would be greatly appreciated.) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For my part, I'm working a lot, so I may finally afford DSL, but I hope I can still be a nag when I see people inappropriately throwing long blocks at our poor friends at AOL. Geogre 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I range blocked 207.200.116.0/24 for 12 hours last night but, of course, it started back one minute after the block expired. I ranged blocked for another 12 hours a few minutes ago (there is little point blocking for very short periods of time but at least with a medium length block we can regularly check to see if it is still running). I have also raised a request for an ISP abuse report here. When it is not blocked, the RC patrollers don't seem able to keep up with all of the vandalism, so I think that we will need to keep blocking for now. Another thought that occurred to me was whether we could have a bot that reverts all edits made in this range. There would be the problem that it would revert some good edits, but at least logged in users would be unaffected. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Cheers TigerShark 10:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Or, you know, we could just block all of AOL and force their hand. Pretty please? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I really think this is some other business, here. It's possible that someone is just busying a phone line for days at a time, but it's much more likely that someone with an always-on connection is hooking into AOL's rolling system. Would anyone be shocked to think there is a backdoor to AOL? More to the point, I suspect that an open relay is being used for someone to log into his AOL account from another, always-on connection. Geogre 11:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The block has now expired and there is no sign of the vandalbot, at least on the 207.200.116 range. TigerShark 22:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Spoke too soon. Has started again. Blocked range for 10 hours. Delay might indicate that it is not running completely automatically. TigerShark 22:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been running again: I just blocked it for fifteen minutes, as there were at least two good users active at the range, (as well as two unrelated vandals), and I was tired of reverting manually. If it is programmed to run automatically it will return at 02:41. Antandrus (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was unblocked early this morning, but since then there have been at least a couple of dozen individual IP blocks and probably a lot of missed vandalism overnight. I think we need to balance the damage that it is doing, and the time that it is taking to clean up against the collateral damage being caused, post report and apply individual blocks. I have range blocked again for 12 hours. Any thoughts on the idea of having a bot that reverts in this range? Cheers TigerShark 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a bot that blindly reverts in this range would effectively be indefinitely blocking the range, except it would take up the server use that all of the edits would cause. The only benefit to this would seem to be that registered users could still edit, but the fix to the blocking software that allows logged in users to edit when their IP is blocked is supposedly coming any day now. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 08:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism from AOL proxy

    I just reverted death threats posted from an AOL proxy. How much more of this do we need to put up with? It's my understanding that AOLers have the choice to not use the AOL proxy, by using a browser other than the AOL browser. It seems to me that instead of tolerating the perpetual stream of crime that spews out of the AOL proxies, we should be instructing legitimate AOL contributors on how not to use the proxies ... so that we can block them like the overflowing fount of misconduct and vandalism that they so evidently are. --FOo 22:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "It's my MISunderstanding that AOLers have the choice to not use the AOL proxy" Corrected your statement for you--152.163.100.65 23:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, hello, Mr. or Ms. AOLer. Care to elaborate? --FOo 23:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only that people seem to direct omni-directional hostility at virtually all AOL users, and advocate blocking all of AOL on a near daily basis, and virtually 100% of the time this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the AOL proxy system, as is yours--152.163.100.65 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure he would like it if you care to explain it then. --mboverload@ 23:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's my understanding that AOLers have the choice to not use the AOL proxy" no, not really, there's more than one type of AOL service, and from my understanding, you need the AOL "browser" since it's not really a browser, in such much as it's the shell of a browser, and you need it open in order to actually use AOL, without it, you don't have a connection to the internet, and although telling all AOL users to disconnect themselves from the internet would decrease vandalism, so would an asteroid colliding with the planet Earth--152.163.100.65 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users: The easiest way to avoid the AOL proxy system is to edit over https via secure.wikimedia.org. You may wish to bookmark the previous link (or this one) for later use.
    Another solution is to download and install a different web browser (Mozilla Firefox or Opera are both recommended). These browsers are not configured to use the AOL proxies, so they will instead connect to the Wikipedia servers directly. That way, the IP address that Wikipedia sees is your own, rather than one of the proxies. — getcrunk what?! 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of course wasn't written by an AOL user, the secure login is virtually impossible to use without severe userside lag, and the different webrowser part, seems like another AOL related urban legend, similar to the "change IP addresses every 15 minutes" myth--152.163.100.65 23:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the 15 minutes part is crap. Try every time you open a page. --mboverload@ 00:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The only piece of response above that seems to address the question at hand -- recommending AOLers to use a different browser -- is as follows:

    from my understanding, you need the AOL "browser" since it's not really a browser, in such much as it's the shell of a browser, and you need it open in order to actually use AOL, without it, you don't have a connection to the internet,

    However, there's nothing saying that you can't leave the "AOL browser" open (minimized) and use a different browser to edit Wikipedia.

    The ongoing problem is that legitimate non-logged-in AOLers using the proxy system are indistinguishable from known severe abusers. It would seem to me that any AOLer who wanted to be distinguished from abusers would be very interested in pursuing any technique which would accomplish this. Insisting that it is impossible, when it appears not to be, is an unproductive and self-destrucive response. --FOo 01:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do you have any idea how much of a system resource hog the AOL Window is? Multiple browsers running at the same time as AOL = Lag Of Death--152.163.100.65 01:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hardly. I do it it with every single edit I ever make to Wikipedia. And I have never encountered an AOL block because of it, so long as I use IE. Now Firefox and AOL do cause problems. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoa - Zoe, are you saying that you can use another browser and avoid the AOL proxy system?? Why haven't we heard more about this; it colors the issue in an entirely different light. Also, acn you elaborate on the Firefox/AOL conflict? -- nae'blis (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    But you're right about one thing, regular users of the internet and vandals are virtually indistinguishable, I mean unless of course you actually read someone's contributions before reverting them, the only solution I can think of is banning the entire internet from wikipedia, they're just a bunch of trouble makers anyway, those wacky internet users--152.163.100.65 01:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You guys are very, very, very wrong, and the 152 fellow is much righter. I use Mozilla, and I use Firefox, and I use Netscape ISP. Netscape is owned by AOL, but it is not AOL. (I pay $10/month and am very poor. AOL would be too expensive.) So, do I get rolling IP's? Yep. Do they roll every page load? Nope. Do they roll every X minutes? Not that I can see. Are they stable? Nope. It might be fine for an AOL user to use the Wikimedia stuff, but it's a huge, huge load on our services and it slows Wikipedia down to a crawling snail with an injured pseudopod. Now, "how much do we have to put up with?" We have to put up with issuing :15 blocks until some development scheme solves the problem or AOL stops its methods. I put my hopes on the former, as the latter would need to rewrite its basic operations and is unlikely to do that. Geogre 01:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    regular users of the internet and vandals are virtually indistinguishable, I mean unless of course you actually read someone's contributions before reverting them. I for one am tired of going through lists of recent diffs by AOL IPs that have recently been used for vandalism or other silliness. I don't suppose I'm alone in this. What do you recommend that I should do, AOL-person? (Stop worrying about vandalism/silliness and let it proceed? Shut up and stop complaining about the need to read every contribution from an AOL IP? Something else?)
    Incidentally, while you are of course perfectly within your rights to use AOL and not to have a username, these choices interest me. Really, I'd like to know. What's the appeal of AOL; and, if you are using AOL (and aren't a vandal and do know what you're doing), why not get a username? -- Hoary 01:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, are you actually suggesting that it's too much of a hastle to actually read an edit before reverting it?--152.163.100.65 02:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm actually suggesting that it's a hassle to actually read every one of a list of recent edits by a given IP when this list is already known to include some edits that are blatantly stupid. And I'm actually asking for your suggestion(s) for this -- in addition to asking my own questions about the appeal to you or others of editing via AOL (which I've never used) while not logged in. -- Hoary 02:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest we allow AOL users to contribute only after creating an account. The amount of work we have to do because of AOL is a big drain on the project. If user's don't want to log in, they can switch to a different internet service provider, but we're doing too much work simply to preserve their ability to edit anonymously. Johntex\talk 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They do get accounts. They get lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of them. Two days ago, I had 4 blocks that caught me, and every single one of them was aimed at a named account. It's the auto-blocker and AOL's rolling IP's that's the disaster, not the logging in/out. ...If we planted persistent cookies that were altered when a block came about...but no one, and certainly not I, would be in favor of that. Geogre 20:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I understand you correctly, Geogre, you're saying that you use AOL and are irritated by some of the consequences. Not a rhetorical question, just a straightforward question: Why do you keep using AOL? -- Hoary 01:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Money. I use Netscape ISP for $10/month, as opposed to $20/month for everyone else. Netscape is owned by AOL. I have some choice, but there are plenty of people living in rural areas who won't have a choice about ISP. What irritates me is not the consequences but when we develop a cavalier attitude about these blocks. If people vandal hunt all day, they'll start to think that there is nothing from a given ISP except vandalism. The good AOL users are going to be invisible, because they're good users, but they're getting bombed daily by overly enthusiastic blocks. I don't blame anyone for blocking a named user vandal, of course. I'm just saying that the vandals are getting names, so blocking non-logged users won't really help this problem. Geogre 14:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But if all AOL users could edit only from accounts (vs IP) then we could also change policy to exclude them from the auto-blocker. We'd still be vulnerable to people getting lots of usernames, but it would be better than the current situation. Johntex\talk 22:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Sockpuppet

    CheckUser has returned a possible match for the fundamentalist puppetteer Subhash Bose. What action should be taken? Anwar 13:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Watch carefully and report abuses. --Tony Sidaway 21:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently blocked IP range 86.132.#.# used by blocked user User:Leyasu is back

    The IP range was blocked the other day from articles that User:Leyasu is banned from editing. The block has ended and the IP sock has returned to begin mass reverting the same articles all over again. Fair Deal 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    She is using a wider variety of IPs now. I'm blocking as they come, see also #User:Leyasu block lenghtened below.

    Cwebstuff

    This new user is posting long essays in various new pages and may be a candidate for blocking Clappingsimon talk 14:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    More nonsense from wolfstar?

    Anon 66.218.28.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making vandalous/personal attack edits consistent with the indef blocked user thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Yawn. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Grammar seems far better than Wolfstar, from what I can recall about that situation. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Avillia, those are wolftracks all right. See how 66.218.22.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from the same range made a characteristic wolfstar edit to my page a few days ago[28] ? (And note that I got her banned, I'm her favorite target.) The other contribs are highly characteristic, too--see User talk:Jimbo Wales in there? I rolled back whatever wasn't already reverted and blocked the IP briefly. I'll let someone else do the new one. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    If anyone has done the block, please say so, as I don't mind blocking, but I don't want to take the chance of putting a shorter one on than someone else's. Geogre 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They haven't as of this moment. If you click on the block log in amongst the userlinks--see them?--just before you block, you'll get up-to-the-minute block info. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Blocked for 48 hr (because I think she'll have thrown the IP away long before then, and no point indefinitely blocking an IP that's already in the trashcan). Geogre 20:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leyasu block lenghtened

    In view of the recent oslaught of IP puppetry from this blocked user, I have lenghtened the 3-month ban to a permanent one. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block_range_against_User:Leyasu and the history of, to pick one, Speed metal. Circeus 16:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Carrot

    The carrot vandal is back, and not on AOL anymore. Mo-Al 17:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why was the article unprotected? Mo-Al 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    216.164.203.90 & Nookdog

    A couple days ago, I unblocked 216.164.203.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at the request of Nookdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); at the time it seemed like a fairly normal collateral damage block, nothing to be concerned about. However, today I received a note from an administrator on Wikiquote, where I'm also an admin, about the same address and similar problems there. The admin made a good case for connecting Nookdog to the vandalism, so I checked into the IPs edits further with checkuser. Checkuser reveals an unquestionable connection between Nookdog and the following recent vandal accounts:

    Other (pre-emptively blocked):

    To be honest, this is one of the nastier cases I've seen; beyond engaging in vandalism with the sockpuppet accounts while pleading innocent with others, he actually went as far as to welcome some of them. The unblocking exchange, where he confirms his use of 216.164.203.90 (for other's benefit, I obviously already know from checkuser), can be seen at the top of his talk page; a similar confirmation appears at the top of User talk:216.164.203.90.

    As is generally my practice in these cases, I have blocked anything I found unblocked indef, as well as blocking the IP for six months to prevent further attacks. Given that the task of checkuser is to investigate and report, I leave the decision of what to do with Nookdog to the community. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 17:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If correct, I'm highly disappointed; I had been hoping this was one of those cases of a vandal truly reforming, but a few of his IP edits in the last couple of days left me scratching my head. Endorse perm; also, user is known on Wikinews (for anyone here who's an admin there) as n:User:MyName and n:User:My Name (a "reserved" account). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Would appreciate someone dealing with the {{unblock}} requests, both on the IP talk page and on the user's talk page. Obviously, I'm not going to unblock the IP, and I can't very well turn down the unblock. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For background see here and here. Editing styles and certain spelling/phrasing propensities lead me to believe this is all one person. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I denied the request and replaced the 'unblock' with an 'unblock reviewed'. Would be interesting to know if the User:Conrad Dunkerson vandalism account created shortly thereafter was the same user... especially as his actions seemed to suggest that it might be 'Johnny the Vandal'. --CBD 21:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was NOT responsible for these vandal accounts. My router may have been compromised, so I updated the firewall. I am confident it wont be able to happen again. As I enjoy making useful contributions to Wikipedia, I plead that you remove the auto block but let the rest of the blocks stand, You can check user me everyday if you like. I beg you. Nookdog 00:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First, it was admin-like edits from home, vandalism from work; then, your "kid" got a hold of your "laptop"; now, your router has been compromised—all with the identical editing styles and ideosyncrasies. The assumption of good faith is exhausted. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user now claims to have "quit". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like a muzzled dog, unable to speak for myself. I hereby RESPECTFULY request to have this case taken to the Arbitration Committee. I have the utmost confidence I will be able to prove my case. And if I am banned, at least, I didn’t go down without a fight. I don’t ask that you do this because you believe me, or feel sorry for me; I ask you do it for yourselves. If you are FOUND to be correct at least you will never the slightest felling, like sometime in you past you PERMANITALLY banned someone by mistake. Please make the right decision here.
    Sincerely,
    Nookdog 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You seriously have no clue how unlikely it is that someone could have compromised your router and then made edits identical in tone, language and style as you, do you? Seriously? Meantime, that it even occurs to you that we could be "FOUND to be correct" pretty much ices the cake, doesn't it? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Holocaust denial

    I think we have a case of Holocaust denial by an anonymous IP again at the Extermination camps in the Holocaust article: contrib

    -- ActiveSelective 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (I am not an admin)[reply]

    Thanks, AS. I've briefly sprotected the page and advised him to add the material to Holocaust denial instead, so long as it's written in a very neutral tone. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    paging Crypticbot...

    It seems like without Crypticbot virtually all automated archiving of long pages has stopped, and in the case of pages like the WP:RD page sizes are becoming ridiculously large, would it not be a good idea to designate a formal successor to take over this botwork, before these sorts of pages become a complete mess?--71.249.9.254 20:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If we had the Crypticbot code I suppose I could run it ... is the code actually available though? There's a reason it's strongly encouraged to release the source code of all bots ... Cyde↔Weys 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't Werndabot doing the archving? --lightdarkness (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Werdnabot (talk · contribs) apparently not, it only seems to be doing user talk pages--71.249.9.254 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Werdnabot is covering WP:AN and WP:ANI and I've been manually advancing its code after each round of archiving. I could put it's code in place on another page if someone'd be ready to do the manual advancement there. (→Netscott) 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The code is available on request, see User talk:Cryptic for his comments. --cesarb 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection for articles re. World Cup footballers etc.

    A number of articles relating to today's World Cup Final are being heavily vandalised (up to once per minute) by multiple users. For example: Zinedine Zidane and Marco Materazzi. Some requests for protection have been made at WP:RFP; others may be required. -- MightyWarrior 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Motiki

    I requested on Portal:Canada that somebody take a look at the nonsense that is Joe Motiki, but so far there have been no takers. Could anybody look at this piling heap of an article and take out what isn't true? I've never heard of the guy, so I have no clue what the article should contain. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I rewrote and referenced. Looks (barely) notable to me, but feel free to AfD -- Samir धर्म 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute tag removal at Ukrainization

    User:Irpen, User:Telex remove the {{OR}} tag at Ukrainization [29],[30],[31],despite of a serious OR issue being actively discussed at talk [32]. This is in variance with the WP policy (see the subsection "Improper use of dispute tags " in the section Types_of_vandalism). In particular, the policy forbids to remove the dipute tag twice during 24 hrs.

    Both users were warned on their talk pages [33],[34].--Mbuk 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What Mbuk forgots to say is that Irpen presented a load of references to support his claims, as can be seen at Talk:Ukrainization#Dispute_tags, while Mbuk just kept on insert the tag. Of course if he said that "I am very critical and always use my own head". To me, these references are perfectly OK. Even if they're not for Mbuk, it is not a reason for an OR tag. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The referencies do not solve the OR issue as they do not contain the definition of the term. See the discussion [35] for details.--Mbuk 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Mbuk is abusing process and wikilaywering. He is marking the entire article with an {{OR}} tag purely on the basis that he thinks the definition of ukrainization is unsourced. Apart from the fact that that the meaning of the word is obvious and extracted from the "acceptable" version to AndriyK (frankly, I would define is as a voluntary or involuntary cultural change in which something not Ukrainian becomes Ukrainian), when the status of a sentence or two as sourced or unsourced are disputed, you use {{fact}} templates. I can't think of another reason for his actions but to sabotage an article which says something (not the definition, because he could sabotage that with a fact template) he doesn't like. WP:AGF no longer applies in this case due to the similar tag edit wars over at Russian architecture. --Tēlex 22:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Telex's reply. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use the article talk page for the content dispute. This is just to report the policy violation: tag removal before the dispute is settled.--Mbuk 07:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which has turned into tag abuse, despite dispute settled...:NikoSilver: 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Tēlex does not participate in the discussion. Revert warring seems to be his only activity on this article.--AndriyK 14:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert warring seems to be your only activity in general.--Tēlex 15:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass deletion of images

    User:Pschemp speedy deleted all images on this page leaving this note. The affected images are

    1. File:Clear1x1.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    2. File:Red-x.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    3. File:Octagon-warning.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    4. File:Lock-icon.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    5. File:Wikipedia_minilogo.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    6. File:Red_copyright.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    7. File:Green_check.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    8. File:WikipediaSignpostHead.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    The last three were only used in discussions with about two links each.

    The Wikipedia minilogo (BTW of course not my image, I only uploaded it as found on Meta) was used on almost all help pages and elsewhere for several months.

    "Lock-icon" was a replacement for an out of process deletion of another image discussed here, on DRV, and elsewhere (the erroneously deleted JPEG wasn't my image and admittedly ugly). It was also a proposed replacement for "lock-icon.png" (again not my image), because the quality of this PNG is questionable.

    "Octagon-warning" was AFAIK used, because warning icons should be visible with "any" browser, as long as the quality is acceptable. The same is true for "red-x", also used on several templates.

    "Clear1x1" was a single transparent dot, used on a few project and help pages like WP:EIS for documentation of image-syntax. -- Omniplex 03:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Omniplex, I would like to point you to WP:NOT, specifically this bit. I quote "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted." These images were down-sampled versions of existing images that are widely used, and as such are redundant, and undesirable. You state "because the quality of this PNG is questionable." In response, I would like to say that the quality of your gifs is questionable. Actually, they're downright ugly, and the web has since moved on, even if your browser has not. The vast majority of Wikipedia users can view the png and svg versions of these images quite fine, and don't need down-sampled gifs.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there PNG/SVG alternatives? If there are, I see no reason for these .gif versions to exist. Jude (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't feed the trolls. Try deletion review. — Jul. 10, '06 [03:26] <freak|talk>
    I'm very confused with this...I almost started a deletion review, but then decided not to and instead attempt to talk to Pschemp. I then found this and decided to...let the situation resolve itself? It doesn't look like that will happen.
    I will try to help fix this if the images aren't undeleted, but I don't know the alternatives to which they were/are/will have been redundant. Frankly, Pschemp should have first converted them to avoid this sort of confusion. Ardric47 04:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't need converted because they all already exist in png form. That was the whole point. pschemp | talk 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant "converted the links". What are their filenames? Ardric47 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I discovered this discussion after restoring Image:red-x.gif (which was deleted as a "test page," despite the fact that it was actively used on almost 500 pages)! Naturally, I assumed that this was accidental.

    Omniplex created the image as a solution to the infamous IE PNG-24 transparency bug, and he did a remarkably good job. The source PNG (a modified version of an SVG with different relative dimensions) had a solid background and took up 946 bytes. Omniplex managed to convert this to a GIF with a transparent background that takes up only 269 bytes! Even an optimized PNG-8 version of this image has a larger file size (306 bytes via PNGOUT), so there's absolutely no valid reason to replace the GIF. But if there were, this would be a matter for IfD. This deletion was an utterly outrageous breach of process that compromised the integrity of the hundreds of pages on which the image appears.

    The other images were also deleted out-of-process, and it's only because I don't wish to wheel-war that I haven't restored them. I actually would vote to delete some of them, but that's beside the point. —David Levy 06:51/07:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    With a few clicks of the mouse and the only image left in this non-issue is about 20 uses of the red x image. SVG has been being used for months now, why step back? Get a non broken browser and start using the SVG images. Plus, GIFs on WP should really be used for animation only. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agree with Pschemp's deletion of these images. It's ridiculous for Wikipedia to be obliged to use out of date image technology to meet the needs of a very small percentage of individuals utilizing 1995 level browsers. Hello... this is 2006 already... time to move on. (→Netscott) 07:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With a few clicks of the mouse, you switched hundreds of pages to a PNG-24 file (automatically derived from the SVG) that's 3.86 times larger, has dimensions and styling that don't match the other project icons, and displays without a transparent background for 85% of users.
    Apart from your fulfilling your apparent desire to punish users of "broken" browsers, what benefit did the community gain? (I user Firefox, incidentally.) —David Levy 07:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That we are getting rid of images from our servers and use the new technology that we got. SVG has been used for many icons on WP templates, and why this has to be special, I have no idea, but the gif image needs to go. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I wouldn't really be sad to see the GIF go, deleting it out of process is, among other things, disruptive. Note the long list of pages using it. Ardric47 07:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I recall seeing a redlink to Image:octagon-warning.gif earlier on a warning template on a user talk page. This may be an even bigger problem, because most of those are subst-ed. Ardric47 07:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With the red x image, it is mostly used in dynamic templates, so a change to the template affects everything else. As for the usertalk pages or archive pages with the images, just ignore them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at the "What links here?" for all of the above images and they are all clear. Please know that this shows why User:Omniplex was going about uploading such images... it is ridiculous to be conducting one's editing contributions based upon that level of browser which from my own discussions with User:Omniplex I know he was doing. Seriously... this should not even be an issue. (→Netscott) 08:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "What links here" does not show displays of images, only links (i.e. preceded by a colon) (right?). Ardric47 08:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why?! What's wrong with the GIF? I've cited several problems with the SVG. And yes, your decision to delete the former (with the edit summary "get non broken browsers") was extraordinarily disruptive. —David Levy 08:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the SVG issue and can sympathize with the 85% bit but I noticed that User:Omniplex was going about swapping out perfectly valid PNG file formats as well. Additionally he was going about removing CSS code from templates and the like which was in accord with his display of a CSS-0 userbox. Give me a break... for folks who don't have either a problem with PNG files or CSS code that's just being rather backwards. Why does Wikipedia need to accomodate the lowest common denominator? (→Netscott) 08:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with all of Omniplex's changes. I'm referring to an instance in which he created a GIF that's better for all users. —David Levy 08:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So what, we're talking about a difference of 100-200 bytes? Let's have a bit of normalization of our standards shall we? (→Netscott) 08:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The file size difference is of little consequence. My point is that even that cannot be cited as an advantage of the PNG/SVG versions. There is no advantage to using the PNG/SVG versions, nor is there a need to switch every image over to a single format. There's nothing wrong with the GIF format. (And of course, the GIF icon's style and dimensions match our checkmark icons. Conversely, the SVG version is jarringly fancy and has different relative dimensions.) An 8-bit PNG conversion of the GIF would display properly for most users, but what would be the benefit of switching to a file that's slightly larger and compatible with slightly fewer browsers? —David Levy 09:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at Wikipedia:Preparing_images_for_upload and it says that the only time GIF should even be used on WP is for animated images. It also says that GIF images that are not animated should be switched over to PNG (and now SVG). We have been going to SVG for months now and all this is is just setting us back our goal to using SVG. So 85 percent of WP users cannot really use SVG; that is why I said get the non-broken browsers. It does not matter to me if 1 percent or 85 percent have problems with SVG; that is the direction we are going. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:IAR (endorsed by Jimbo). When following the rules is illogical (and you've yet to explain how it's logical to switch to a file that's 3.86 times larger and looks worse), we should ignore them. Your desire to blindly march in a certain "direction" (with absolutely no regard for the consequences) is quite bothersome. —David Levy 08:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing, if you read some of the talk pages where the GIF image was introduced, it was rejected heavily, especially the signpost image. We are not alone. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not addressing any image other than Image:Red-x.gif. —David Levy 08:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Ardric47's request, I've restored the other images. I hope that it's clear that I've done this to address a pressing issue (the unknown usage status), not to make some sort of point. —David Levy 08:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, Image:Octagon-warning.gif and Image:Wikipedia_minilogo.gif are in use on hundreds of pages. I'm appalled by Pschemp's decision to delete these files for no apparent reason. —David Levy 08:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell they are in use across so many pages because User:Omniplex was going about swapping out template images that were either PNG or SVG for GIF... all of those example of the image displaying probably represent 10-12 templates that User:Omniplex retro-converted to GIF. (→Netscott) 08:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of Image:Red-x.gif was agreed upon through discussion. It makes no difference how the other images came to be placed (even if this was inappropriate). There's no excuse for the out-of-process deletion of free images that were in wide use. —David Levy 08:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The only part that I have any agreeance to is that there'd be broken images as a result of Pschemp's prior deletions. But repairing such issues is extremely simple work for a bot to go down the list of affected pages and do the necessary swapping out. Let's stick to being in the 21st century shall we? (→Netscott) 08:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I'm referring to the issue of broken images. Even if the files should be deleted, it was incredibly irresponsible to do so while they were in wide use. (And of course, they should be taken to WP:IFD.)
    Again, I don't condone most of Omniplex's changes. Image:Red-x.gif, however, is better for all users. —David Levy 09:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's policy not to use GIF format for anything other than animated images: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. As it stands, these images are all eligible for deletion under CSD I1. These complaints about "out of process deletions" are all nonsense, considering these regressions to GIF are against policy. --bainer (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest that you read CSD I1. It applies to "a redundant copy, in the same image file format" (emphasis mine). —David Levy 09:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well David, since you are so up in arms about process, the correct process thing to do would have been to list these on DRV, not make an out pf process action yourself and restore them. However, since process wasn't followed, they are now all listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 July 10 since I won't reverse another admin's actions without discussing it with them first. pschemp | talk 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Did you not see the above explanations? I undeleted Image:Red-x.gif because I assumed that you'd deleted it accidentally. (It was in use on almost 500 pages, and it certainly isn't a "test page.") Upon discovering this discussion, I had intended to leave the other images deleted for now, but Ardric47 requested that I restore them when it became clear that at least some of them were in use. This had nothing to do with my personal opinions of the icons, and I've voted to delete all but Image:Red-x.gif.
    2. Wikipedia:Undeletion policy indicates that "if the page was obviously deleted 'out of process' (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it." I posted such an explanation here—within a community discussion in which you're participating. (Please forgive me for neglecting to also leave a note on your talk page.) —David Levy 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skookum1

    I'm not sure if this really requires admins' attention. I'm not familiar with all the rules governing editors' behaviours. Skookum1 and I have had disagreements concerning certain edits. I have no problem with that. But his behaviour makes it very difficult to assume good faith. He seems to have a particular bias against Chinese people in general. A couple of examples of what he's said:

    • I look forward to the day when Chinese culture and society is as self-critical and self-examining as European/British/North American societies have become; but by the look of the cant kicking around the press, the net and Wiki, it'll be a while yet..... [36]
    • "Celestial" is in reference to "subject of the Son of Heaven" and is somewhat akin on context to "British subject", and was meant in a complimentary, even respectful fashion; but Chinese insecurities demand that it be pronounced "racist". Fix your own language's many racist and sexual biases before demanding other cultures kowtow to your need to rewrite history to suit yourselves. [37]

    And he also has a habit of inserting his opinions as inline comments into an article itself:

    • it was a racist response to racist times; natural enough, but don't pretend it's not based in racism and the attached insecurity; the clue here is that word "humiliation", apparently one of the driving forces of the Chinese cultural ego. [38]

    These kinds of comments are really bordering on racism. If this doesn't require admins' attention, advice on how to work with him on edits would be much appreciated. I'm having a difficult time assuming good faith on his part. Hong Qi Gong 04:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the rule on profanity?

    • bullshit. Laundry was an entrepreneurial business and not something they were forced to do. [39]

    More examples of his questionable comments:

    I left a very light warning on his talk page, however that may not be enough should he continue. --mboverload@ 06:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another thing I want to point out is that he's basically been using Wikipedia as a soapbox for his opinions about racial problems in Vancouver involving Chinese people. Check the edits he makes in Talk pages and the inline comments he makes in the articles themselves. --- Hong Qi Gong 06:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently, I'm not exactly the only person who has had problems with his abrasive behaviour and his soapboxing.

    • Read your history, and tell anyone who bitches or reverts to do the same.[41]

    Check his talk page - User_talk:Skookum1#Calm. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now here's a personal attack against me:

    • problems? Problems? HongQiGong may be a pain in the ass, but he's not a problem. And I don't have problems with other Wikipedians; only pointy-headed ones. [42]

    --- Hong Qi Gong 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He has left some comments on my Talk page that are, at the very least, very incivil: [43]. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Will somebody please stop his soapboxing on Talk pages? --- Hong Qi Gong 00:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Beware of accounts ending in -Marionette

    In recent days, a series of accounts ending in the term -Marionette were created for one and only one purpose: vexatious litigation against several administrators over the seemingly trivial issue of the user account GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From this, it is clear that this is none other than PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who's currently permablocked. I hereby recommend that someone patrol the new users log carefully and check for any accounts ending in the term -Marionette. If any such accounts show up, I suggest that they be blocked immediately pending verification ("Please contact an administrator for verification purposes..."). 05:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Users pretending to be admins

    Jamesino has previously been warned for vandalism and creating a vanity article. Recently, he put that he was an administrator on his user page. I objected and he changed the block to 'might' be an administrator. Can you help please? He is confusing new editors... Thanks --manchesterstudent 09:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the userbox in question and warned him. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hatred vandal

    Anirudh777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has vandalised the Talk:Brahmin page saying "It is well known that brahmins in india maintain large landholdings & firearms. In poiltics , brahmins are numerous" and requests "Dont allow brahmins to edit this article"--Babub | Talk 10:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked Anirudh a few days ago for spamming and incivility. I recommend another one. He seems to have been doing nothing recently but to add external links and troll, so a community ban is probably impending. I don't think we've reached that stage yet - I do think another block may be justified, but would rather a previously uninvolved admin takes a look at this.
    And his post on the talk page incivility, not vandalism. Please read WP:VAND. We don't need two editors making unjustified accusations of vandalism, please. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked this account for good. We don't need to mollycoddle people who come here to linkspam and harass other editors. --Tony Sidaway 11:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Commendably bold as always. He's made non-linkspam contributions in the past, though it looks like most got reverted. No reason to prolong the inevitable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User adding Tamil translations

    A IP user 203.101.39.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is adding Tamil translations to articles after the initial introductory highlighted word (see Fish (reverted), Glass, Salt, Milk, etc.). This is inappropriate and Wikipedia could not translations at this point in an article. I have warned the user concerned, but will wait and see whether this stops him/her. A number of articles will need to be reverted to remove these edits. -- MightyWarrior 11:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Serial unblocking of Giovanni33

    Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has yet again been unblocked by rebecca (talk · contribs). Giovanni33 has an extensive and disruptive history of sockpuppetry, personal attacks and trolling as his block log attests. His positive contributions to the project are few and far between, a point rebecca concedes [44]. With his shabby record why Giovanni33 warrants this constant unblocking and protection by rebecca is puzzling. Giovanni33 has squandered every opportunity given him when unblocked on violating 3RR, trolling, and revenge. This constant undoing of completely warranted blocks of an all too obviously irredeemable disruptive editor needs to stop. Giovanni33 is never going to get the message and amend his ways if he thinks he has a get-out-of-jail-free card and can turn to sympathetic admins to undo every block he earns: [45] FeloniousMonk 12:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur, and would very much appreciate Rebecca explaining her reasoning here for discussion. This repeated unblocking of a problem user concerns me. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a shocking assumption of bad faith. Giovanni33 has a pretty mixed history on Wikipedia, but has made some decent contributions, and I see absolutely nothing to suggest that he edits in bad faith. Indeed, he seems to be learning to drop things - his contributions from the last couple of days (since he was last unblocked before this most recent one) have been fine. I see absolutely nothing in his contributions of the last couple of days that warrants a week block - a block which seemed more destined to settle past scores than stopping him from causing ongoing trouble.
    If Giovanni33 does cause trouble, he deserves a block - as I noted when he returned after the initial block and started making a nuisance of himself. He was blocked again - deservedly - but after that, has stuck to making useful and non-controversial edits. Today's block for a week, however, was thus completely undeserved. I posted on Geni's talk page asking for an explanation, but after waiting some hours and receiving no response (and not being able to find any justification for the new block anywhere), overturned it.
    I also must suggest in the strongest terms that FeloniousMonk refrain from using his administrative privileges against Giovanni33. He is very clearly engaged in a dispute with this user, and is really too emotionally involved to be deciding when it is appropriate to block him. Rebecca 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also must suggest in the strongest terms that Rebecca refrain from using her administrative privileges for Giovanni33. She is very clearly engaged in personally supporting this user[46], and is really too emotionally involved to be deciding when it is appropriate to unblock him.
    I've never had any interaction or been involved in any form of dispute with Giovanni33 prior my restoring of Will Beback's block of him undone by Rebecca. Any subsquent dispute is solely in the mind and talk page of Giovanni33 in an attempt to disqualify admins from taking proper action in enforcing the policies, as his rants on his talk page attest. FeloniousMonk 13:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even going to justify this one with a response. Rebecca 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then please explain your insistent patronage of Giovanni33, and your refusal to take responsibility for him when he misbehaves after your unblocking: [47][48] FeloniousMonk 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the "contributions from the last couple of days" that have been "fine" include the removal of sockpuppet tags from his suspected sockpuppets? This is not a rhetorical question. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that least some of his suspected sockpuppets (including one of the two you're referring to) are not his sockpuppets, as verified by CheckUser (there didn't seem to be any CheckUser data on the other sock). I believe that he has created sockpuppets before, based on evidence submitted to me via email, but it also seems that people are being far too quick to assume that sockpuppets are indeed his. Rebecca 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The sockpuppetry is not why he's constantly getting blocked, it's because he's a chronic 3RR violator and source of disruption once caught. FeloniousMonk 14:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First, this is a problem, not because you (Rebecca) unblocked, but because you are doing it unilaterally, and starting what is becoming a nice little block war. No one dies if you wait on the the response of the blocking admin before unblocking. [49]. Second, Checkuser is not the oracle of sockpuppetry. It can tell you if someone is a sockpuppet, but it evidently can't tell you they are not. I have a good guess as to how it works, and it would not be hard to make it so that CU can't be definitive. Have you researched what CU returns and what the public from Gio and company returns? Wikibofh(talk) 14:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I unbblocked because Giovanni33 agreed to behave in a certain way not not to behave in other. Giovanni33 didn't stick to this thus I reblocked.Geni 15:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse Geni's block. And disendorse the way Rebecca gave Geni a good less than 4 hours to respond before unilaterally unblocking this troll, again. Proto///type 15:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to bothered about that. I was away from the computer at the time so it could have been a long wait. Pluss I apply WP:OWN to my blocks.Geni 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's pretty clear Giovanni33 has been puppetting and various other abuses; why do people keep unblocking him without consensus? Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    FeloniousMonk and Rebecca seem to be engaged in a low intensity block war. Kim Bruning 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, look who shows up to spin a slanted version of events once again. Despite the fact that Rebecca is acting against several admins, good old Kim must do his best to cast FM in as bad a light as possible. Yet again. Lay off stalking FM and write your damn dissertation boy. Guettarda 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. I checked the block logs because I was talking with Geni, actually. Not much to spin about the block logs. Kim Bruning 11:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very rude, and certainly does not set a good example, nor does your edit summary. The fact that Rebecca is acting against several admins might very well suggest that she has good reason to be doing so. What exactly was this latest block for? Jayjg says because of sockpuppetry (but he was already blocked for that offence). Yet FeloniousMonk says: "The sockpuppetry is not why he's constantly getting blocked, it's because he's a chronic 3RR violator and source of disruption once caught." While the blocking admin Geni says it's because he "didn't stay away from areas he was told to stay away from". But looking at his contributions, he did stay away from christianity articles, as requested. So when there is not even clear consensus on what the block was actually for, how can anybody be arguing that it was justified!? ^^James^^ 02:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I didn't say why Giovanni33 had been blocked, I merely asked why anyone would unblock him; please don't misrepresent my statements in order to pretend a lack of consensus. And, by they way, he's violated 3RR yet again (see below). Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the answer is pretty clear why anybody would unblock him: because they thought that particular block was unwarranted. I apologize for misreading your statement, but reading it again in this new light, it seems you are suggesting that unwarranted blocks be allowed to stand if the person has a history. Is that indeed what you meant? Second, there is no clear understanding of what this block was for, hence the differing reasons in his block log. I'm not pretending, please assume good faith. Regarding User:Deuteronomy2000, my understanding is that even AnnH disagrees that this is a sock of Gio. Besides, what he did yesterday, or what he does tomorrow has no bearing. This conversation is about Rebeccas decision to remove an unwarranted block. ^^James^^ 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebecca has undone 4 blocks of Giovanni33 by 3 different admins. My blocks have been to reinstate those she's undone. You may call that "a low intensity block war"; I call it trying to enforce the decisions of my fellow admins. The same sort of support I'd expect from other responsible admins. FeloniousMonk 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this particular block is unjustified, and this talk about getting support from your fellow admins is just another way of asking for uncritical support. ^^James^^ 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you simply ask him to stop doing what he's doing before giving him a weeks block? I find it distressing to see such eagerness to block users. Judging from this he seems willing to listen to reason. Also, perhaps blocking policy needs to be looked at, as I see very little emphasis on warnings, or discussing problems with the users involved. This is clearly a problem. More disruption has been caused by questionable blocks than by the activities that got the users blocked in the first place! Ironically, that's the subject that was being discussed when User:Alienus was controversially blocked, leading to him leaving WP, along with User:SOPHIA. ^^James^^ 20:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He's been asked, many, many times. FeloniousMonk 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well maybe you could explain what this most recent one week block was about specifically. Or is he being blocked here for being a general pain? ^^James^^ 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This was his 9th block for violating 3RR in 7 months. Each block has gotten increasingly longer because he doesn't seem to learn a lesson; he's a chronic 3RR violator. Some of the blocking admins cite in their block summaries that he's used sockpuppets to circumvent blocks[50]. You tell me if he's blocked for "being a general pain." FeloniousMonk 22:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't really answer my question, which begs the point. I suggest that the specific issues leading to a block be made crystal clear, and discussed first, thereby allwoing the person to comply voluntarily. Because it sounds like you are arguing that the recent week long block may not have been justified, but lets keep him blocked anyways because of his past transgressions. I don't think that's a healthy cycle. As he has stated, you could have simply asked him to stop removing those sockpuppet notices. (If that's even the reason for the recent week long block, which hasn't been made clear.) Instead, his past is being drudged up to justify blocks that appear to have no valid reason today. This pattern of unnecessary blocks causes no end of disruption. ^^James^^ 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Its in his block log. What is unclear? And which did you consider "unnecessary"? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From his block log: Unblocked by Geni because he "agreed to stay away from chrisitiaity articles", then blocked by Geni for one week because he "didn't stay away from areas he was told to stay away from". But looking at his contributions, he did stay away from christianity articles. FeloniousMonk then reblocked because he's a "Chronic troublemaker, no positive contributions." ^^James^^ 23:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    May I suggest to Rebecca and FeloniousMonk to request a block or an unblock on WP:ANI rather that do that themselves? This will give a chance to other admins to get involved and avoid comments about being supportive or antagonistic to this user. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly. That's why I started this discussion. FeloniousMonk 22:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Giovanni33 violated 3rr on User:Deuteronomy2000. If I didn't miscount, that was his ninth block for 3rr. How long should the ninth block for 3rr be? Tom Harrison Talk 02:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1 week, of course. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on. User:Deuteronomy2000 is not Giovanni23, as verified by both David Gerard and myself through CheckUser. (It wasn't just a mismatch of IPs - it appears to be another user altogether). This isn't an article we're talking about - it's about him being falsely accused of maintaining a sock that wasn't his. In those circumstances, I really don't see the need or justification for another block. Rebecca 06:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence is inconclusive, that does not mean it isn't him. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. And even if it isn't him (which we don't know), violating 3RR yet again is not the proper response. FeloniousMonk 16:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Giovanni violated 3RR on 29 June, and was reported. Wikibofh blocked for 24 hours. One of Giovanni's puppets reverted back to his version, and Wikibofh increased Giovanni's block to a week. He said later that regardless of the puppet issue, which Gio was disputing, he felt that the week-long block should stand, because of Gio's history of being blocked for 3RR. That's perfectly normal, and I can even remember Alienus pushing for a 3-day block for Jayjg (after a false 3RR report had been filed against hime. (Jayjg's block log is long because there have been so many reoort, including one of blocking the wrong person!) During that week, Gio logged off and made an edit to WP:ANI in support of Alienus. On 6 July, Will Beback reset the block, to expire a week from the date of evasion. That is a perfectly standard admin action, and is completely in keeping with policy. Giovanni, when he was told, complained about the injustice, saying that what he had done

    was not wrong, but in keeping with necessity and in accordance with more important rules and principals for which all the rules here are meant to service. . . . My comment to the incident board was necessitated given its time sensitive nature. It aided in an understanding of an important issue that may have affected the outcome differently had I waited.

    A few days later, he claimed that he hadn't known he was logged off, and had thought the block had expired when he found himself able to edit. It strikes me that he would have said that straight after having the block reset for evasion, if it had been true.

    On 7 July, Rebecca unblocked, saying Tentatively unblocking, as grounds for extending ban were a bit slight. She did not inform Will of this (unless she did it through a private e-mail). Later that day, FeloniousMonk reblocked, saying, Reinstating block, was more than justified in my view as well as others. Several hours later, Rebecca posted to Will and Felonious, saying that a lot of his original behaviour was unacceptable, and he had deserved the block, but that an extra week wouldn't achieve anything. She said that if he continued this behaviour she wouldn't object to a reblock. She unblocked again, with I've explained my reasons for unblocking this user to the two users concerned, and I still think a block is unwarranted at this time.

    Instead of quietly going back to editing articles, Giovanni continued to defend his past behaviour, posted confrontational posts about people he had been in dispute with, and started edit warring on the user pages of his suspected puppets (and of one proven one). The next day, an obvious sockpuppet User:Deuteronomy2000, whom I do not believe to be connected to Giovanni33 (though his past behaviour means that people will consider him as a possible suspect) posted a 3RR report on FeloniousMonk (who had blocked Giovanni). I removed it, as the account was obviously created for the purpose of making the report. Giovanni, who should have been trying to stay away from any kind of trouble, reverted me (who had caught him out in puppetry). I then looked at the report in detail, and found it was invalid anyway, as the fourth revert was not a revert.

    FeloniousMonk then discussed the matter with Rebecca, who said that Giovanni had blown his chance, and was heading for a community ban) {see here and here. She raised no objection to a reblocking, and he reblocked. Geni then unblocked, saying, agreed to stay away from chrisitiaity articles (presumably that agreement was in IRC or by private e-mail). FeloniousMonk then discussed it with Geni (see User_talk:Geni#Giovanni33 and here who said that Gio had agreed not only to stay away from Christianity, but also to stop the behaviour that Felonious was complaining about: "If not I'll just block him again."

    Gio continued with confrontation, and Geni warned him to stop.[51] Then he violated 3RR on one of the puppet pages that was being taggd, and was blocked for 24 hours by Wikibofh. Geni changed the block to one week, with didn't stay away from areas he was told to stay away from. Rebecca posted on Geni's page, asking for some explanation for the block, and a little over three hours later, left another message saying that Geni was obviously not around, and that Rebecca "was very uncomfortable leaving this user blocked". Rebecca then unblocked, with Blocked for a week against policy, no evident justification for the block or consensus to make it anywhere. FeloniousMonk reblocked and Rebecca unblocked again.

    I take the point that the Deuteronomy accusation was a false one, and I did feel at the time that making that accusation weakened the case, when there are so many obvious socks. I would like to point out, though, that someone who has deliberately and deceitfully used puppets in the past, while pretending to have no connection to them, and who has never acknowledged this as wrong, is not really in a position to edit war over a false accusation. Gio could have e-mailed an admin and asked for help over the one false accusation. In fact, I had already asked Timothy Usher and Str1977 not to tag the Deuteronomy account as Gio's puppet. Timothy seemed unconvinced, but has not done it since. Str1977 immediately agreed.

    I think it's misleading to claim that Gio was blocked for a week (or five days, or whatever) for reverting my deletion of Deuteronomy's report, or for not staying away from certain areas. In certain cases, his block was reset. He was not blocked for a week for posting to the noticeboard. His one-week block was reset, to a week after the post (four days after the "reblock"). Also, while it would be "against policy" to block for not staying away from certain areas, if someone is unblocked early under certain conditions, and breaks those conditions, and the block is re-implemented, it can't be seen as a one-week block for getting involved in those areas.

    I would urge that nobody should reset this block again. If he does something else, give him a fresh block. At this stage, stopping a wheelwar is more important than keeping him blocked. (I don't think Jimbo would like the look of that particular block log!) I don't see why it was essential to unblock without waiting for a reply from Geni, when the unblock meant that he hadn't even served the 24 hours for his umpteenth 3RR violation, and hadn't served the original resetting to which Rebecca had not objected, and which had been undone by Geni under certain conditions which he had violated. The tag that he was edit warring over is a tag which says "suspected", and it is certainly true that he was suspected of being Deuteronomy (though not by me). He is more than suspected of being the others.

    Finally, he has never been blocked on "secret linguistic evidence". When he has been blocked for publicly-verifiable offences, I have sometimes mentioned that I have linguistic evidence which I am not prepared to make public, as it will alert him to idiosyncrasies that he will need to avoid with his next puppets. AnnH ♫ 07:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm just about to head out of town for a couple of days, but I'm trying to sort out a potentially amicable solution to this mess, after talking with both Giovanni33 and some of his critics. With this in mind, I'd appreciate it if this discussion was put on ice until I get back. Rebecca 14:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fine, as long as it is clear that administrators are not prevented from taking action on new issues if Giovanni33 becomes disruptive yet again during your absence. FeloniousMonk 16:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Torchwood

    Torchwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like a reincarnation of Scarbor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I indef blocked, feel free to review. I expect this person will keep coming back. NoSeptember 12:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, good block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yvonne Hartman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously also the Torchwood vandal, but at this point is only blocked for 24 hours. Will somone extend to indef? Thatcher131 18:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Thatcher131 18:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Gibnews

    User Gibnews has been persistently censoring the Gibraltar article. His behaviour falls short of outright vandalism but it consists of imposing his NPOV view on all other users by daily revertals and refusal to engage in constructive discussion or consensus building. He accuses all wikipedians who do not agree with him on a number of issues (a majority of editors of the Gibraltar article) of being "pro-Spanish" and spreading "lies and propaganda".

    The main problem with his behaviour is that he has erased dozens of respectable sources included in the article by a number of users over the past months. He considers they are not worthy of being included in the article since they contradict his biased POV. He has even gone as far as erasing the disputed tag from the article while imposing his view on all other users who disagreed with him.

    A number of users (including myself, user:Asterion, user:Ecemaml and many others) have given up on contributing to the article but I have noticed that others (such as user:Panchurret) continue to contribute sources which are promptly erased by user Gibnews.

    I am suprised that he has not be banned (or atleast warned) by Wikipedia administrators as user:Gibraltarian has.

    For proof see the following examples of his behaviour.

    [[52]] [[53]] [[54]] [[55]] [[56]] [[57]] [[58]] [[59]] [[60]] [[61]] [[62]] [[63]] [[64]] [[65]] [[66]] [[67]]


    --Burgas00 13:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you could file an RfC regarding his behavior. 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

    Block?

    Could one of you admin-type people please block User:Wikipedia is Lesbianism!? In addition to being potentially offensive, it's potentially also a "Wikipedia is Communism" sock, and in light of the latter I don't think it'd be a good idea to wait through a username RFC. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. 'Cause I'm cool like that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And there was much rejoicing. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Soul – Now you see it, now you don't

    I recently moved Template:User soul to User:Rfrisbie/Userbox/Soul per WP:GUS. [68] While I was in the middle of bypassing the redirects, Template:User soul disappeared! At the end of the process, I recreated the original page with a soft redirect. [69] I would like to know if anyone here can explain to me how Template:User soul disappeared. I also would like to know if any policies and/or guidelines were violated in the process. Rfrisbietalk 14:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyde deleted it after you moved it away (and that was his cited reason); probably would have been wiser to wait until after all the redirects were bypassed, but you'd have to ask him for more details on his reasoning. --Nae'blis 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, is this a violation of policy/guidelines or not? --Rfrisbie 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't think so. Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bizarre. Admin behavior like this certainly falls into the category of “Lacks civility and etiquette" for me. I hope you all don’t wonder why there’s a lack of admin credibility by “rabble” like me. --Rfrisbie 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do wonder, given the outstanding work done by hundreds of admins every day. This kind of blanket assertion based on the behavior of one sysop is extraordinarily unhelpful. It seems from your posts that you came here looking for a fight, and I think that's sad. Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here to report an incident. Which seems to have been pointless. --Rfrisbie 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, a whole range of users haven't seen a problem. I'm sorry if this isn't what you wanted. Mackensen (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You moved the userbox to userspace. The remaining link was removed from template space. What was the incident, again? --Tony Sidaway 20:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like Cyde deleted the templatespace redirect before he (Rfrisbe) was done changing all the references to it. I'm not sure if he knew that Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:user soul would still work, or not. Seems to be largely moot, now, as I only see one remaining transclusion there. --Nae'blis 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew how to finish off bypassing the redirects. I was just surprised (among other things) the original disappeared before I could even finish. Rfrisbietalk 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it's a matter of respect for a process on a sensitive issue. Many people have been putting soft redirects in place after the hard redirect is bypassed. Cyde has ignored and undermined such efforts. If you don't see a problem, then I'm saying that's part of the problem. Do what you will and I'll just move on. --Rfrisbie 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Respect for process? If by process you mean hanging on to links to templates that shouldn't have been created in the first place, fuck process! --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for another demonstration of the quality of adminship here. --Rfrisbie 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's something he likes to say. Humour him. Haukur 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why we should "humour" Tony when he bites people (someone without background on his views of "needless process wonking" could take it as an attack, or at the least incivility). --Nae'blis 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's never to early to learn that process for its own sake is evil. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also never too late to learn that treating people with dignity and respect for its own sake is good. Rfrisbietalk 00:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I like to think of Tony as the lone Vulcan forced to work with a bunch of illogical, emotional humans; we tolerate each other in order to work together. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vulcans aren't mean-spirited. Enabling Workplace bullying is hardly an acceptable administrative behavior. Rfrisbietalk 03:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The thing about wikipedia is that sometimes we have different conflicting processes. Especially things like the german userbox solution, which is at 90 degrees to certain interpretations of speedy deletion. Confused? It takes a certain kind of getting used to. It looks like you've found such a conflict.

    Best move is to discuss with Cyde and find a decent mutual consensus through compromise. After that, don't forget to update the guidelines! Kim Bruning 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the advice. --Rfrisbie 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this all could have been handled much better. No one has even bothered to contact me regarding this; I merely chanced upon it just now. What is the point of going to ANI and userbox talk pages and complaining if you haven't actually taken any steps to resolve the issue? --Cyde↔Weys 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right. I should have contacted you directly when I learned it was you. I apologize. Rfrisbietalk 23:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen no evidence of you using soft redirects in the past, why would this case be any different? Given Phil Boswell's in-my-face action, I consider this to be a hostile environment. Once again, why would I expect admins to work out a mutually respectful process? This is really quite a sickening experience. Just do what you want. --Rfrisbie 22:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really, honestly, why are we coddling these templates with "soft redirects"? Obviously we're going to delete them in the end, but why coddle them for a single minute? Those are templates that should not have been created. That they're being userfied is a courtesy. That some people choose to create soft redirects, and the rest of us tolerate them, is the icing on the cake. But don't expect this kind of treatment for non-encyclopedia content, particularly personal expressions of religious belief and the lik that have absolutely no place in template space, to be provided as a matter of course. Administrators are not required to collude in the abuse of userspace. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right… {{user soul}} is now redundant under WP:GUS and I have therefore nuked it. If you want to use something like it, find a WP:GUS equivalent and use that. The idea was NOT that the templates would remain sitting around in the template namespace forever, that kind of cancels out the point of the project. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New York City blackout of 1977

    New York City blackout of 1977 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been receiving daily spam vandalism of a sort new to me. Each edit is usually from a new IP, and usually one that hasn't made any other edits. Each edit adds four links to sites purportedly for buying diet pills, Xanax, Levitra, etc -- and it's not the same four links every day. The links are wrapped in a "<div style="position: absolute; left: -10000px">", hiding them from humans but leaving them visible to webcrawlers, I guess.

    Anybody seen this elsewhere? The vandalism seems too infrequent to merit semiprotection, but at the very least having the article on a few other watchlists would be nice. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this the only article the mystery spammer has hit? Proto///type 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure; I was hoping someone else had a better way to tell! It's the only article any of these particular IPs have hit, but that's not saying much, since most of them just hit it once, anyway. I didn't have any luck trying to search for the link targets, either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have a problem with you semi protecting it for a couple of days. Proto///type 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. Definitely the sort of article that can attract good anon edits; rolling back this stuff once a day is no big deal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Same thing at North German Confederation. Thatcher131 16:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklist the sites in question, and run Cydebot to see whether there are any other compromised pages? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are the sites that have been spammed so far:

    http://acmedias.org http://aquinox.net http://ballfolio.com http://clantemplates.com http://clicnetwork.com http://compagnons.org http://dragonflyeast.com http://easl.info http://erisfree.com http://iaa-dc.org http://j-mayer.org http://jouvence.com http://kutdiak.hu http://lasercard.com http://mariner.org http://rockthedesert.com http://soargbsc.com http://somber-resplendence.net http://starfan.lamost.org http://www.abook4all.com http://www.alleydog.com http://www.applausestore.com http://www.comfortinndowntown.com http://www.creativesplendors.com http://www.doggroups.com http://www.emulnation.info http://www.flyingpirate.com http://www.infinet.net http://www.kit2fit.com http://www.mi-aime-a-ou.com http://www.mohid.com http://www.pulverradio.com http://www.quiz-zone.co.uk http://www.simplefuture.org http://www.splendidshirt.com http://www.systemtek.net http://www.vegas-coupons.org http://www.webdistributionltd.com

    Most have been used at least twice, so I suppose blacklisting would at least slow this down. Can someone with blacklisting rights do that? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Adding to blacklist. Naconkantari 03:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Anybody who's an admin on meta can add stuff to the blacklist, right? ~Chris (squirrels!!) 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jeremygbyrne's smoldering revert war

    Jeremygbyrne (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been chronically delisting in a "revert war" type fashion the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article from Wikipedia:Good articles despite a 11-2 general consensus for reinstatement and polite requests that he refrain from doing that. He has been trying to "game the system" through wikilawyering by citing "GA rules" to rationalize his removals. Below are the diffs that show the extent to which he's motivated to ensure that the article remains de-listed.

    Could an admin kindly tap him on the shoulder and politely insist that he refrain from further attempts at gaming the system in this way? Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm politely reminding you that any editor can delist any good article at any time even if there is a 1000:1 consensus in favor of reinstatement. This is the way the good article process works. Pecher Talk 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, the editor appear tome to be clearly disrupting to make a point. Circeus 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Salman01 page moves again

    I have blocked this user again for moving about 10+ pages without discussion. Well, he brought it up with User:Striver on Talk:Abu Talib ibn 'Abdul Muttalib. Striver disagreed but he still made the moves. I had told him he must discuss and gain consensus--something which he obviously did not do. I have previously blocked him for an hour, a day, and now this block is for a week. He has a habit of always being right and not understanding that there are other conventions than his own. I just wanted other admins to review this in case they feel my actions were not proper. gren グレン 16:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I really do not have a problem with him having a opinion, but that he has not learnt that he must try to gain consensus before doing large changes. I truly belive it is due to inexperience. I personaly propose to lessen the block to maybe 2 days and complement it with a strong warning and maybe assing somebody to him that is intersted in teaching him the principles. It can be quite frustrating for beginers to not beeing able to instanly correct what they perceive as misstakes. --Striver 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed to 2 days... but, he has been warned on multiple occassions. I know it can be frustrating but... well, I guess we'll see what happens. Maybe we can go and see what names the scholarly sources tend to use. gren グレン 16:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Grenavitar has blocked me twice for moving the pages but he doesn’t understand that I discussed the moving of the pages before I actually made the changes. The first he blocked me and also accused me of copying the Article of Qasim ibn Hassan (he didn’t even give me a chance of clarifying myself). The first time he did it I thought that it was a mistake or he might misunderstood something. Now again he blocked me from editing at wikipedia for 2 days and during that time I can not even say anything to defend myself. I am not going to tolerate this any more, I want someone responsible to take action against Grenavitar. I believe that if a person thinks that he is always right is wrong himself. No matter what people call me, inexperience or a person that always think that he is right but one thing is for sure, I am not going to have Muslims names misspelled at wikipedia. If interested then please don’t hesitate to read and if possible help us out by going to page. Thank You--Salman 01:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Livedive spam

    This user is populating pages with spam directing to http://www.shipwreckcentral.com. Please block and have a bot undue the posts.

    User has been warned and seems to have stopped ( sorry, but forgot to sign previous post)statsone 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird goings-on

    I don't know what this ip 87.112.86.31 (talk · contribs) was doing, but it looked pretty suspicious to me. He was inserting links that each went via a ".at" website but appeared to look ok. If someone could investigate, I'd be obliged. Noisy | Talk 18:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    the site you end up at picks up the link you used to get there and pays the guy say a penny per 100 hits.Geni 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the explanation. I've given the IP a once and final warning. Noisy | Talk 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfair deletion

    Hi there

    im a artist, producer and academic.The administrator "Blnguyen" deleted the page that was being built for me, and left a rather ignorant comment "an academic who doesn't seem to have PhD

    well let me address this, first of all i was accepted and started a PhD course at the university of Greenwich London computing and mathematical sciences, and Plymouth university (planetary colligium) uk with supervisor Roy ascott- I’m not doing that PhD no more, not because i quite or sat on my ass and smoked weed, but because i could not afford it. im only 24, yet my artworks all over the world, ive performed my music in 4 countries, Ive published research, ive spoke at the Technarte 2006 art & technology conference, ive written and produced a double concept album, ive taught and lectured at various university’s, im dyslexic but i play guitar, piano, sing, paint, carve stone, engineer music and produce performance and sonic art, yet his very rude and offending comment gives a very narrow mindset for someone supposed stature(remember he's a STUDENT). several people are working on that page of me and are not happy and very disappointed by his abuse

    That page was an ongoing work and not a promo or selling spam. it was the start of a 3rd person perspective on my work.

    after a little research "blinguyen" many people are complaingin of him just wiping people out and stuff.

    please help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Animus666 (talk • contribs) .

    It would help if you told us what the name of the article was. However, I can tell you straight off that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion or a free web host, and if Blnguyen was hasty in deleting 'the page that was being built for you', he was probably only delaying the inevitable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, please sign your posts with 4 tildes like this ~~~~ or click the little box on top of the edit window to make your signature.
    • Second, please give us the title of the article that was deleted.
    • Third, autobiography and vanity articles are strongly discouraged per policy. If you are famous enough to be in wikipedia, someone else will write your article.
    • Fourth, you can ask at deletion review to have the article restored to your user space.

    Thanks.Thatcher131 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    From logs, the only article-space page Blnguyen has whacked in the last day or two is Kalyan Chakravarthy Medikundam. Deletion summary was "content was: '{{db-bio}}Kalyan is a responsible resident of Hyderabad, India. He has been inspiring his fellow residents in keeping the city moving steadily in the...". -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    According to a comment left on User:Cobaltbluetony's talk page, the page in question was Shem booth, an A7 speedy on May 30. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Presumably, the academic has a majiscule last name. Perhaps the relevant thing would be to link again to WP:VANITY. One needs to do something more than simply be a member of a profession. One must be referred to by other sources and therefore require an article, not desire one. Geogre 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For whatever it's worth: No Gbooks, Gnews, or Gscholar hits for "Shem Booth", and no AllMusic page under that name either. No webpages meeting WP:V out of 10 pages of Google results. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeking community consensus for indefinite ban of User:Pnatt

    Pnatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a continual edit warrior. He was recently blocked for five weeks for edit warring over local spellings, and despite rancour that block stuck. That brought his total time blocked to about two and a half months. During that last block he had his user talk page protected twice - once for abuse of {{unblock}}, and then after that was removed, it was protected again after he persistently added a soapboxing attack on the USA[70]. That was only the latest of many user talk page protections for similar offenses.[71]

    Despite constant promises to reform, on the very day that his recent 5-week block expired he started to wage POV edit wars all over Wikipedia today on Australia national football (soccer) team [72], 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies [73] and child discipline [74] among others. Enough is most definitely enough. He has exhausted the patience of the community, and consequently I have blocked him indefinitely per WP:BAN. Please review. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll do more research on this before reaching an opinion, but on the basis of his last four edits, I would have blocked him for a week. This fellow is edit warring over trivia such as spellings and repeatedly injecting defamatory material into the encyclopedia. Whatever we do about him, this has to stop. --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered blocking for a week. Then I thought that his last block was five weeks, and that hadn't helped, so blocking for less would make no sense. Then I thought that six weeks or longer was a ridiculous length for any user to be blocked if they were actually genuine contributors. Then I thought "fuck this" and decided to appeal for a final solution. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with the indefinite block. The user seems unreformable. Johntex\talk 19:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Show him the door. Life's too short. Just zis Guy you know? 20:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pnatt has emailed me claiming that he deliberately set out to be banned today. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got my support. Grant his wish. FeloniousMonk 23:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm in agreement with you all here. Based on my experiences with this user, his behavior is nothing but odd at best. Blocks seem to do nothing, and right when they expire it is just a continuation of the usual nonsense. He doesn't seem to get it. --Pilotguy (roger that) 23:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I heartily endorse this product or service. Doesn't seem reformable. --Deathphoenix ʕ 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am disgusted with this hasty action. I've only just become aware that his block expired and I've been working through his edits. In the case of someone with OCD, considered responses leading to directed outcomes are infinitely better than taking the easy way out, which is interpeted by the sufferer as inconsiderate and thoughtless. I've advertised my willingness to help this user, and I am dismayed that I wasn't even given a heads-up. --Jumbo 23:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jumbo has made a very genuine effort to help this user mend his ways and I applaud his efforts. As one of the person who gave Pnatt the five week block after he started edit warring the moment he came back the last time, I had hoped that this time he would have learnt his lesson. Unfortunately it is clear that he hadn't. Even taking into account his problem with OCD his behaviour is way beyond what is tolerable on Wikipedia. Much as I applaud Jumbo for his efforts in trying to restrain Pnatt, Pnatt, by starting yet more edit wars as soon as his block ended (unfortunately his usual technique), seems to have shown clear evidence that he is irreformable. Reluctantly I have to endorse this block. This user has not changed his behaviour one iota since he came here and is unlikely ever to. I guessed that it was only a matter of time before he got himself permanently blocked. As usual his behaviour, as soon as one block ended, was such as to bring on another one, this time an indefinite one, almost immediately. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with block; ample opportunity to reform has been given, to no avail. Really, there does come a point where users push their chances too far, and he's reached it. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have spent some time today trying to think of an alternate mechnism other than an indefinite block. I have come to the conclusion that this user is either not willing or not capable of being a valueable contributor to Wikipedia, or both. So, with sadness, I support the indefinite block. -- JamesTeterenko 02:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I also accept that Pnatt has used his last chance. --Scott Davis Talk 10:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What to do about Karmafist

    Karmafist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) no longer seems to edit Wikipedia. He simply reappears every few weeks to post some more about a book he is supposedly writing about Wikipedia. Recently he has been using links in his signatures that spam his "manifesto". I warned him today that in my opinion this was a breach of the spirit of his Arbitration Committee ban on campaigning in welcoming messages--he's still campaigning but doing so under the guise of RFA edits and the like. His comments in his edits and his summaries suggest that they're just meaningless "filler" to enable him to use the edits as a vehicle for self promotion.

    In response to my warning, Karmafist has made an edit on my talk page, "Tony's Spam", saying "Please stop spamming my talk page. Thank you."

    Which of course is a blatant breach of his civility parole.

    Seems to me he's asking to be banned from Wikipedia.

    Thoughts? --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • His actions certainly seem that way when you consider that his sig links to his "manifesto". I haven't seen him make an edit without a sig (ie, a useful edit to the articlespace) in a very long time. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that an important portion of the ruling against Karmafist was the thought that a Welcome message, being that it is specifically aimed at new users (who would not know all the policies and who might reasonably be expected to give the comments undue weight). I don't think this is grounds for banning. I do agree the post on Tony's page is uncivil, and some action is meritted for that. Johntex\talk 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Karmafist is promoting his manifesto in his sig, and, while I disagree with this action, I do not think that we can hold it against him unless we can get a consensus together to amend WP:SIG so that it is forbidden. In addition, I feel that the violation of WP:CIVIL is extremely mild, and does not merit a block any longer than 24 hours. -- Where 20:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Karmafist has announced in edit summaries like this one that he doesn't want to edit the encyclopedia proper because it "makes money for Jimbo." I don't really mind him responding to people on his talk page or theirs, which is most of what he's been doing lately, no matter what's in his sig. The book update things -- eh, I guess it's not offensive. I see the "spam" message as a borderline breach of civility, not blatant. However, I am bothered by the notion of somebody who is now expressly not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia voting at RfA, as Karmafist has been doing of late. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I like his edit summaries (Snoop, Nirvana), I don't think his posting to Tony's page is anything to get upset about (Tony has a thicker skin than that). If someone wants to make the argument that his RFA votes be discounted at this point in time, it might be worth raising at the 'Crats' noticeboard - maybe we need to change the voting rules to take things like this into account, but I see no need to single him out. Guettarda 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, if Tony considers Karmafist's manifesto to be divisive he could always MFD it. It's not going to be made policy in any of our lifetimes, so I don't see the harm, but I agree that the spamming in the sig ought to stop: if you want people to come to your user page you should attract them there by the quality of the work you do for the project, not by advertising. Just zis Guy you know? 20:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he continues to be completely uninterested in editing productively on the project, he probably should be warned and eventually blocked -- Wikipedia userpages are not meant to be generic message boards. At the same time, getting the judgement right on this is tricky -- we don't want to tell infrequent contributors to go away. I suspect working to sell his book and his frequent .. less productive contributions makes the difference.. but getting the tradition we set here right is essential. --Improv 20:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my instinct is that he's on civility parole for a reason. The open hostility to the project would, in a newcomer, quickly get him banned, but he's someone who has in the past done good work. I take Guettarda's point about my "thicker skin", but that's not really relevant to the case because he's on civility parole. There isn't really any significant history between me and Karmafist prior to his desysopping (we had a brief difference of opinion over the Maoririder case and made it up), so it isn't as if he's singling me out. I could just be anybody who came to him with a problem about his welcoming.
    The signature itself is obviously completely out of order. Whether he types it out each time or keeps it in his signature makes no difference; it amounts to aggressive spamming in an attempt to promote a policy initiative. Even if it hasn't a hope of succeeding, the nature of that manifesto is such as to promote bad faith. That he's banned from engaging in similar campaigning behavior under the guise of "welcoming" is also relevant. I consider this promotional activity to be a violation of the ban, which is explicity intended to be interpreted broadly for precisely the reason that the arbitration committee envisioned that Karmafist might attempt to seek out wriggle room in the ban.
    Anyhow that's how I feel at present. Thanks for the comments, and keep them coming. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone blocks any user and says "Exhausted community patience, please review", and I look at their contribution list and see no articlespace edits for three months, I'm pretty much guaranteed to endorse. That's all I have to say at this point. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just caught Karmafist trying to remove the warnings against this kind of behavior with the very questionable edit summary of "removing spam". --Cyde↔Weys 22:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So? Unless if the warnings are likely to help someone make a decision at WP:AIV (surely these are not), why do we care if someone removes something from their own talk page? The warning has been made, and read. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm tempt to block indef as Karmafist obviously won't learn nor had no article space edits for three months. All he is doing is promote his manifto and his book. Anyone else agree with an indef block. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If there's general agreement, I'd indefinitely block him in the blink of an eye. No useful edits in three months, you say? In the same three months he has also engaged in numerous violations of his restrictions that have resulted in blocking for a total of two weeks. Nearly every single edit in that time has been self promotion or provocation. But I've seen these things cave in before because of dissent. If there is any objection, I'd rather just take him back to arbcom and let them sort it out. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am for an indef block. His signature clearly pushes his agenda, and this type of edit summary [75] doesn't accomplish anything other than disruption.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I see little evidence that he is doing damage to the encyclopedia (as I strongly felt he was with his welcomes, mind you -- didn't I open that ArbCom case?) or seriously annoying people -- except to the degree that they are looking to be annoyed. Not editing for months isn't a valid reason on its own: we're not blocking User:Filiocht, I hope. So at this point I oppose an indef block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Filiocht isn't abusing Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, no, of course not -- it was a ham-fisted metaphor in response to what I saw as an overemphasis on the fact that Karmafist hasn't edited in three months. And I fully support ArbCom having another look. This just strikes me as a bad case for community-impatience action. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're right. I'll consider arbitration, but meanwhile their plate is pretty full and for now I'm giving him a formal warning on civility. If he keeps sticking up two fingers, I'll personally block him under his parole. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And there we are. If Karmafist acts like a good chap for now it'll lower the temperature considerably and it's possible that one day when he's had his fill of being hetman or whatever they call it he can come back and edit the encyclopedia a bit. --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony Sidaway poisoning the well

    His continual references to me as a troll, and his bringing up of my second probation - which applies only to highway-related pages - are clear attempt to poison the well. I would like some advice on how to deal with this. --SPUI (T - C) 20:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that my continual reference to your past trolling are poisoning the well. I'll try to avoid doing that in future. However you really must try to curb your habit of pushing buttons to see what happens. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Tony here. You have gotten into two controversial edit disputes on Ontario and German routes since your latest Highway sanctions from the Arbcom. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On Ontario, I did go a bit too far, and I'm going to stay out of that. But Germany has a pretty clearly broken infobox, and I've done the best I can to convince others of that. (Note how several different people reverted that, and others commented on Wikipedia talk:Autobahn infobox template.) Similarly, in the {{unblockabuse}} case, which is what Tony is referring to, I brought it to the place one brings problematic templates. Tony Sidaway simply refuses to believe I was acting in good faith. --SPUI (T - C) 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll agree the Block abuse thing was brought to the right place in my opinion. However I can also see how he would have trouble assuming good faith in that instance as you do use the "unblock" template more often then most users and having it become less effective might be something that you'd want to avoid since you are blocked quite often. But I'll assume you had good reasons beyond that. As for the German infobox while I agree you've gotten the consensus ball rolling I don't think there is a clear enough view one way or the other on the Wikipedia talk:Autobahn infobox template page to support the mass change you did. It seems 50/50 to me on that page thus far. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still doing it - "your habit of pushing buttons to see what happens". I again suggest that you lay off; you are not the only administrator. --SPUI (T - C) 20:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever considered expending rather less effort on trolling? It does make you rather an easy target. Just a suggestion. Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever considered being civil? --SPUI (T - C) 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what was uncivil about that. Proto///type 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:Civility:
    "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another"
    --SPUI (T - C) 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And from Wikipedia:No personal attacks:
    "Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom."
    --SPUI (T - C) 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I admit I have some difficulty imagining that you were acting in good faith there. On February 11, while you were under a ten day ban by the arbitration committee for creating a "purposely inflammatory" version of the pedophilia userbox on your userpage, you deliberately abused Wikipedia to create a copy of the same thing on your talk page. Your talk page had to be protected. In the light of that flagrant abuse, it's difficult to entertain the thought that your recent attack on template used by administrators who have to deal with this kind of thing daily was in good faith. --Tony Sidaway 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've said before, if you're too involved to see these actions as good faith, lay off. --SPUI (T - C) 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a teensy bit naughty. During the pedophilia userbox war I was spending most of my time away from the wiki. I simply clerked the case. I wasn't involved at all and your actions were utterly beyond the pale and you obviously knew it. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not involved in the situation, and I have to say that I don't really see a case for that as a good faith edit. Of course, I'm not an admin either, so take it for what it's worth. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are old edits that have no bearing on the present situation. --SPUI (T - C) 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They were edits in which, while banned by the Arbitration Committee, you deliberately abused the ability of a blocked editor to edit his talk page. You defied the Arbitration committee and as a result your talk page was protected. This is relevant to the assessment of your proposal to delete a template used by administrators to deal with abusive editors who misuse their talk pages. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, sounds like SPUI's a bit too involved here too. FeloniousMonk 21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting really tired of hearing WP:AGF thrown around as if merely mentioning it gets you off the hook for anything bad you might have done. Please see WP:AAGF. --Cyde↔Weys 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just read WP:AGF, there is a section dealing with the fact that AGF isn't a blank check to throw back at anyone who assumes after much evidence that good faith isn't present. JohnnyBGood 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Notwithstanding this, SPUI is an editor whose work I really respect. He's a tireless worker and I don't want to appear to be taking him for granted (which I don't). We all want SPUI to stay and be happy enough and feel welcome to edit Wikipedia for as long as he feels he has something to add. If by calling him a troll, which I agree is out of order, I've made him feel that he wasn't welcome, then I apologise. However SPUI is not above criticism, for all his excellent contributions.

    In short, it is sometimes frustrating to see SPUI take us for granted. I'm not stupid and I know when he's trying it on. I meant it when I said that repetition of provocative xfd nominations will result in banning from xfd. And SPUI, please don't take that as an invitation to game your probation. --Tony Sidaway 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't get you. You repeatedly mischaracterize my actions and then claim you want to make me feel welcome. Maybe you should stop doing the former if you want the latter to succeed. --SPUI (T - C) 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he's really mischaracterizing your actions SPUI. Take this most recent edit you provided on Categories for deletion in response to my opinion on the matter [76]. How was that anything but a baseless uncivil comment toward me? What makes your opinion more important then mine any anyone who agrees with me (please note you had comments for anyone who disagreed with you that were less then civil). You're purposely trying to get a rise out of people (whether you know it or not) and are then shocked when they get fed up? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to you there, but your "vote" is invalid, unless you're arguing for a category of all city streets to which the city restricts access. --SPUI (T - C) 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read my opinion there (note it isn't a "vote" as voting is evil). I do think it should be kept as a cateogry of both freeway level and city street/expressway level limited access roads. A freeway category is fine, however renaming a much more encompassing category to a more restrictive and American centric one isn't the way to do it as I've now expressed twice and been dismissed by you as being "invalid". JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm NOT commenting on this matter, I don't want to read through and do all the research at the moment - but I do have a suggestion. SPIU, is it really that hard to to keep your head down. If I had all those things leveled against me I'd sure find any way possible to keep out of trouble. Take a wikibreak. Research for an article you're interested about (you could even go to the library to find sources, that'd be awesome). Be a new user welcomer. There is so much to do here and it kind of puzzles me why (and how) you attract so much attention. Jeeze, I'll even show you how to use this cool spellchecking script that you put into your monobook.js Oh, and SPUI, that's not poison, it's Tony's sour Jesus juice =D. --mboverload@ 21:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kitteneatkitten requests their sockpuppet Zigzogger be unblocked

    Kitteneatkitten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) contacted me asking that their sockpuppet Zigzogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) be unblocked. I'm not in favor of unblocking but want to seek a wider review. Note, I was not the blocking or unblocking admin for any of these actions. My involvement came from moderating an article dispute that both accounts edited.

    The originally block of Zigzogger occurred under false pretenses. Another user impersonated Zigzogger causing the account to be blocked. In the course of sorting out that situation I asked for Kitteneatkitten to have a usercheck. It was determined that it was an account being used by the same person using the Zigzogger account. This is not disputed. Kittenatekitten was indef blocked .

    Knowing that the Kitteneatkitten was an older account with more edits, I asked this user if they would prefer to use that account. This change was made with Zigzogger indef blocked. About a month ago Kittenatekitten requested that Zigzogger be unblocked. See Zigzogger talk page for reason for the request. I reviewed the situation and suggested that the sockpuppet template be removed but the account stay blocked. No action was at that time. FloNight talk 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm confused. Does he/she want to edit from both accounts or only Zigzogger? Thatcher131 23:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't intend to edit any articles with my other nickname, however after being framed and impersonated, having had nasty and obsene words attributed to me, then being banned by a malicious user, I feel that it is very unfair to still publicly punish me as a result of the person who impersonated me, even though in a way that has little to no practical effect.
    My view is that one of my nicks was framed, causing me to be banned. Now that the framing by the user Big.P was exposed no trace of the punishment he caused to be inflicted upon me should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitteneatkitten (talk • contribs)
    • Well, to have literally "no trace" would require deleting past history of both talk pages, and also the checkuser page. I think it's unlikely you will persuade anyone to do this. As Mackensen has said many times, its ok to have more than one account as long as you don't cross the streams. You apparently did cross the streams, albeit briefly, and pled ignorance. Assuming good faith, and that you will keep your nicks separate in the future, I won't object to unblocking both accounts. You can also archive the talk pages to get the warnings and discussions out of sight. If you only want to edit from one account, you might even redirect the user and talk pages of the other account to your main account, so people interested in your old edits can easily contact you, and so there's no question that everything is straight up. Wikipedia is perhaps over tolerant and excessively generous with second chances, but that will work to your benefit, and if you establish a record of useful contributions, no one will have cause to remember this past episode. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 03:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Deleting checkuser info and talk pages wouldn't erase the logs. But blocking is preventative rather than punative so leaving it as is is not a record of punishement it is a record of prevention of a disruptive situation, which undoubtedly there was. --pgk(talk) 06:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I don't care about erasing all traces of what happened, just having the pejoritive "sockpuppet" and "this user is blocked" tags removed. Once again the two nicks edited the same article only once and there was nothing misleading about the way I did so (I didn't talk to myself or say "hey that's a great idea" and anyone who was following the talk page closesly would have realized I was the same person). Kitteneatkitten 01:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As the admin most involved with the blocking/unblocking of all parties, here's the situation...

    1. Zigzogger (talk · contribs) and Big.P (talk · contribs) were involved in the heated discussion on Talk:Kiwi Alejandro Camara following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Alejandro Camara.
    2. Big.P created a sockpuppet, Zigz0gger (talk · contribs). He used it to impersonate Zigzogger, doing an artful job of it.
    3. During this impersonation, Zigzogger had been banned for 48 hours for repeated reposting. Both Zigzogger and Zigz0gger were blocked, 0 as a puppet of o.
    4. Flo initiated the Checkuser that established that Zigz0gger was in fact the sock puppet of Big.P as a revenge tactic for edits regarding the aforementioned AfD
    5. I unblocked Zigzogger immediately (obviously leaving Zigz0gger blocked) and banned Big.P for a month, which expired yesterday. I blocked Kitteneatkitten (talk · contribs) as a sock of Zigzogger.
    6. Flo recognized that Kitteneatkitten was the older account and asked Zigzogger whether they'd alternately like the Kitteneatkitten account unblocked in lieu of a block on the Zigzogger account, to which Zigzogger agreed.
    7. Several days later, Zigzogger protested the shuttering of the sockpuppet account as they've said that they're abiding by the legit uses listed at WP:SOCK, though what legitimate uses they may be have not been specified. In addition to myself and Flo, Malo (talk · contribs) has reviewed Kitten's request to unblock the Zigzogger account and declined to unblock.

    Despite Kitten/Zig's mischaracterization of me on the Zigzogger talk page, I have no problem with removing the block, provided that the reason according to WP:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_multiple_accounts is enumerated and the user pages of both accounts are tagged as shown. So far, there has been no solid reason given for Kitten to be using multiple accounts, and Kitten has already stated that they don't intend to use the account to edit anymore either. In addition, the monthlong block I applied to Big.P was (despite Kitten-zig's protest) appropriate. It's a significant period of time. My personal feeling is that if the Zigzogger account is no longer going to be used that the User and Talk pages for the account be redirected to Kitteneatkitten's as has been previously recommended.  RasputinAXP  c 13:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, she was framed for a big crime, but in the course of the investigation an unrelated minor offense was uncovered. I sympathize with her desire to have both accounts unblocked on principle (as she wouldn't have been caught without Big.P framing her) but I agree that they should either be tagged as legit socks or she should redirect to the one she wants. Absent a clear explanation of what she intends to do, keep the status quo. Thatcher131 14:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But I wasn't using a sockpuppet. As I understand it, I do not think accidently using a second nick to edit an article in a single isolated case in a way that did not mislead anyone even is a "minor offense." Kitteneatkitten 01:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kitteneatkitten, did you use another user name before Kitteneatkitten? Because, to be perfectly honest, I thought that the Kitteneatkitten user account was a sockpuppet from the first time I saw it.
    As we have already discussed, that did not mean that I thought you were doing something wrong by changing user names. Rather, I thought that you were too familiar with Wikipedia dispute resolution process to be a total newbie. If you change user name, it raises red flag to experienced users/admin. For that reason, I would encourage you to settle on one user name. In the future if you want to change tell an admin, even if you want them to keep it private. This way it will not cause concern, okay. FloNight talk 01:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh

    There has been a focused effort to deframe a federal judge, Brett Kavanaugh, by making crazy claims surrounding a murder conspiracy. The sources offered are from conspiracy books and conspiracy web sites. I want to bring this to everyone's attention because wikipeia should not be a place for conspiracy theories about government officials, judges, or politicians. C56C 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your edits to that article are the first it has seen in *three weeks*; I see no reason this should be posted anywhere, let alone here, as it has nothing to do with admins. Maybe if there were an edit war going on, but by definition there isn't. I see, at best, a delayed content dispute. --Golbez 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Some clean-up work

    Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Squidward was just deleted (by Jimbo), there are a bunch of links and redirects to this page and I wonder if anyone here could be bothered to clean up as needed, I'm going off-line. Haukur 21:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly are we to do with them at this point, really? ~ PseudoSudo 21:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Leave the links in place. As Jimbo says in the deletion log, "admins, you know where to find this if you need it". --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Jimbo's full entry is "courtesy delete as part of negotiation with individual; admins, you know where to find this if you need it" - which hopefully will answer the obvious question of why he took this action. -- ChrisO 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dijxtra/Sock, WP:SQUID, Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Squidward, User:Squidward, and User talk:Squidward are the affected null redirects. ~ PseudoSudo 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've salted the earth and left a variant of the {{deletedpage}} notice in place, which should save some confusion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a good solution. Haukur 00:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Added the same text to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/George Reeves Person; someone should protect that as well if they have a second. ~ PseudoSudo 01:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Kimchi.sg. ~ PseudoSudo 04:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Two One articles needing attention

    All the admins on IRC - two of them - are unwilling to do this sort of thing, so I'll just post it here.

    User has conceeded Aylesbury_Grammar_School keeps getting the headmasters name put back in. They want "Big Steve" put back in. They say it's verifyable because of it's in the school newspaper....*sigh*. Multiple editors have tried explaining it to this individual but it doesn't work. He has violated 3RR. I have counted 4 different editors in just the last few days reverting this guy.

    Semiprotection or block his somewhat static IP address, I'll leave it up to you

    Wikistar again
    ...Majin Buu. CONSTANT edit warring with a few users against one (Wikistar, he already has his reputation established above). I left a little STOP! HAMMER TIME! Message at the top of the talk page (you should read it) and it didn't seem to work. I'll leave the solution to you.

    Crap, I wish my RfA passed so I wouldn't have to annoy admins on IRC all the time, heh. =P --mboverload@ 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    I blocked Wiki-star indef for severe WP:OWN issue and and coming back to edit war after each block. Jaranda wat's sup 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse this block, having tried for months now to defuse the situation. User has actually requested to be indefinitely blocked in the past [77]. Isopropyl 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank god. I was tired of it showing up in my watchlist with combative summaries, lol. Look at the latest revert to the version before wikistar. Wow, peace.
    You really have to wonder why someone gets blocked multiple time then comes back for more over a fricken Dragon Ball article. *sigh* --mboverload@ 23:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting verifyability question

    Note added later on: I debated putting this on AN or AN/I, however I decided AN/I since it needed the attention of admins about policy and not a content dispute. However, I don't have a problem with you moving it to AN if you deem nessasary. See my talk page for futher discussion already taking place.

    When does the age of a a source matter? What if it's about Hydroponics. What if it's over 50 YEARS old?

    All refs to: Hoagland and Arnon, 1950

    • Hydroponics has been widely exaggerated as miraculous.
    • Hydroponics will not always produce greater crop yields that with good quality soil.
    • Hydroponic plants cannot be spaced closer together than soil-grown crops under the same environmental conditions.
    • Hydroponic produce will not necessarily be more nutritious or delicious than soil-grown produce.

    I refuse to revert war, I just thought this was a very important question to bring up. When does knowledge "expire" and how do we know that it has? I think we will increasingly have to contend with this question. --mboverload@ 23:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, finding a more recent source that criticizes said source would help. If you can use secondary sources to demonstrate that the field has moved on, then you're on safe ground. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, as the field is a fast-moving one, it seems imperative that an indication of the date of this knowledge should be included, as it is a historical view, not a contemporary one. Tyrenius 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have an suggestions? I have no problem including it in the article, as long as it's in a section talking about the history of Hydroponics and maybe how it has advanced. I put a {Disputed-section} tag on it. --mboverload@ 00:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Disputed" is pretty severe, given that what's at stake is more "obsolete." I think Mackenson had it right: if there is more current research to contradict the old stuff, it should take precedence. Otherwise, we can really suspect that the information is out of date, but it's up to the reader to find that information and provide better or kind of leave it alone. "Kind of" because something strong on the talk page would be very much warranted, contacting editors of the article who show up in history would be good, and clearly labelling the years of the reference is compulsory. We have reams of 1911 Britanica articles on the site, still (although I kill them where I can), and even worse than that. The "Brief Literary Encyclopedia" is darn near useless, but we have dozens of "articles" that are just clips from it. Geogre 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New template, any thoughts?

    • {{Auto}}, when placed on a user/user talk page, displays any outstanding autoblocks caused by that user, if included in a standard series of blocking templates, could allow easy detection of harmful autoblocks, without having to alert the vandal that anyone is aware of them--AOL user 00:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I'm not the only one who sees the misinterpreted meaning or irony here.
    =D Anyway, seems like a good idea --mboverload@ 00:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Rory Demetrioff

    Hello,

    There has been much debate today about an article: Rory Demetrioff

    I am running out of energy on this one, and may loose faith in the process. There is an article of importance for a Canadian speaker and advocate name Rory Demetrioff, which while not known outside of the Canadian is of value here. If Canada is not important or notable, that is a decision for Wiki to make.

    In review of the history on this file, it seems that the Demetrioff article has been singled out a number of times for unsubstantiated claims: first not notable, which once demonstrated he is, was not given adequate consideration. Second, a number of similar articles on other Canadian political strategists were provided. The response on "talk" - he was the only one found out.

    It appears unfair that this censorship has been allowed to take place. The Wiki rules were thoroughly reviewed and the Demetrioff article passes as an article of much interest for those seeking information on influential political figures in Canada.

    I am leaving this be, as I have spent much time trying to make the case, but the individuals reviewing the information appear uninformed and unqualified to make the judgement on an article that merits attention beyond their scope of expertise.

    Censorship is a damaging practice which only suits to hurt the fairness that democracy and freedom on information that is supposed to come with it.

    Thank You for your understanding and I hope that someone who can be a fair judge in this can help to resolve: either by continuing to stand by the censorship with good reason, or by providing assistance on what additional information would need to be included in the Demetrioff article to make it acceptable to the Wiki rules.

    Fairness and help is all that is being sought.

    Thank You.

    Deleted in process. This anon has been spamming admin talk pages about this, and I told him to take it to DRV already. However, upon further inspection, this probably should be looked into a little deeper, but not for the reasons above. Apparently, we've got another paid bio editor, possibly several on our hands. --InShaneee 01:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further investigation, this does appear to be a firm attempting to create a walled garden to establish notability. I've AfD'd some of the articles created by the above anon, and I plan to keep an eye on him for the time being. --InShaneee 02:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been recreated 6 times in different forms by Oakville123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User talk page warnings were removed. This user retaliated by marking two user pages for speedy deletion, and vandalized two other user talk pages. I blocked him for 24 hours. If contributions after that period are similarly useless, then an indefinite block may be in order as a vandalism only account -- Samir धर्म 03:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If he tries to recreate it or something like it following his block, I'd be in support of that. --InShaneee 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kimcray engaged to spam by third parties

    At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amuse Bouche we have apparently come across a user who was hired by wine companies (plural) to advertize their products through Wikipedia. This is far different than your typical self-interested drive-by spammer. I suggested there that the user be permanently banned for this type of activity. Grutness suggested that the issue should be noticed here for comment. Please visit the afd debate for more detail.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me add that when I mentioned this in a previous AfD discussion, she blanked the incriminating talk page I had referenced. I only bring this up, because while she may not initially have known she was doing anything that would be frowned on and countered, she may be getting wise to the ways of the wiki. I would strongly encourage anyone encountering a similar pattern of edits to request a checkuser against this user. JChap (Talk) 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked indefinitely per this [78]. No spammers on Wikipedia please, ever, no matter how "wiki-wise" they become. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, if there is any doubt, I view a declaration of intent to spam as no different from a declaration of intent to vandalise, which automatically results in uncontroversial indef blocks in every case. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought that was how it would probably be viewed, but I wanted a second opinion rather than doing a permablock immediately myself (hence my suggestion to Fuhghettaboutit). Thanks for the confirmation! Grutness...wha? 12:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The indef block was a bit too harsh. I doub't Kimcray had bad intentions. Admin users need to work with new users, not against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs)
    If intending to use Wikipedia to spam and promote products is not a "bad intention" I don't know what is. Add that to blanking a talk page in an attempt to hide the evidence of what she had done and creating an obvious sock/meatpuppet and all of her edits have been either in bad faith or in blatant violation of policy. This isn't the case of a new user putting up a vanity page on the way to performing constructive edits, but someone trying to use Wikipedia solely for inappropriate purposes. JChap (Talk) 11:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now, she had apparently created a sockpuppet, who is the only keep vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amuse Bouche. JChap (Talk) 11:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll keep an eye on the account, but a 'vote' that will be discounted by the closing admin doesn't merit an immediate sockblock... yet. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yeah. Not a vote anymore. I keep forgetting that. JChap (Talk) 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Brad Patrick

    I'd like feedback on my actions with respect to Brad Patrick, Wikimedia's attorney. Timeline:

    • 13 June 2006 - Zanimum created a short article on him.[79]
    • 15 June 2006 - Prodego put a {{prod}} on the article.[80] Essjay removed the prod the same day with the edit sumary "- prod; other Wikipedia functionaries (Jimbo, Anglea, even Sam Korn) have had the courtesy of having thier articles discussed before deletion, and I think Brad should have the same"[81]
    • 16 June 2006 - HappyCamper placesd an {{AfD}} on the article.[82]
    • As a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Patrick, I closed the AfD with consensus to "Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation".[83] I also created the redirect.
    • At the same time, on my own initiative, I decided to protect the redirect because I felt that the article might potentially be a magnet for vandalism, and because there seemed no reason to revisit the AfD in the near term.[84]
    • 10 July 2006 I was contacted on my talk page by 67.119.194.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This user has asked me to unprotect the page.[85] I replied that the user should provide some reasoning for revisiting such a recent AfD.[86] He said he wanted to write a good article. [87] I asked him to take the matter to deletion review.[88]  :*He declined, saying "No can do. That means I have to fight for that low-detail poor excuse of an article that was rightly AfD'ed. Please remove your prot. It seems that all you have to offer is obstructionism — the antithesis of collaboration. When a high-detail version of the article is ready, then the voters (or whatever they are) can decide in an informed manner."[89]
    • I offered other options: "I'm sorry, but I am not going to unilaterally support your recreation of an article that was merged by consensus at AfD. If you are worried about them basing their opinion on the old article, you could create the article in your userpage, then link to that when you go before deletion review. Or, you could put your draft at Talk:Brad Patrick, which is not protected. If you really believe my actions as an admin are innapropriate in this case, I suggest you post to WP:ANI, and see if you can get a set of admins to decide to overturn me."[90]
    • He replied "...Uh huh. I find your approach to this dreadfully authoritarian. You know, I have other options and I am about ready to start exercising them"[91]

    67.119.194.1 has never editted before today. Over the course of today, this user has gravitated to a very interesting set of articles, including: Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia:List of banned users, Wikimedia Foundation, Bomis, Identity theft, John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, Tim Shell (CEO of Bomis), Angela Beesley, Michael E. Davis, History of Wikipedia + a few others.
    My conclusion - I don't feel I am being authoritarian in the slightest. I know it is somewhat unusual to protect a redirect, but I feel this is an unusual case and that my action was proper. If anything, the fact that someone so interested in all things Jimbo/Foundation is trying to recreate the article is validation to me that I was right to protect the redirect to preserve the ruling of the AfD. I also feel like I have given this user several good options as to how to proceed. I think the protected redirect should remain in place for now, and that the user should create a temp-page and take it to AfD.
    Request - I'd like some feedback as to my past actions and thoughts on the best course from here. - Johntex\talk 02:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The AfD seems to have gone just fine, in which case DRV would be the place to take a request to recreate such an article, if you ask me. Nothing wrong with that. --InShaneee 02:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the 'create in userspace' option. Then {{editprotected}} can be added, and if an admin agrees, the content will be put in, and the page (assumedly) unprotected. Prodego talk 02:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may be so bold: did ever occur to you to just remove your novel fullprot on the article get out of the way and let Nature take its course? It strikes me as inevitable that Brad Patrick will have a Wikipedia biography and that he knew that it came with the territory when he accepted the "interim" position of Executive Director of the Foundation. He is in charge now: his experience, worldview and even his personality and mental stability now all a profound impact on some website known as Wikipeida®, which has an Alexa traffic ranking in the upper teens on the Internet. That immediately makes him notable, does it not? He is an expressive person with a healthy social pscyhe. Observations can be made about this human organism in a totally NPOV mannger. -- 67.119.194.1 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW: None of you are going to resort to these fullprot tactics about about Gil Penchina, are you? This wiki, the Foundation and Wikia were supposed to be about candid, transparent collaboration so that information is shared. I do not get the sense that that is happening right now. -- 67.119.194.1 04:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Let us make a deal: you remove the fullprot on the Brad Patrick article in six hours or less and I do not post a hard-htting narrative about my disappointing and frustrating experiences today with this obstructionism to roughtype.com. Deal? Your journalistic standards are lacking, but now that Brad is in charge — oh, I just known he is going to crack the whip and restore the Foundation's reputation as a provider of quality free information. What say you all? -- 67.119.194.1 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Johntex acted reasonably here. Do the article in your user space. If it is a significant improvement over the deleted version, we can move it and open a new AfD on the new content article. Based on the last post, though, you seem more interested in writing about your disappointment to an outside website. And your disappointment is because we don't do things exactly as you request, even though we give you a bunch of good options to accomplish the same end result. That seems a small disappointment compared to the normal disappointments we all experience in life. NoSeptember 05:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think that threatening the project in any form like this is acceptable/civilised behaviour. I'm blocking the user. --Improv 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with and endorse Johntex's actions. Offering for the user to create a well-written article in user or talk space is a very valid suggestion if the user thinks it can be done. The incident is also fairly good validation that the protection is potentially useful. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As I confidently and firmly asserted on my IP-based talk page, other pathways of deploying a mainspace biography on Brad Patrick are wide open to me. I find that, by head count, there will always be consesus for obstructionism because it is so easy to mindlessly maintain the status quo. "Easy" quickly translates into populist obstruction against any overtly assertive person, regardless of their merits. I do not accept this obstructionism because it avoids the issues — which require thought and effort to cope with. None of you have talked about Brad. Who of you have ever communicated with him or even knew what he looks like or what his voice sounds like before June 2006? The AfD process, while superficially valid, was flawed because the article was flawed. I have refrained from simply taking one of those many pathways to get the job done, but my paience is not infinite. Please concede the point and remove the novel fullprot pronto. -- 67.119.194.1 06:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Michael E. Davis article was just recreated on July 9 and might be considered recreated content. What do you all think? NoSeptember 06:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    For the Michael E. Davis article, the deletion reason given was "created by banned user wik." CSD G4 specifies that a page can only be deleted for being a recreation if the article went through an AfD. So, if you feel that the page should be deleted, you should probably AfD it and let it have a discussion. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 06:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that seems to be an overly pedantic interpretation as it would effectively nullify the purpose of deleting material created by a blocked user in the first place, if they could then just get someone else to reinstate the article. However if it is substantially the same material it is still created by a banned user and so still deletable on the same basis. Either the person creating is a sock of the blocked user, or we have a GFDL attribution issue since visible history no longer reflects the original author. --pgk(talk) 07:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly agree with this; I was simply assuming good faith that the article was created by someone else. The article in question seems to be somewhat different than the one that was deleted (and better sourced), but the information is much the same, likely because of the little information that is out there. The original author of the new version ConeyIsland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might raise a red flag, however, because their first edit was to their monobook.js. Any thoughts? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 07:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not clear to me if the new creator was the same as the previous one. If we don't delete as a recreation, there is still the issue of notability. NoSeptember 12:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    King of the Swamp: No, please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who... -- 64.175.42.120 09:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Above user is a permenantly banned user Andrew Morrow. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anf for anyone wondering why he is a permenantly banned user, take a look at this What a creep. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, why is the Brad Patrick article protected against recreation? Kim Bruning 13:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Becaue it went through a Vfd? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean AfD? I thought people were free to try to recreate content, if they could make it tidy and notable the next time round. If you always protect pages from recreation, wouldn't eventualism eventually break down? Kim Bruning 14:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (I'm not commenting on letting the above user back to wikipedia ever again or anything, if they've really been nasty. I'm just quickly wondering when people started routinely protecting deleted pages against recreation.) Kim Bruning[reply]
    Did you get a chance to read my whole post? I explain that I took the unusual step of protecting it from recreation becuase the foundation's lawyer seems a magnet for vandalism. Eventualism is not threatened here. If he becomes more notable I'm sure that will be noticed by lots of Wikipedians, including many admins who can unprotect the page. Johntex\talk 14:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies. I'm irritated when people do that to me too. :-/ A good plan might be to find some volunteers to write a decent article about Brad Patrick :-) Kim Bruning 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I know it is almost as tedious to read a long explanation as it is to write one.  :-) Personally, I'm surprised the first AfD ended in deletion. Your idea sounds like a good one to me. Anyone interested? Johntex\talk 22:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Launderers.gif

    Could someone please take a look at this image. It's a likely copyvio, and the uploader refuses to provide copyright information. It has been tagged with nld since the 8th of June so it is far more than eligible for deletion. Thanks. --Hetar 02:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Killers and Categories

    Background: Chicagoboy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started changing existing categories on articles of murderers to the non-existant category of Killers From History. Several messages were left on his talk page. He created the category and started adding, manually, links to the articles in question. I deleted the cat and left a note on his page. At least one editor thinks this was deliberate vandalism; I don't think so. Killers From History is a section on CrimeLibrary[92] and the articles he added this to were all listed on CrimeLibrary's Killers From History. When told his edits were considered vandalism, he ceased editing. Enter LosAngelesboy7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with remarkably similar editing habits. I have blocked LosAngelesboy7 as a sock. Suggest we attempt communication, unless this is a known vandal I missed the briefing on; and keep an eye out for [cityname]boy[#] type usernames. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a serial vandal, nuke from orbit and mass revert on sight. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stoneboy3. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. He doesn't limit himself to playing with categories, even if that's all he could do before you caught him this time. He maliciously changed around some information on America's Most Wanted, [93] which is when I came across him (and didn't realise until I posted here that he was a serial vandal). --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, this[94] is weirdly malicious. Ok, now I know - thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 14:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Subhash bose

    Hello. Although the checkuser evidence was inconclusive, I indefblocked User:Pusyamitra Sunga anyway after receiving an email from this user from the same address as User:Subhash bose had used earlier. The sock was used in personal attacks, evading block and 3rr. At the time User:Subhash bose was blocked for personal attacks. Comments on this block and further action against the puppetmaster are welcome.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't this attack by User:WikiSceptic deserve a ban ? Tintin (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There are actually 2-3 SEPARATE personal attacks on that diff your provided. --mboverload@ 07:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I hope Subhash bose is blocked for a sufficient amount of time. I see little chance for rehabilitation judging by his absolutely despicable behaviour. I'm not a Christian and even I'm offended. Come on. --mboverload@ 07:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Utterly despicable behavior by Subhash bose. I don't debate with people who worship with Nazi hitler-youth members like the Catholic pope
    I think I'm going to choke. --mboverload@ 07:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reblocked User:Subhash bose for a week after my previous week-block was paroled by User:Mikkalai. WikiSceptic cops ten days because he has been around for 6 months and I also saw previous attacks and also some very-highly-POV editing, where as with Subhash I did not see this in his actual editing. Blnguyen | rant-line 08:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Theatrelog

    I've blocked Theatrelog (at the moment for 48 hours) for revealing personal details and making legal threats.[95] There also appears to be sockpuppetry involved here.[96] I'd be grateful if someone with more experience could advise or take the next step at this stage. Tyrenius 06:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I read through it, and I still don't get it. *sigh* --mboverload@ 07:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked for indef, since he was indef blocked before, but the 48 hour block canceled it out. My reasonings were the sockpuppetry, the legal threats and the posting of personal information. Don't need him to hang around here any longer. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I thought indef, but I didn't want to do that on my first block! Sorry didn't pick up existing indef. Tyrenius 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Next time check their block log first, I had already indef blocked this user a week ago, and there was a previous discussion on WP:ANI about it. Checking first will save you a lot of trouble, but no harm done. pschemp | talk 21:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Srbocetnik

    User:Srbocetnik is likely a sockpuppet of indef-banned User:Dzoni, according to his own admission on User talk:Estavisti. Translation:

    The fact that you don't live in Serbia is not a reason to destroy every article I improve. Find a girl, or, like we'd say in diaspora, get a life, but don't spoil my changes anymore. Srbocetnik 03:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (Dzoni from Serbian wiki).[reply]

    In addition, per WP:USERNAME, his username means Serbo-chetnik, which is the derrogatory term for Serb soldiers used by Bosniaks and Croats during Yugoslav wars. It is obviously chosen for its provocative value. Duja 08:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef over the username. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Linkspam on Andrew Murray (tennis player)

    A user and a number of IP accounts persist in adding a link to a fansite to this article, ignoring that fact that a discussion is on-going on the talk page about this issue and consensus is not clear (I'd say it's on balance against the deluge of external links the article previously had): Talk:Andrew Murray (tennis player)#External links. More opinions and action would be welcome. Thanks/wangi 10:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the latest one for violation of 3RR. -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 10:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hidden div tag spam

    Hi everyone,

    While on RC patrol today, I discovered a new spamdexing tactic being employed by zombie bots. As seen from this diff [97] spammers are now embedding their URLs inside diff tags so that they are not rendered when viewing the article normally. 

    <div style="position: absolute; left: -10000px">[http://spam-link.com] random string</div>

    Could someone with SQL access please do a search to find more examples of this hidden spam. The HTML tag parser will probably have to do bounds checking on the values being used to position div tags from now on to put an end to this tactic.

    Cheers,

     Netsnipe  (Talk)  12:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Although the links are off-page, they should still be blockable via the spam blacklist. Requests to blacklist can be made on Meta at m:Talk:Spam blacklist or by contacting a Meta admin. (For starters, myself, Raul654, & Mindspillage are Meta admins, plenty more can be found at m:Special:Listusers/sysop.) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#New York City blackout of 1977 just above. Proto///type 12:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been seeing a lot of this stuff with wikis I run for work and other groups. It takes a major effort to clean them up. Hopefully we won't become the next usenet. --Improv 14:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajput vandal: Checkuser help required to prevent mass sockpuppeting

    The "Rajput vandal" (banned by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput) has been waging a mass revert war under ever new sockpuppet accounts on all Rajput-related articles. His latest trick is to use a bot that creates one-off accounts on the fly, a new one for every single page he reverts. Today, about a dozen of them were caught and blocked, before the vandal was finally caught in the autoblocks. [98]. Here's a few:

    Can someone with checkuser access please try to determine the IP(s) or ranges involved, so that they can be blocked more effectively? (Posting this here rather than at WP:RCU, because it's not a classical request for establishing sockpuppeting, and because it seems to require faster response.) -- Scabbers the Rat 13:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    More wolfstar nonsense

    After the elapsed block from 2 days prior, our indef. blocked friend 69.67.230.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is continuing the abusive pattern of wolfstar (a fairly bizarre user who, for some reason, has targeted me along with a few others for nonsensical, paranoiac abuse and commentry). In her unique style, recognizable for its slightly deranged and pitiable tone, the anon user vandalized my user page and others' with homophobic and 'anti-socialist' rants. [99], [100], [101], [102], [103] Her mention of mental illness is, to me, a cry for help. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a mental health outreach. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    She rotates her IP's, but she doesn't appear to have an infinite stock of them. I'd suggest going up to a month on this one. I know it's a little bit of a pain to have to re-do these every month, but I still feel that indefinite blocks on IP's are outside the pale. If you want someone else to do the block, several of us would be happy to. Wolfstar has made multiple references to troubles with mental illness, but there is nothing that we can do about that. Sending respiridol through the mail is illegal, and sending it through a modem is impossible. Geogre 14:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She mentioned once she edits from a library. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is now technically possible to block an IP address so that anons can't use it but registered users can. (Discussion at WP:AN). Thatcher131 14:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that, but I'm not sure that I yet see the advantages. Geogre 23:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean that there weren't any, just that I can't quite see them yet. One question that the new abilities will spring from the box is, "Should we block all AOL editing by IP's?" If we block all anonymous IP editing (as we were rumored to be doing a while back), fine, but picking on this ISP strikes me as a little questionable. After all, the problem that AOL gives us is the same problem that all non-static IP's do. AOL rolls every X minutes (maybe every 2 minutes, maybe every :30), but every other ISP rolls IP's as well. They just don't do it intra-session. Still, a kid dials in at XXX.XX.XX.XXX and the next day he's at XXX.XX.XX.XXY. Even DSL users roll a bit. It's a question of degree, of course, but...well...I'm just not sure yet that we're out of those woods yet, although I really am glad that we're nearer the edge of them by a good piece. Geogre 23:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what I mean in the wolfstar's case is, we could block her IPs for a month and have less collateral damage than blocking for a week under the previous software version. Thatcher131 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of AOL, the new blocking system means that if we range-block all AOL IP addresses but allow registered users to edit, we can block User:Fucking AOL Vandal indefinitely, and you will never be hit by an autoblock. --Carnildo 00:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I blocked that Wolfstar incarnation for a month, preventing both anonymous and account creation editing. A month seems to be pretty safe. If there is any collateral damage, i will repent in astonishment. Geogre 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unilateral Edit after Unilateral Protect By administratorUser:Nihonjoe

    Administrator User:NihonjoeNihonjoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has protected some Japan-related articles on July 10. I agree with his measures since his targets seem to be in revert war between Korean POV and Japanese POV, or simple vandalism. However, User:Nihonjoe seems to give his cooperation with one side. He unilaterally modified the article without unprotect. Is it desirable behavior for administrator? Please chechk the following histories.

    1. He talked with his Korean POV Company. Please see User_talk:Dollarfifty#Hello and User_talk:Nihonjoe#Socks.
    2. He protected Dokdo on 10 July (07:15) [104]
    3. He modified Dokdo on 11 July(02:17) [105]
    4. He did not apply for "Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests"[106].

    I think his attitude for Japan-related articles is really unfair. For wxample, User:Nihonjoe submited the Rf-checkuser. In that time, his request was "Declined". However, he seems to be not able to satisfy the result. He talked over it with his company(see User talk:Nihonjoe#socks). I beleive the POV of a Wikipedian article should be talked over by editors, not be determined by an administrator.--Questionfromjapan 14:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Independent advice requested

    The issue I originally raised seems to have got lost from below, but you can find it on the page referenced here. See User:Betacommand/disscusion/Welsh

    However, it seems I was mistaken in thinking that Betacommand's bot had actually deleted the category -- it was the edit summary on "user contribution" list that misled me. The category has not been deleted, presumably because the admin who deleted the other categories under discussion was sensible enough to recognise that discussion was not concluded. User:Betacommand is now seeking a resolution, and I thank him for that, although I'm not sure that this is the best way to go about it. (I'm also not sure what the comments below have to do with this matter.) Deb 11:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update. Unbelievably, this category has now been deleted and de-populated again, this time by User:Cyde, who presumably did not see the discussion here. I have requested it be restored. Deb 11:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your reply. But, I could not catch what you suggest. Could you tell me the detail? Or, is it normal that an administrator could rewrite the "protected" article by unilateral advocate of one side POV?--Questionfromjapan 23:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When the above message "See User:Betacommand/disscusion/Welsh" was written, the "Independent advice requested" section was deleted. I suppose that was a misedit, so I restore the section. --nachi 03:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood. I really appreciate your modification. Thank you for your kindness.--Questionfromjapan 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommendation thatt Major18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) be blocked infediantely

    Looking through this user's contribtuions, I see no reason not to. The few edits there are all in the User: namespace, and are odd at best. Most are harrasing, attacking, and threatening other Wikipedians. I see no reason why he should not be shown the door as he seems unwilling to contribute construcitvely, and instead appears to be present solely to stir up trouble for other users. --Pilotguy (roger that) 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked indefinitely, though in retrospect as he was already blocked for 48 hours I should have asked Banes first. Oh well, I have this sneaking feeling it's not going to make much difference. I've notified Banes of my action and this discussion. Anyway, he could have been blocked indefinitely a week ago for "I will report you to MI6, the CIA and the FBI, if you do not stop this faschist inspired terrorism" if that threat hadn't been so ridiculous it couldn't even be taken seriously enough for an indefinite threatban. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My block of 48 hours was far too lenient. So, judging this incorrigible user's contributions, I have no objection whatsoever to an indefinite block. -- Banes 20:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    request to have two pages (redirects) protected

    The infamous Kven editor, under new usernames all the time, is repeatedly recreating two forks, at Cwen and Kvenland. They are, and have always been, newer cut-and-pastes of material written in the original page, now under Kvens of the past. Any block against Kven editir is not highly efficient, as (s)he shows a pattern to create a new username (recent days, User:Söpöliini, User:Helpful1 and User:GoodDayInJuly at least) to continue same edits. As it is clear that cut-and-paste forks are not allowed, could somebody freeze the situation of those two redirect pages, with indef protection against editing and moving. After all, no one should have any legitimate interest to edit anything in those redirects. Let us have a situation where only the oldest article is the battleground, and not also several forks. Suedois 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AOL vandal sockpuppeteer: User:WatchtowerJihad, User:MayorMcQueso0505 et al.

    I've noticed what appears to be an interesting cluster of AOL vandal socks. This user has been vandalizing my user and talk pages from AOL IPs from some time now, apparently in response to the "Mouse Snuff Film" incident. Now that both are semiprotected, the latest vandalism came from MayorMcQueso0505 (talk · contribs), who had previously vandalized South Central Farm. That account, in turn, appears to be the same as WatchtowerJihad (talk · contribs), who has vandalized the same article but has also edited Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses and is presumably the same person as 64.107.1.236 (talk · contribs), which is a Chicago Public Library IP.

    What's curious about this case is that, apart from those specific connections, the different incidents don't resemble each other much at all. Once one compares the edits from the different socks and IPs, there does appear to be a pattern including persistent reverting to vandalized versions, repeated vandalism to user and talk pages of users who have reverted them, misleading edit summaries and impostor accounts. But looking at the incidents in isolation, one might not guess that there's more going on than seems at first.

    I've tried to compile a list of the socks and their identifying traits at the category page linked above, but it's probably incomplete. In particular, I expect there are probably more vandalized user pages and more impostor accounts than are listed above. The vandalism is pretty easily recognizable if you're involved in it, but the combination of socks, AOL IPs and misleading edit summaries often makes it hard to spot by simply browsing the page histories. If you've encountered any other incidents that seem to be related, please let me know (or just amend the category). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: MayorMcQueso0505 has lately been busy causing autoblocks. Please keep an eye on the list and remove any new blocks. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pete Peters

    There was a series of edit wars on several articles, primarily Mark Bourrie and Warren Kinsella (a political operative and a blogger involved in a libel suit). Two editors, User:Pete Peters and User:Arthur Ellis were the big problems along with a number of anonymous IPs (many of which allegedly came from the National Library of Canada and allegedly a university library). The articles were protected and then semi-protected (which remains). While both editors exhibited bad behaviour, Peters seems to have moved on and has attempted to edit several other articles. Unfortunately, a series of IPs are reverting virtually everyone of Peters edits wholesale, without comment. This has resulted in non-stop edit wars on several other articles such as Trinity—Spadina, Tony Ianno and Hamilton Centre. Peters has not been an ideal user but he has moved on from the earlier edit wars and seemed willing to act as a responsible editor. It is unfair to him that every edit he makes is simply completely reverted. It is also unfair to the community as several articles are already unusable because of the edit wars. I don't know what to do but if somebody can help I'd appreciate it. Thank you. --JGGardiner 19:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Under the new blocking software, the IPs can be given long-term blocks (say, a month or more) that will still allow registered users to edit but not anonymously. Seems like this is the perfect fix for this problem, as these IPs are evidently stable and used by the same person over a period of time. If you put a list of the IPs at WP:AIV with a brief explanation that will probably do it. Thatcher131 21:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice. I'm sure that will be helpful with most of the IPs. User:King of Hearts seems to have just blocked a particularily troublesome one today. Unfortunately not all of them are stable. In fact one of the more abusive ones, 209.217.96.48, had this to say after User:Crzrussian blocked him the other day:
    "My, my.... a dreadful punishment, surely it is. That means I have to bend over, unplug my modem, wait thirty seconds, plug it in again, and I get an new IP number. Yes. A terrible inconveniencwe."
    I'm not sure what to do with an editor like that. There seems to be a new one every day. Hopefully your idea will do the trick. Thanks. --JGGardiner 23:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you can ask for a range block as well. I'm not exactly sure how they work, but I believe you can block all the addresses between (for example) 129.0.0.1 and 129.0.0.255 with a single block command. This case should probably be listed at Wikipedia:Long term abuse. That would provide extra eyes and a basis for blocking these IPs as soon as they start making their characeteristic edits, without having to go through the nonsense of 4 warnings each time. Thatcher131 01:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Yes, I've seen a blocked range before. The problem is that it seems like the IPs come from several different ranges. At least one is at the National Library in Ottawa. A researcher or student in downtown Ottawa no doubt has access to many different computers unfortunately. 64.230.36.153 began calling Peters a "lying douchebag" on his talkpage which was followed up by 209.217.75.250 inserting the same comments an hour later after they had been deleted. It looks like this is at least three ranges of which at least two are libraries. The lower range seems to be a home user but the (possible) public computer IPs will often make a entries for one day and disappear thereafter. I'd hate to see such a massive block and I don't know if one has ever been implemented. I'd hate to see something like that but so far the conflict has left several articles semi-protected also. Hopefully it won't have to come to such an extreme measure but this non-admin will keep an eye on it. Thanks. --JGGardiner 03:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict with administrators on Lumber Cartel

    Regarding whats transpiring on Lumber Cartel. The issue began yesterday when User:DragonflySixtyseven close the AfD 3 days early and claimed a non-existent concensus [107]. He also rewrote the article and removed the AfD tag. I reverted the article, as the closure was improper, regardless of whether or not he's an admin[108]. He then reverted again and protected the article, so that he could "work on it".[109]. User:Samuel Blanning got involved, unprotected the article, and pointed him to WP:OWN.[110] Dragonflysixtyseven (DS) apologised for his behaviour User_talk:Samuel_Blanning#Lumber_and_Crossing and I proceeded to clean up the article per WP:V as many of the sources used in his version were not usable on wikipedia. There are a total of six edits I made in good faith to ensure this article complied with policy on wikipedia .[111] The reasoning behind my putting the article up for deletion was that it had existed a long time, failed WP:V, and WP:OR and that in that time no one had bothered to clean it up so obviously no one cared and article shouldn't be kept.

    That was all well and good until today when User:ESkog revert to the version by DS calling it better sourced.[112] Even though I've continually addressed the issues regarding sources in the AfD and talk page. He also claims I was trying to get it deleted, when I'd made two proposals to that point saying I would agree to keeping it so long as only properly sourced material was added to the article per the policies and guideliness.[113] [114]. Him reverting and saying that my rewriting of the article was to push for the articles deletion was an assumption of bad faith. I then reverted (only my second revert in 24 hours) the article and reminded him the material wasn't properly sourced per WP:V[115]. His response was to post a warning on my talk accusing me of reverting the article 3 times and threatening me to leave it alone or another anonymous admin would block me [116]. The article was then reverted by User:Pilotguy [117]. I will admit that I went overboard and posted the following comment on both of their talk pages, I never accused them of vandalism, I simply said some people could view it as that [118] [119]. I also made this comment on the talk page [120] regarding the sources, and then proceeded to put up this analysis of the version they reverted to and the problems with the citations [121]. Even though I'd addressed each removal in the edit summaries, I put forth a continued good faith effort to explain why I felt that content shouldn't be there and how it violates policy. Pilotguy then accused me of attacking them [122], after I'd already been bullied into leaving the page alone, when all I did was ask them to ensure they used proper citations when adding content to articles. Asking users to follow policies is not a personal attack.

    As far as I'm concerned this is pure intimidation on the part of administrators trying to push PoV and unsourced content into an article. I've made numerous efforts to get people to discuss the citations, and they just revert without doing so and try to intimidate and threaten blocking to protect it. The article currently sits on pilotguys revert and my addition of original research tags. --Crossmr 19:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please assume good faith and remain civil. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith was assumed until I was threatened. Dragonfly has now removed my original research tags, instead of addressing my concern for proper citation. I would assume good faith if it were present. Instead all I see is a number of administrators trying to push PoV and unsourced content [123].--Crossmr 20:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF is not a shield for dubious behaviour. Administrators continue to tailer the article to their liking, regardless of the polices and guideliness and hold the threat of blocking over another user to do so, rather than engage in discussion when there is obvious concern about the material.--Crossmr 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been watching aghast as you have made attack after attack on a number of other editors. Please stop. --Tony Sidaway 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As soon as they do. I've made numerous good faith edits on this article only to have a group of admins come in and threaten blocking to protect their version. Good faith goes both ways and admins are not above the rules.--Crossmr 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no admin attention needed here. No administrative tools were used, and no administrative actions require review. Please refer to the header on this page for its proper use. This is a great example of something that doesn't belong anywhere near ANI. I have replied to the substance of the complaint elsewhere. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was locked, and I was threatened with blocking for committing an action I didn't commit. Thats an abuse of administrative tools. And no, you haven't replied to the substance of the complaint elsewhere. You've completely failed to do so.--Crossmr 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As you addressed above, the page protection was acknowledged as a mistake, and the admin involved apologized for that action. I didn't "threaten you with blocking" but instead alerted you that you had reverted the page 3 times in 24 hours, trying to prevent you from earning yourself a block. There appears to be a substantial consensus among the editors of this page which you are refusing to accept. Every single comment made by ANYONE disagreeing with you, whether it's a keep vote or a kind note on your talk page, has been replied to with angry rebuttals and wiki-lawyering, as I'm sure this comment will too. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except I hadn't reverted the page 3 times, you can go back and count, I've done it above, but if you want to verify it the page history is there. Asking for compliance with a non-negotiable policy, is not wiki-lawyering. Editor consensus cannot supersede that policy. --Crossmr 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus cannot supersede verifiability, in that we can't agree to include unverified content. Consensus is necessary, on the other hand, to determine in questionable cases what is to count as a reliable source for specific content. It's possible the wording on WP:V is lagging somewhat behind practice - I'm pretty sure I've seen usenet posts used as sources in the past, though I can't think of particular cases. Perhaps someone else can provide examples? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that in making an exception for this article, and the next article, you're almost giving license to any vandal, or PoV pusher who wants to go out, and quickly create a few sources for the information and work it into the article. I'm sure this is the reasoning by disallowing this as a primary or seconday source. I have no problem including the links as a "see also" or "here is an example of x" or "further reading". But using it to support claims makes no sense. Rather than discuss the citation issues the admin involved decided to unilaterrally decide that their position was the best and enforce it. I'm all for discussing issues rationally and calmly (see my user page) but the discussion has to come to a conclusion. When all you have is A cites a policy and B says "Yeah we don't really do that around here" and then goes ahead and makes the changes without continuing the discussion, that rubs me the wrong way.--Crossmr 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3 reverts in a 24-hour period: 1 2 3. But this is really tangential to the issue at hand. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The second was not a revert. It was a process of 6 edits where I edited new material (DS's rewrite looked nothing like the original) to include only material I felt was properly sourced. It did not return it to a similar state prior to his edit. The article was completely different. The only reverts were after DS's rewrite and removal of AfD tag, and the revert of your reversal of my work in cleaning up the article.--Crossmr 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, who cares? We're agreed it's a tangent, let's pursue a solution instead. Crossmr, I agree that you deserve to have your questions answered about why sources that would normally be considered unacceptable are ok in this case. I wish someone would explain that to me about some articles here. I'm not sure it's a question of making exceptions - there may be a general principle at work here that we don't know about yet. Maybe someone can help us understand that, which would be a better use of energy than arguing about reverts. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a bit contradictory to nominate an article for deletion on the basis that it is unverifiable, and then make significant changes to it to try and make it verifiable while the nomination is still ongoing. If I nominate something for deletion for being unverifiable, then it means I think it's impossible to make it verifiable - otherwise, I would either make it verifiable myself or try and get someone else to do it. Trying to make it verifiable while simultaneously claiming it merits deletion as being impossible to make verifiable is confusing. It would be better to wait until the AfD ends, and then try to enforce verifiability. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial statement was that I didn't feel it could be made verifiable. Yet there were many people claiming that it could be made verifiable, yet they didn't want to be bothered to do so (which was also part of my reasoning for deletion). So many claims were made that it could, I thought why not try. This was also part of my reasoning that in making it verifiable the article would be so small it probably would become an unexpandable stub. However, after attempting to do that, I still put forth that its possible it coudl be expanded if proper references could be found and was willing to change my position on the matter if that could be agreed to. I've seen many occasion before where a nom was withdrawn or the nominator changed his mind. Rewriting it to look nice, but remain unsourced and push that through as rewritten so everybody rethink your position doesn't help the matter. --Crossmr 20:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    GTBacchus has a point. Rather than just saying "That's the way it is" whats occuring clearly flies in the face of a policy. Let's start with something simple. This citation is the basis for about 3 paragraphs in the article [124]. I've raised this on the AfD, but I think its very indicative of the problem here. WP:V clearly states there is only 1 exception regarding self-published sources (which Usenet is one of). The person posting must be a professional researcher or journalist and their work must be previously published by a 3rd party. This post to usenet gives us no indication of who this Vladimir is, and the page he links to no longer exists. How does this citation satisfy WP:V?--Crossmr 21:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think GTBacchus gets to the nub of it here:

    • "I'm not sure it's a question of making exceptions - there may be a general principle at work here that we don't know about yet."

    Here there is a guideline, Reliable source, which says "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them."

    Well that's only partly true. In fact we know from multiple independent Usenet posts about the source of the Lumber Cartel document, and those posts were captured contemporaneously by Deja, whose archive was bought by Google. While we cannot be sure of the identity and precise timing of every Usenet post, we can be very, very sure of their time sequence as a body of work. What's more these are events that we lived through. Therefore, interpreted by Crossmr as rigid, non-negotiable policy, the exclusion of this easily sourced information about a near contemporary event must be wrong. We may yet decide that the Lumber Cartel doesn't merit an article, or that the degree of verifiability isn't quite enough for Wikipedia. However the absolute exclusion of the body of Usenet and other internet evidence for an event as recent in our own lives as 1997, is incorrect. --Tony Sidaway 21:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Most absolute exclusions are going to be incorrect, at some point. The principle Tony's elucidating seems to be something like: "We, as Internet denizens, are allowed to make judgement calls about cases where certain types of internet posts can qualify as reliable sources for certain information." That could do with a bit of specifying, but is that the general idea, Tony? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sort of. I think it applies in more general cases, too, not just Usenet. But yes, I think the main problem here is that Crossmr is presenting it as black/white thing and many of us are going "whoa! if this is your interpretation of written policy, it's probably wrong. It seems to be far too absolute an exclusion to be useful in the real world." --Tony Sidaway 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    well, it is black and white. The problem is twofold - a) a contradiction both in WP:RS and between WP:RS and WP:V, and b) that WP:RS is unnecessarily strict when it comes to non-dead-tree-media. The former is easy to fix, and may, in fact, be fixed now. The latter, well, I'm awfully sick of the battle. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V solves the contradiction by saying "Hey I'm king and thats the way it is." I think WP:V directly addresses this situation in saying that we need to verify that vladimir is a professionally published researcher in order for his post to be considered usable. Applying different standards to off-line and on-line topics leads to a dichotemy on wikipedia. You will have two types of articles, thoroughly researched and verified articles dealing with off-line content, and articles dealing with on-line activity where anyone with a heart beat can spend a day creating notability and sources for any random thing they want to include here.--Crossmr 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But if you're drawing it from Usenet as a body of work, are you not putting forth original research? You're trying to give verifiability to something that has none by saying "Well there were a lot of posts about it" Thats fine. We can say the Lumber Cartel existed, but this posting about a supposed essay found on a site that no longer exists is being used to do more than just say the Lumber Cartel exists. I have no problem in using internet chatter to establish notability of a subject, if a lot of independent people are talking about it, its likely real and notable. But basing the supposed foundation of a group on an anonymous post referencing a non-existent site I don't think meets that threshold.--Crossmr 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Verifying something from multiple redundant independent sources isn't original research, if that's what you're asking about. It does seem to me that you're determined to strain on a gnat here. The Lumber Cartel document existed and if our verification standards say it didn't then our standards are badly tuned. Start from there and we can't go wrong. --Tony Sidaway
    Except that our verification of their existence can be had outside of usenet. The Jargon file, and a couple of news articles. The verification of that document is only verifiable from Usenet, from an anonymous post referencing a website that doesn't exist. Remember what WP:V says about inclusion being verifiabilty not truth. While I don't contest that this document likely did exist, we can't put forth that claim based on an anonymous usenet source.--Crossmr 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't dispute that the document existed, and I'm sure very few people do, then Usenet is all we need as a source. You claim that it's "an anonymous usenet source", and if that's all there was I'd agree with you. I think what we have really is a large number of independent verifications via various Usenet and internet sources. That changes the game somewhat. Since there isn't any realistic challenge to this fact, we don't need extraordinary proof to establish it. Just like we wouldn't (or shouldn't) need extraordinary proof to justify pointing to the Torvalds/Tannenbaum discussions. --Tony Sidaway 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't use the word large to lend credibility to something that isn't there. There are a couple of sources outside usenet that mention the Lumber Cartel, they really only speak to its existence nothing else. you can't use one or two legitimate sources to justify writing 75% of an article off anonymous sources. I also said it likely existed, I wasn't there, I can't say, and that article isn't proof to me. It sounds to me like you're saying "a few of us know it was true, so we can base the article off that". Random internet user who somehow finds himself on that article won't really have anything credible to base his information on. I also object to your closing the AfD early, we went through this with DS yesterday and there was someone calling for delete not that long ago. Given that those who wanted it deleted are in the double digits, it certainly isn't an overwhelming keep.--Crossmr 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This AfD was closed early out of process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    it was already closed early once out of process, I'm sure if we get it opened back up, someone will just close it early again tommorrow.--Crossmr 00:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've listed this on deletion review. And now I'm going to bed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Utter process-wanking. I've proposed a speedy close of this second pointless deletion review of the same moribund deletion proposal. --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, this is a bad habit of yours. Closing disputed discussions early is poor dispute resolution behavior, and tends to create bad will. Please refrain from doing this. There are a multitude of better ways you can address this situation, the best of which all include increased communication. I think Crossmr is making very good points, and I find the referencing on this article pretty sketchy. At the very least we deserve some thoughtful, unhurried discussion of the dissonance between how verifiability policy is written and how it's applied, for the benefit of future discussions. Reaching out and making productive communication happen is precisely the right thing to do here, and early closing is the best way to subvert the possibility of productive discussion in favor of heat-generating drama. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    frequently blocked computer

    the IP adresse 72.161.98.23 is frequently blocked, and i do apologize for vandalism but this is a library computer. We have recently posted signs near our coputer denouncing this vandalism. There may be vandals, but we have a large amount of good wikipedians that are upset when this computer is bolcked by some one else- we will also be revoking library cards of those who vandalize from our computer, so this should curb it. Please do not block this account so frequently- we will deal with vandals locally. 72.161.98.23 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This unfortunate situation is easily circumvented by having the "good wikipedians that are upset" create accounts. Isopropyl 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP has never been directly blocked, and has made a total of four edits, all today, three of which have been User talk nonsense. Jkelly 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like collateral damage stemming from an account that got blocked and subsequently autoblocked. If other Wikipedians are contributing under their accounts from that IP then previously autoblocking likely would have occurred. It is my understanding that this type of problem has been remedied as of the last day or so. (→Netscott) 20:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Stable versions now already being implemented; Issues.

    While I'm not sure if this belongs on Village Pump or here, I figure that posting it here can't hurt. SVN is a proposed policy which has just gotten a lot of attention after the most recent signpost. People are now starting to implement it. Considering how...

    • A consensus hasn't been reached on the policy.
    • A developmental solution is following soon.
    • Without the consensus, WP:PPOL would be violated.

    Should we let the trial continue or remove the templates until things pan out? (For those not familiar, it proposes protecting the "stable" version of a article and forcing all changes to happen at Talk:Article/Dev.) --Avillia (Avillia me!) 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Let the trial continue, don't be a spoilsport. --Cyde↔Weys 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not terribly happy with this proposal, because I think it needs better definition and development before it is implemented. Also, it is unclear even whether or not we need to implement this; I can see it being a source of major conflict in POV disputes also, e.g. "We will have X in this article, because it was in the stable version...". I don't think we should be trialling its implementation until we have consensus that 1) the methodology it employs is correctly defined, and as well-developed as possible; and 2) that it should be implemented on Wikipedia. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Always code test first? ;-)

    As long as it's only being used on a small pool of testing articles, and the local editors at those articles aren't too pissed off (ie, you can get consensus with them to try this...) .. well, no harm done. We can then figure out what works and what doesn't pretty quickly. We can then implement the lessons learned. Kim Bruning 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    please give some assistance

    SMS.ac - we have a strong complaint about this article, but to me it seemed to be a pretty decent, though not great, article. Please let's have a lot of good people look at it and rebuild it carefully with extremely strong attention paid to getting the sourcing exactly right, and reaching no further than reporting on what the sources say. Any and all unsourced claims, especially negative claims, should be removed from the article as soon as anyone inserts them.--Jimbo Wales 21:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I think if this were about my company I'd have complained too. It's extremely negative. I don't know much about that company, but I used their service a few years ago. Nothing special. Most of the version of the article prior to your stubification seemed to be the usual endless wank from blog sites. Maybe some of it is verifiable from reliable sources, but perhaps we've been used just a teensy bit by the bloggers, commercial competitors, etc. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a wikipedian in good standing, and I stand by that article. The complainant is a bad-faith IP editor, who has as recently as today tried to bad-faith speedy-delete the article. The spamming of hotmail contact lists is what this site is known for [125], and it is what drew me to look up the article many months ago. At the time, there was one anon-IP making many bad faith edits, up to and including blanking the article, and deleting peoples' messages on the talk page. There does need to be mention of that - it is notable. Themindset 22:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question isn't "notability", it is verifiability from reliable sources. Jkelly 22:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article stays natural to the allegations be simply referring to them as allegations, not proven facts. Nookdog 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can allege anything about anyone. I could allege that you are a child-molesting, pornography-dealing swindler who married his sister, but that wouldn't make it appropriate to include in an article on you. --Carnildo 22:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's put it this way. If there was a verifiable, notable, widespread, allegation that, that was true about you, there would BE an article. No? Nookdog 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very notable http://www.google.com/search?q=sms.ac 360,000 hits. !!!!
    I can't believe that, as a result of this notice, the article is up for deletion within less than 5 minutes. SMS.AC is well known for acquiring hotmail contacts and spamming them... it happened to my sister, and I got spammed, and there are literally thousands of webpages describing the process, many with screenshots. Themindset 23:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeat: verifiability from reliable sources. Wikipedia is not in the business describing allegations made in web forums or blogs, as much as it might seem so sometimes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately reliable sources tend to get legal threats and then remove the information. But I've dug up some info. Also, the sheer quantity of blogs (and, as I mentioned, screenshots) must have some relevance. I mean, if one guy on the street told me he say a naked man in clown-makeup running down the street, I wouldn't believe him. But if 40 guys on the street told me that, I'd start to be inclined to think the nudist-circus was in town. Themindset 23:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is special pleading. Provide some reasonable sources or put a sock in it. --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately reliable sources tend to get legal threats and then remove the information Codswallop. I looked at the pre-stubbed article and none of the sources met WP:RS. I suppose SMS.ac is so powerful that they can force the NY Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, etc., to remove or rretract their stories. Sure. If they're really known for doing X, but none of the aforementioned sources has written about it, (or Business Week, or Wired, or somebody) then they're probably not really known for it. Thatcher131 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm just an echo here, but I cannot emphasisize enough that "the sheer quantity of blogs" has no relevance whatsoever to whether something is verifiable in the Wikipedia sense. Until such a time as the massive upswell is picked up and investigated by reliable sources as defined here, it is our duty to remain silent on the issue here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony Sidaway: I was trying to explain my reasoning, I find that line ("put a sock in it") seriously uncivil. I think a user is entitled to feel a little miffed when an article they've been participating in gets railroaded first by a vandalising anon-IP and then after by Mr Wales himself. Perhaps be more understanding and helpful, and less rude. Themindset 04:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note with some wry humour that only a little ways above a "large number" of unsubstantiated usenet posts regarding mythical cartels is good enough for articles people like but somehow not good enough here? Let's be consistant at least. - brenneman {L} 05:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your humour is misplaced, in that the article to which you refer is actually about those Usenet posts; this article is not about those blogs. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No double-standard here. Lumber Cartel is crap too. It's too bad I don't participate in AFD any more. Thatcher131 05:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Second that. The arguments that Lumber Cartel's unreliable USENET sources are somehow exempt from WP:V and WP:RS because -- is this it? people were around when it happened and remember it? -- are "special pleadings" into which a sock should be put. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Spamming behavior is always going to be reported on online sources first and chiefly, not the New York Times. Since the "negative" allegations have to do with spamming, we should expect blogs and other online reportage to be the primary sources for this article. We should check them carefully for sourcing -- e.g. make sure that all the blogs are actually from different people, not sock puppets. Anyone who is denigrating blogs as a source for this information is throwing away the sources which are assured to be the most (a) timely, (b) primary [as in "primary source" as opposed to "secondary source"] and (c) technically accurate.

    In this case we also have what appear to be SLAPP legal threats against public whistleblowers. We need to be aware of this, but must not be intimidated by it. --FOo 08:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Our responsibility to use only reliable sources actually increases when it comes to "negative information". Blogs should never be the sources for an article, except for articles about notable blogs, or similar first-party primary sourcing cases. Wikipedia isn't a muckraking journalistic endeavor. We don't need to cover topics that aren't well-sourced. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't mistake the newspaper industry's marketing for actual reliability. --FOo 01:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be a debate about whether blogs are superior to the "MSM" elsewhere on the induhnets, but there isn't one here. We do not use blogs as reliable secondary sources. I can go and open one now and say that sms.ac rapes more kittens per square mile than the nearest leading brand, and no matter how many comments I get and how many of my 'friends' link to me (who could just as easily be me again) that doesn't make me worth citing in an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Call me paranoid but...

    ...I find the fact that Wilkesboro Is Snobby, North Wilkesboro Is Junky and Reidsville is Slummy were all recreated within 17 minutes following deletion of the recreation-protected pages that had been there for three months rather telling of a regular user or vandal here at Wikipedia. Anyone care to further investigate Plisscut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Any hope of getting an IP address at this late stage? -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Although on second thoughts it could just be some random other user who saw me delete the articles... Maybe I am over paranoid. -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the "North Carolina vandal". By the way, we now know his most recent IP ranges (recorded on his long-term abuse page). Here's an amusing record of his outrage on Sunday when Jayjg swatted him for vandalising the featured article with throwaway sockpuppets [126] Antandrus (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user using sockpuppets to evade block

    An edit war has been occuring for some time in Cingular Wireless, and one user involved in it, User:Locust43, was blocked indefinitely for revert warring, legal threats, vandalism, harrassment, etc. He created a sockpuppet User:Cola2706 who was also indef blocked, and it appears that he has continued his revert war through User:IMac4ME, though the evidence of that at the moment is a bit limited. Of note, however, is that the other user involved in the revert war, User:CDMACORE, was just blocked for 48 hours for harassing IMac4ME. The entire incident is a mess and I requested protection for Cingular Wireless so things can get settled and - oh dear, it also appears that as I was writing this an IP address edited the Cingular Wireless article and reverted to CDMACORE's version, so now it's possible that he is evading a block as well. So, I'm just asking for an administrator's outlook on this matter - should I request a checkuser for IMac4ME as it is only suspicion that he is a sockpuppet at the moment? Cowman109Talk 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I can assue you I was not ever blocked and I am just following following discussions on talk pages about the cell companies. This user CDMACORE is using random IP's to harass me and is removing and adding info that no other user agree's with. I have not done anything wrong. This user is in the wrong. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. IMac4ME 03:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking through the contribs, the user has a history of denying they are a sockpuppet (and then openly admitted it afterwards). Comparing the three sets of contribs... [127] [128] [129], there are clear similarities, including a focus on the exact same two articles - Cingular Wireless and Sprint Nextel. The user also used the exactly same edit summary in all three accounts of "RV Vandalism" (which isn't much of an argument, but it's a thing to note, nonetheless, and it usually is not reverting vandalism, but is part of the edit war in which the user claims the other user is vandalizing). The user also has the similar edit pattern of removing comments on his own and others' talk pages which claim that he is Locust. So, if an administrator deems that there is enough evidence that these users are the same (there is also a WP:RFCU being requested, so perhaps it may be best to wait for it), then I am asking that the possibilities of another indef block be looked at. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 05:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    However, there are also at least 4 IPs from the same city that edit in support of CDMACORE, leading me to question whether he has entirely clean hands. Thatcher131 05:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    True, it does appear that CDMACORE made an edit to the page 15 minutes after he was blocked, though he didn't respond to the block notice on his talk page until 10 minutes after that. There is a possibility he simply forgot to log in and just happens to have a rotating IP, though CDMACORE has indeed gotten into some trouble in the past (though he was unblocked), which should probably be looked at as well. There appears to be quite a bit of evidence, however, that IMac4ME is indeed Locust, including yet another contribution to which Locust edited to in the past at the SunRocket article]. Cowman109Talk 14:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I do sometimes forget to log in. I'm not sure which edits you are talking about but I don't always see when I have been signed out by your web site. In the future, I will make sure to sign in each time I make an edit.

    CDMACORE 19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, there are a couple of ways you could go with this, since the checkuser was declined. Locust was blocked for (Harassment, personal attacks, vandalism, legal threats, etc.). If IMac4ME is doing a better job of following the rules, he can be treated like any other editor in a content dispute; article RFC, consensus, mediation, etc. If IMac4ME is still harassing, vandalizing, etc., he can be blocked for that behavior without checkuser proof of a former account. Thatcher131 15:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As for IMac4ME, he deletes anything he does not like. The Sprint Nextel profile has been being run for a long time without any problems. If he would just post responsible, without bias, then things would be okay. But this deleting things because he hates the company is what is causing the problems. Notice I don't make nagative changes to T-Mobile's profile page. I don't care for that company, but I have no right to bash the them.

    If you don't ban Locust43, then please just get him to leave the Sprint Nextel profile alone.

    CDMACORE 19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue has been resolved between us. IMac4ME 02:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fake GFDL notices by Anwar saadat (talk · contribs)

    Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) has been copying images from various websites including sify.com, storyofpakistan.com , and uploading them with a fake GFDL tag, whereas the sites specifically mention that the content is copyrighted and all rights are reserved.

    The images in question are (copied from his contributions in the image namespace)

    1. 22:53, 11 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Ghiasuddin Balban.jpg (http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P048) (top) [rollback]
    2. 22:43, 11 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Razia Sultan.jpg (http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P047)
    3. 22:33, 11 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Iltutmish.jpg (http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P046) (top) [rollback]
    4. 22:27, 11 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Qutbuddin Aybak.jpg (http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P045) (top) [rollback]
    5. 22:15, 11 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:MuhammadBinTughluq.jpg (http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P050) (top) [rollback]
    6. 22:05, 11 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Alauddin Khalji.JPG (http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?id=13233629) (top) [rollback]

    No proof has been provided about whether all these sites actually has given this user permission to upload their content under GFDL.

    --Ragib 04:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue is that the websites could have, quite possibly, taken it from another source theirselves. However, while I am a advocate of WP:AGF to the highest degree, one cannot be left confident in the copyright status of the images, considering that the they were just uploaded and that all but one are listed on the same website. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, the images I saw looked well over 100 years old and (if so) are public domain no matter what tag a web site slaps on it. (PD material can not be recaptured, and the work needed to digitize it and create a web site does not rise to the level of creative input needed to create a copyright. Personally, I would tag them as PD but note the source and a qualifier that the original source is not known. (actually, sloppy of the web site not to indicate). If the web site objects, we can remove pending identification of the source. Thatcher131 04:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you tell by looking that the photos are over 100 years old? The subjects may well be, but a photographer still has a copyright claim on the creative elements of taking photos. In this instance that might be a weak claim on their part, but you cannot just claim that because the subject is old that no copyright exists. --pgk(talk) 07:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where the purpose of the photograph is to duplicate or substitute for the artwork, there is no copyright interest held by the photographer, since reproduction is essentially technical, not creative. This was a US Supreme Court case that has an article somewhere around here. If the underlying artwork is PD, then the uploads are PD, even if the source they are reproduced in (book, museum catalog, etc) is more recent. Thatcher131 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My review has found that this user has repeatedly copied substantial amounts of text from external websites without acknowledgment or attribution, and nearly all of the 60 images he has uploaded are probably mistagged. I have blocked him for a week, with a promise to unblock him if he promises to take copyright seriously and help clean up his mess. I have also engaged him in conversation at his talk page. I will have to leave soon, so I would appreciate it if others would also help watch over this situation. Dragons flight 05:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is further copyvio pasted off the site [130]. Though user "claims" this content was "typed" by him and entirely legit. --Ragib 05:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And some more cut-paste jobs. --Ragib 05:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While the images I looked at may have their origins over 100 years ago, clearly the diff you gave and the edit summary (nobody owns history) show that this user either does not understand copyright or is deliberately ignoring it. Block until he shows some sign of understanding and agreeing to follow our procedures, or is that too harsh. Thatcher131 05:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anwar has a history of doing useful contribs and then using it to "buy personal attack credits" so to speak, which can be seen from his activity on RfA (the comments that accompany his opposes), FAC, FLC etc, and also he always does reverts in POV disputes with "rv vandalism by ...." which is an oblique form of personal attack and has been warned many times.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm done for the night. Anwar has indicated via an unblock template that he would like to continue talking about the situation. I would appreciate it if someone here would be willing to take this up. Dragons flight 06:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Racism allegations choking progress

    Condoleezza Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being bogged down by possible socking and seesaw edit warring. Need to restore order on talk page, as spurious accusations of racism are impeding progress. Isopropyl 04:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Handface (talk · contribs)

    Handface (talk · contribs) is being uncivil towards me on my talk page, and his edit summary over my request for verifiability on something over at Brokeback Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ardenn 04:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see an edit summary problem, but re. your talk page, I have left a note for Handface with a reminder of civility. Tyrenius 07:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironic... here's an edit summary problem, as requested. joturner 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, this editor's attempt are removal of this report and corresponding edit summary "I was incivil with your mother last night" seems to surely warrant blocking. (→Netscott) 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you not post on the English-language version of Wikipedia. No offense, but you seem to need to brush up on the language a little more. Handface 16:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a typo while making fun of you. That's damned funny. Handface 16:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is revert-warring at Rush Limbaugh over a passage pushing the POV that Limbaugh could only have had the Viagra with him for the purposes of homosexual sex. This clear implication is unsupported by any data whatsoever. If it so comes, I would rather not be the blocking admin now that I've reverted and left messages on this user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You have stumbled upon my favorite repeat offender, repeating his offensise. He's blocked again now. pschemp | talk 01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request block for vandalism from 82.203.3.4

    Persistent vandalism today from 82.203.3.4 (talk · contribs) despite multiple warnings. Could an administrator please block this address temporarily? Zaian 11:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    These reports belong on WP:AIV. Essjay (Talk) 11:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Comanche cph

    Comanche cph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This fellow has been blocked three times, the last time was for a week, and he's still making himself quite difficult to get along with. He has some opinions which he's very passionate about. One is that Rollo of Normandy was Danish rather than Norwegian, another is that Scandinavia must not include Finland. Here are some page-histories and diffs:

    Persistent revert-warring: [131] [132] [133] [134]

    Revert-warring to get a copyright-violation in: [135]

    Uploading a very dubious "GFDL-self" image: [136]

    Being "funny": [137] [138]

    To be fair there he has showed some agonizingly slow improvement. He is slightly less aggressive than he was and seems to have gained some minimal understanding of our copyright policies. He's still violating the 3RR (on Scandinavia today) and he still calls any edit he disagrees with "vandalism".

    I think it has come to the point where he needs either a very good mentor or a long block. Could someone not involved in these articles help step in? Haukur 12:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse blocks for any 3RRvio or personal attack without further warning. Editors cannot be expected to coax this sort into "agonizingly slow improvement". In my book, he should get a week's block for the "funny" edits alone. It is extremely unlikely that anything worthwile will come from this account anytime soon. dab (ᛏ) 12:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with dab, this isn't helping the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    I was about to report this. I just want to add that Supermos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), all of whose edits are on Scandinavia and its talkpage, could possibly be a sockpuppet. Tupsharru 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is slowly exhausting the patience of many dedicated and respectful users, and keeps ignoring all attempts to reach consensus and engage in dialog. I reported him for 3RR violation on Normans some time ago, and this is the fourth block for assorted disruptive activities he earns. I'll try to reason with him once again, and I'll keep my eyes on him. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We may be up against yet another crusader. People who want to correct all the other reference works here are barking up the wrong drainpipe. If they're really passionate (and Lord knows most are), they're willing to be martyrs to their self-appointed causes, and that means that we end up holding the spear of destiny or driving the nine inch nails. The one critical point is whether he recognizes that we're not supposed to be "true" if no one else is. If he understands that we repeat secondary sources and digest them into a tertiary account, then he could come around. If he doesn't -- if he thinks that these are matters that simply must be true and must be reported -- then we ought to be reaching into the bag of blocks. Geogre 14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked User:Peterklutz editing anonymously: How do you do a range block with the new software again..?

    I'm hoping that with the new software we can finally effectively shut out the disruption of indefinitely blocked inveterate edit warrior Peterklutz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Transcendental Meditation-related pages. Please see his sockpuppet category page here; most of the IPs are from a single range. What am I supposed to do to block the ranges and not get any collateral damage, again...? (Please note, I don't really want you to tell me, I want YOU to do it. Yes, you! :-P) And also, should I have ticked the "don't allow new account creation" box when I just now tempblocked the IP he just used, 213.112.235.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Because I didn't. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Ignoring the fact that you don't really want advice, you should rangeblock just as you would before, but be sure to check the "block anonymous users only" box. If he has a history of creating usernames to evade blocks, then you want "prevent account creation" checked; if not, leave it unchecked to minimize collateral damage. Essjay (Talk) 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I figured about the username creation. Essjay, I'm sorry if I sounded outrageously lazy, but the problem is I've never known how to do range blocks. After reading all the don't-try-this-at-home-if-you-re-a-luser-because-you-could-really-do-some-damage warnings plastered over the range block information, I didn't try. So "just as I would before" is what I'm doing. Please? Bishonen | talk 12:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    If you go to http://www.dnsstuff.com/ and type the address you are looking at into the infobox labeled "CIDR/Netmask", it will return a range table that should answer the question. Thatcher131 14:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The simplest-to-do rangeblocks are /24's; in most cases, it gets what you want without doing too much damange. (A /24 is 256 addresses, everything from 12.34.56.0 - 12.34.56.255; you block 12.34.56.0/24 and it takes them all out.) I went ahead and pulled his range and blocked it for 24 hours; it's 213.112.235.0/24 in case you need it in the future. I put a note in the block reason directing questions about it to you. :) Essjay (Talk) 14:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ... Oh, all right. Thank you both. . May I ask where there is a log of these kinds of blocks? Bishonen | talk 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Newest sock is User:213.112.235.112 which is in Korea, I'm guessing it might be an open proxy. --quadpus 00:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually an old one (June) , and was included in Essjay's range block. Thatcher131 01:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you meant 210.105.133.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Thatcher131 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And here I was all set to do my new range block trick, but with possible open proxies I'm yet again out of my depth. Please evaluate and block permanently if it is, otherwise for 24 hours, somebody? Bishonen | talk 02:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Oy, I didn't realize how active it was. I've blocked the range for 24 hours to be getting on with (but it would be great if someone would check the open proxy issue). Bishonen | talk 02:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    I listed it at WP:OPP but there's a backlog there. Thatcher131 03:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Porky Pig

    This user has been edit warring to maintain a fair use image on their user page. I have made 3 attempts to prevent the image from displaying per Wikipedia fair use policy #9 and through polite edit summaries made the user aware of that policy. Regardless I am reverted and the user has vandalized my own user page. Would someone kindly set Porky_Pig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) straight in their ways? Thanks. (→Netscott) 13:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been notified of this report. (→Netscott) 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has now been warned by two admins. I'm watching things, and I assume MONGO, the other warning admin, is as well. - TexasAndroid 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers TexasAndroid and cheers as well to MONGO. ;-) (→Netscott) 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem.--MONGO 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zora1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This sockpuppet impersonating heavily Islamic centered editor User:Zora is repeatedly removing the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy image citing "copyright violation!!". Given the combination of the two I was thinking this account likely warrant indefinte blocking. Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That name and editing pattern is also similar to User:Raphael1 relative to his RfAr. (→Netscott) 15:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for the similarity of the username. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Sam Blanning. (→Netscott) 16:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AOL {{WoW}} vandal

    Keep your eyes peeled for an AOL vandal who keeps putting the {{WoW}} tag on many legitimate editors' user pages, including mine and JoanneB's. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mine and RadioKirk also, I would suggest it is also related to edits like [[139]], which swaps the image for Image:Willys-Knight1920.jpg which for some reason has been associated with WoW. --pgk(talk) 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The association makes sense to me...It's actually a Willy on Wheels... Essjay (Talk) 06:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Porky Pig is indefinitely blocked editor User:SirIsaacBrock

    Update: List of marijuana slang terms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was a sockpuppet used in edit warring as well. Please see the bottom of this section. (→Netscott) 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Improper usage of the term "spammer":

    Improper utilization of WP:AIV:

    Utilization of identical vernacular relatvie to discussions about Category:Anti-Semitic people:

    Pattern of edits to relatively obscure articles

    Edits to Dog fighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

    Edits to Old English Bulldog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Edits to English White Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Edits to Nazi architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


    As folks may be aware WP:RFCU says that, "Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser." Would someone kindly indefinitetly block SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s sockpuppet Porky Pig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Copying my response to this from Netscott's talk page, to seek further comment from other admins...
    I'm pretty well convinced. One key factor though, that differentiates this from other cases is that in this case, he was only blocked for this long because he asked for his account to be closed. He was blocked for a week, threw a fit over it, and asked for his account to be closed. And it effectively was closed by being blocked off. But unlike others like Zephram Stark, he's not really a "banned" user. Unless he had other currently unknown socks, he was away from the project for a bit over a month, well over the original one week block. So in general, it's hard for me to justify blocking off the PPig account, given that the only block he's "evading" is one that was effectively leveled at his own request. - TexasAndroid 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Porky Pig account was not used in accord with Wikipedia's sock policy and should be blocked accordingly. (→Netscott) 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    An additional User:SirIsaacBrock sockpuppet that has been used in edit warring and negative sockpuppetry: List of marijuana slang terms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). (→Netscott) 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Porky Pig is denying being a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock. (→Netscott) 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not this editor. User:Netscott is debating me at Category:Anti-Semitic people and he is upset that he is losing the debate so he is using alternative methods. I would appreciate you deleting these posts as they are obviously a vicious attack on my person. Thank you Porky Pig 18:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these sockpuppets have a history of being used to prosecute an edit war and should be indefinitely blocked. (update User:List of marijuana slang terms has already been indefinitely name blocked.) (→Netscott) 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, I find the evidence pretty much convincing. My problem with this all remains that SirIsaacBrock is not a banned user. He is only blocked because of his own request. Finding the middle sock fills in a lot of holes. It appears her was only off the project for two weeks at the most. Less if there is another sock that was used between June 2 and June 17. Personally, I would prefer that he return to the original SirIsaacBrock account. I don't like people running away from their past here. He has a history, and he should live with that history. But if he is denying that he is SirIsaacBrock, then that makes it difficult to get him to return.
    I would really like to hear from some other admins about their thoughts on this mess. - TexasAndroid 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor has repeatedly proven themselves disruptive... and short of returning to the User:SirIsaacBrock account he should just be banned. User:SirIsaacBrock created the sockpuppet User:List of marijuana slang terms to be able to get around WP:CSD general criteria #4 by having his user page be a defacto article that was deleted. Does Wikipedia really want to keep such an editor around? (→Netscott) 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Upon review of users' histories, I see some strong similarities, but I am not convinced. Recommend WP:RFCU. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Have a look at the histories of two other obscure articles: Bull and Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Staffordshire Bull Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also look at Opera Publica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Joint warfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Notice anything funny? Now User:Porky Pig is repeatedly vandalizing my user page. (→Netscott) 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, another distinct similarity, both User:SirIsaacBrock [150] and User:Porky Pig [151] are making mention of a barnstar awarded to editors who contribute beneficially to articles having to do with Islam. As well he's now vandalizing User:Karl Meier's user page. (→Netscott) 19:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a note on his talk page saying not to edit others' user pages, and he complained about the sockpuppet tags being placed on his. I told him to calmly explain the situation (if he wasn't SirIsaacBrock) and stop edit warring and making accusations. He replied by telling me not to post on his talk page anymore. [152] Something is definitely fishy. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's WP:AGF for a moment: I, too, would be angry if I was not someone's sockpuppet and someone kept putting on my page that I was. I doubt that I would return the favor, but I'm not this editor. WP:RFCU remains my recommendation. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW - The telling users they cannot post on their talk page was a habit of SirIsaacBrock. Syrthiss 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh you mean like this and this? Let's put this report in perspective and refer back to this original SirIsaacBrock report. (→Netscott) 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RadioKirk has a point; maybe we should stop with the sockpuppet tagging until definitive evidence comes up, i.e. RCU. Though I have to admit, the evidence presented here is very compelling. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it is likely this is the return of Brock. However, Brock was not permanently banned, and if he wants to come back as PorkyPig instead of SirIsaacBrock there is no policy that says he can't. If he's not editing from multiple accounts at the same time, a sockpuppet tag seems like an unneeded provocation. I recommend treating PorkyPig like any other editor--warn then block for disruption, vandalism, etc. but let him edit if he can stay within the rules. If you want to permaban all incarnations of the human behind these accounts you probably need to go to Arbcom. Thatcher131 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thatcher131, your point is well taken but User:Porky Pig is denying being a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock. If indeed they are one and the same (as is overwhelmingly clear imho) then User:Porky Pig needs to admit as much... which he's not doing. In the interest of the spirit of "ignore all rules" should this example of sockpuppetry in disaccord with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry be allowed? (→Netscott) 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he doesn't have to admit it, per the privacy policy and m:Right to Vanish, among other things I think. Also note the recent Arb against PoolGuy, who was allowed to open a new account and not disclose it, so long as he stuck to one account only. Before Brock asked for the account to be permanently blocked, he was originally blocked for a week on June 3, even if the marijuana account was also Brock, it wasn't socking to avoid that block since its first edit was June 17. Brock, marijuana and PorkyPig never overlapped either, so I don't see a policy violation.Thatcher131 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, what I know is that this editor was bad news before. He actually got another editor Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked on false pretenses and was going around calling other editors anti-Semites, referring to User:Tom harrison as an incompetent admin. If this editor intends to return to editing in the same ways and on the same topics he was previously then it's ludicrous that he should be able to hide from this past. (→Netscott) 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe this editor should be unwelcome in any form then I think you have to go to Arbcom. There does not seem to be any policy basis to force him to admit to being someone else or to block him because he won't. Thatcher131 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what he's being accused of here. If he is this blocked user, it's my understanding that the user was blocked voluntarily after he became upset on being blocked for a week. If that's the case he's welcome to edit here under any username as long as he doesn't do so abusively. So let's stop agonizing over whether he's this blocked user and welcome him in good faith, but with our eyes open.
    The user was not only blocked, he had a history of making extremely vicious personal attacks against other users; anyone who disagreed with SirIsaacBrock was labelled an "anti-semite" and attacked. So what if he requested his block? (which he did by saying, and I quote him, "FUCKOFF YOU ANTI-SEMITIC PRICKS!!") He would have wound up blocked in short order if he hadn't. There is such a thing as AGF. There is also such a thing as an old dog not learning new tricks. Those of us who previously had to deal with SIB's (SirIsaacBrock's) disruption and personal attacks have no interest in, or tolerance for, the idea of putting up with him under a new name. I for one will not treat a confirmed SIB sockpuppet as if he's a "new" user just because we have the AGF policy. There is no need to "assume" good faith when you have knowledge of bad faith. If SIB wants to wipe the slate clean, his best course of action is to apologize for his previous behavior. Kasreyn 21:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just (I hope) defused a little squabble over user pages initiated by the placing of a disputed sock notice. I hope all sides will observe the warnings that I've issues, because I intend to carry them out if necessary. Please do make abuse reports if they should become necessary, but don't try it on. I'll not be happy if I see a load of spurious reports. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the above and decided to block porky pig. Most socks deny being the master account of a sock, and the above evidence is pretty clear. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for defusing the situation. I'm sorry, but this struck me as a case of all bite and no bark... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to echo User:Kasreyn's above comments we can see the disruptive patterns of User:SirIsaacBrock in User:Porky Pig. This comment implying that my opinion has been distorted by "hate" in response to a logical question about including a disclaimer in Category:Anti-Semitic people (as is locked into displaying now). And while we're talking about assuming good faith this comment is surely far from that spirit. To further illustrate that User:Porky Pig is bad news: As SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) User:NSLE blocked him for disruption on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but as this new sock he shows no sign of having gotten that message as we see here, here, and here. He actually has had to be warned about that not once but twice as this sockpuppet. As User:SirIsaacBrock he successfully had Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked under false pretenses (User:Thebainer had to lift the block) and as User:Porky Pig he seems to be continuing in that spirit. (→Netscott) 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that one's convincing. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Was busy doing some RC Patrol and I noticed this. Interesting ... -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 03:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Given he was only blocked this long at his own request, and appears to have served at least the one week of actual admin block, I have unblocked him. While I don't hold very high hopes for this user in the long term, he has not gotten himself banned, so now that he has asked to return, I see little reason for him to remain indef blocked. - TexasAndroid 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You unblocked Brock. Did you mean to unblock Porky Pig? If not, I'm definitely confused now. In any case, hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Thatcher131 04:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I had been expressing way above that my preference in this was for him to return to his original account, and get relinked up with his history, for better or worse. The link given by Moeron just above had an anon, signing as Brock, aking to be unblocked. Not the Pig account, but the Brock account. And since this is where I wanted him to go back to anyway, that's what I unblocked. - TexasAndroid 11:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this makes sense. Given this user's apparent history of hopping from one sockpuppet to another to avoid his negative history following him it is fair that he keeps to one so that if his disruptions continue he can be indefinitely blocked once and for all (which I suspect will very soon be the case now that his history is remaining with him). I have found evidence that this user indeed edited during his original week long block and if this evidence is confirmed then he should be reblocked and have his original block extended. (→Netscott) 14:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So is he or isn't he? Porky Pig posted on MONGO's talk page "I am not this user (SirIsaacBrock)"... Porky Pig is indefblocked as a sock, and suddenly SirIsaacBrock who left the project with quite the display of anger just happens to return? I'm trying to find a good faith explanation why Porky Pig was lying about being SirIsaacBrock, unless SIB has a supernatural ability to know when someone is talking about him somewhere. Syrthiss 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think given this user's apparent LONG HISTORY of utilizing sockuppets towards disruptive ends that it's safe to assume that User:SirIsaacBrock was lying when denying that he was in fact User:Porky Pig particularly in light of User:SirIsaacBrock returning to editing after this turn of events. (→Netscott) 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SirIsaacBrock edited during original week block and should be reblocked

    We can safely assume that since the IP address 65.94.114.43 was used to request unblocking the User:SirIsaacBrock account and subsequently another IP (67.70.71.194) was used to respond to GTBacchus' unprotecting of SirIsaacBrock's talk page then User:SirIsaacBrock's ISP corresponds to those IPs. These IPs belong to Bell Canada. This is particularly clear now with him having just returned to editing again under this username.

    SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of editing articles related to animal baiting even going so far as to create a {{Baiting}} template so it's logical that if he were to be blocked under his username but wanted to continue to edit on such topics he'd likely take measures to circumvent his block to do so.

    During his week block User:SirIsaacBrock used at least one Bell Canada IP address to circumvent his week long block. This IP address was 70.51.198.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

    The sequence of events surrounding User:SirIsaacBrock's block and his circumvention of that block corresponding to User:SirIsaacBrock's patterns of editing:

    User:SirIsaacBrock Blocked for a week starting: 00:36 3 June 2006 by User:Tom harrison

    First known IP edit: 19:43, 3 June 2006 on Monkey-baiting an article edited by User:SirIsaacBrock just 5 edits before.

    Improper usage of WP:AIV to report User:Hipocrite "vandalizing" Monkey-baiting article:

    17:36, 4 June 2006

    Improper usage of the term "spammer":

    "revert spammer":

    User Hipocrite knew who he was:

    "rv banned user"

    In light of this evidence SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s original block should be reinstated and extended. (→Netscott) 15:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Exhausted the Community's patience Ban of User:SirIsaacBrock

    The follow text is copied verbatim from User:Tony Sidaway's talk page:

    Surprise, surprise. Look who's back: SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Now do we want to continue to assume good faith and say that User:Porky Pig/User:SirIsaacBrock wasn't outright lying when he denied the sockpuppet nature of User:Porky Pig? And what does he do now that he's back? Starts taunting yours truly about the "fact" that I'm an "anti-Semite". Tony Sidaway, given the apparent long term disruptive nature and block evasion of this individual shouldn't he be re-blocked for an extended period of time (preferrably indefinitely)? Thanks Netscott 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

    This is a very complex issue and I hope you will seek out advice from people other than me. What follows is my personal opinion, but I won't get involved in enforcement on the basis of my own sketchy knowledge.
    The return of this editor is a cause for concern. Ensure that he really is a sock of Porky Pig, and if so, and he's been as abusive as you have given me cause to believe, then you'll have no problem obtaining a community ban. In the unlikely event that the ban should fail muster, just take him to the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, given the further trollish commentary that he's posted to User:Tom harrison I think your view is 100% correct. Would you kindly make commentary corresponding to your view on the latest ANI post about his block evasion? Thanks. Netscott 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Please copy verbatim and in full with my permission. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

    One sockpuppet (and corresponding lie) confirmed, three more to come. (→Netscott) 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He has returned to inserting crufty descriptions of not notable fights between dogs and what not into various article that were questionable when he first wrote them without sources. Shouldn't users on the return from long blocks be expected to have reformed somewhat? Is this a case for ArbComm? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Stalking of Editors

    I find it rather interesting how much time you have to stalk an editor across the Wiki. Might I suggest you focus your energies on writing meaningful articles, that is a contribution worth making. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Debate resolved on a category deletion, but I cannot find....

    ...how to actually go about it. It's been over 7 days (10) and there was a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_3#Category:Fictional_characters_who_can_fly to delete the category Category:Fictional characters who can fly.

    I've posted the debate as required on the Category's Talk page, and as a courtesy wrote a polite note to the Category creator. I also removed the delete-discussion template from the Category page, as required.

    But having done all that, how does one actually remove the page? And would the subsequent redlinked category links on the 56 pages in the Category have to be hand-deleted?

    Thanks for any help. Before bothering anyone here, I did look all over WP:CFD and WP:CDP, but couldn't find the answer. -- Tenebrae 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You need an admin to formally close the debate and delete the category just like a page would be deleted. However, I am not an admin, so I'm not much help right now. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for info, Lefty! I'll check back in a day to see if an Admins had time to get to it. Good Wiki-iing to you, -- Tenebrae 22:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that anyone can close CFD debates, not just admins. There's a Working page for listing work that needs to be done to implement the results, including a section where categories that are ready for deletion can be listed for admin action. And that last step is really the only part that requires admin action. Closing of CFDs is pretty backlogged right now, so any assistance in clearing them is great. The normal rules for closing XFDs apply: you likely should not close one you are involved in, if you close a controversial one, be willing/prepared to take the heat from those who disagree with the result, etc. - TexasAndroid 12:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent SEO/Linkspam to Scientific American articles

    Someone or somebot (this is debated) at the Scientific American owned IP address 208.241.19.100 has been adding links to Scientific American articles. When active, their contributions [153] for yesterday and today have been adding one link per article about every 3-5 minutes. This has been discussed primarily at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Massive insertion of Scientific American links, secondarily at User talk:208.241.19.100#WP:EL (tertiary at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Scientific American --Femto 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)). The group discussing thus far lacks agreement on what to do about it, and thus I'm requesting investigation and decisions from the larger community. GRBerry 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While I'm powerfully against any link adding on this scale, from what I can tell the links are actually pretty relevant. --InShaneee 19:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection for the dinosaur article

    I hope this the right place to do this.

    Yesterday on the dinosaur page there was a I.P. address that vandalised the page. It was reverted but he kept on doing it untill someone blocked him. I started a disscussion the dinosaur talk page. So far two people voted(maybe 3) have voted for semi-protection and 1 voted against(if you count that I.P address comment). I think it should locked a few days(maybe weeks) since he can back and vandalise again which is likely since he did multple times.--Scott3 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requests for page protection can be put on WP:RPP. The article seems to have quietened down so I'm not going to protect myself, but don't feel you have to take my word for it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by User:CAYA

    User:CAYA is currently blocked for 3RR on Foo Fighters (which is actually his second block for 3RR this week). User made the same reversion this afternoon using the IP User:205.188.117.8 (diff). User also made the same edit on the related article Learn to Fly using the sockpuppet User:LOTAFOO (diff). -- ChrisB 20:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Add another reversion to Foo Fighters diff as LOTAFOO. This is his second reversion as a blocked user. Any chance someone could help? -- ChrisB 23:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LOTAFOO is blocked (not by me). The IP is AOL, unfortunately. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mousescribe/Deltascribe/Imacomp/Skull 'n' Femurs on Freemasonry

    The continued situation on Freemasonry has gotten out of hand and no progress has been made there in over 4 months becuase of user:Mousescribe, user:Deltascribe and user:Imacomp, all of which are socks of each other and most like socks of user:Skull 'n' Femurs a banned editor. Several editors filed an RFC at [154] with several editors replying against him and none, save himself, replying for him. Can something be done here?????? 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mousescribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He thinks he can just post his rationale on the talk page, and then make his edits. He beleives we're vandalizing, when we're not. He won't listen to reason, and already violated 3RR. Ardenn 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1) I'm not a vandal, and stand by my work today, and see also Freemasonry talk page for my good faith. 2) I'm Mousescribe - Imacomp is my Father (currently in Hospital) and I have the same IP address as him, etc. I've turned the other cheek, thus far to a tirade of personal abuse and "Tag Team" reverts to avoid technical 3RR whilst reverting my edits. I always try to explain my edits, working in good faith. I've tried to discuss, and try asking for cooperation in editing in a +ve way, without wikilawyering. Again see for yourself @ Freemasonry, and @ Freemasonry talk. Thanks for your time. (I found this section by myself, as I assume it was to be kept from me, by the original Poster - and I assume that I can assume that was not in good faith) Mousescribe 22:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate User name

    new user: User:David Coverdale using a name with identical spelling to Wikipedia article David Coverdale. User is also editing articles related to the main subject. Anger22 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits demonstrate he's definitely not Coverdale. Indef'ed per WP:USERNAME. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not, the possibilty exist that they share the same name? Remember, Wikipedia:AGF. Nookdog 21:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter, per the policy, sorry. And, weren't we supposed to "try to avoid each other"? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Assume good faith" does not mean "Assume that someone who uses the username of a famous living person is actually that famous person". One may use such a name as a coincidence, or as a tribute (as in this case), both entirely in good faith - but it's still not an acceptable username. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion

    User:Tummellll is evading a block against User:TummellIl (the third letter in the second username is is a capital i). User also started an RfC on the the blocking admin. Seems to be associated with User:Torchwood and User:Vitriouxc, both of whom are blocked. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mipadi ViridaeTalk 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked and deleted. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to look into conduct by Terryeo

    This user is on indefinite attack parole by decision of the ArbCom. The first link seems to show uncivil conduct: Talk:Suppressive_Person#The_.22Cross-Hatting.22_paragraph and the second seems to show a personal attack on the religious/philosophical beliefs of some wikipedia editors: Talk:Altered_texts_in_Scientology_doctrine#Alterations_in_Dianetics:_MSMH.3F --Fahrenheit451 22:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for one week under personal attack probation [155]. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Tony. I hope it works this time. --Fahrenheit451 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd seen him getting pretty irritable elsewhere, but I just issued him a warning. --InShaneee 00:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion of User:Truthwanted (blocked for 3RR)

    user is evading block as User:192.117.103.90 as previously, see: diff Agathoclea 22:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New VaughanWatch Sock

    Yet another sockpuppet for User:Regulus marzo4103

    This time using the name User:Gulusmarzo@yahoo.com (how original). Admin Kusma is familiar with this particular user but I believe he is on a break for today. Anger22 23:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update, yet another one User:Regulusmarzo@hotmail.com. Anger22 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both blocked. It helps us if you use the {{userlinks}} template when you report accounts to be blocked, by the way - {{userlinks|Username}} produces Username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin User:Tony Sidaway

    I recently came into contact with this administrator after it came to my attention that he had banned The Ungovernable Force (TUF) for disruptive editing regarding the Anarchism in the United States article. During what admin Tony Sidaway referred to as an edit war, TUF continually reverted the edits of the suspected sock puppet (Drowner) of banned user Hogeye, who has been repeatedly blocked for numerous violations of Wikipedia policy and, worse yet, ban evasion. Tony Sidaway decided to block both TUF and Drowner. That, of course, is his judgment call to make, and perhaps it was the right decision, although I am tempted to feel that it was not. First, TUF was in adherence to the exception outlined in WP:3RR, and was actually upholding WP:BAN. Several perennial editors of the article asked Tony Sidaway to explain his block of TUF, but were met with curt, dismissive, and even rude responses. Tony Sidaway did not assume good faith when TUF explained the good reasoning behind his reverts, calling his "excuses" "unconvincing." He refused to consider any of our arguments in favor of TUF (TUF was not disrupting the article, he was helping us). He, on the other hand, referred to TUF's actions as "grossly disruptive," "pointless," "hopelessly mindnumbing," "tooth-grindingly pointless," "trivial," "ridiculous," and more. He referred to my opinion of the situation as "saddening," repeatedly insisting that our arguments did not matter.

    I would appreciate an outside perspective on this matter. In my future endeavors on Wikipedia, I hope to be able to adhere to Wikipedia policy, but sometimes the policiy is vague. The policy on "disruptive editing" is such. I may be completely wrong, and Tony Sidaway may be completely right. I suspect, however, that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'm perfectly willing -- happy -- to admit this. I just wish that some of his fellow administrators could ask Tony Sidaway to, perhaps, cool it, and do the same, so that this does not happen again. --AaronS 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think in this case Tony Sidaway was in fact correct to ban both parties, principally because it seems The Ungovernable Force (talk · contribs) was engaging in aggressive editing even if in pursuit of reverting a suspected sockpuppet. Although the reversion of patent vandalism (as in, page blanking, mass page moves, etc.) would of course not count in this manner, this issue was regarding an attempt to prevent a banned user from editing. Successive, high-frequency reverts are not, in my opinion, and I think also in the opinion of the majority of Wikipedians, a very sensible solution to ban evasion - the correct action would have been to request that the sockpuppet be banned either by Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress or by noting it here on AN/I versus persistent reverting. So, Tony Sidaway's judgement was correct, although I wouldn't have personally employed the mode of interaction regarding the comments that Tony Sidaway responded to; note however, I wouldn't go so far as to term Tony Sidaway's responses in that case necessarily inappropriate, merely perhaps not quite as helpful to the scenario as they could have been. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually did note on this page that Hogeye had this new sockpuppet. [157] At this time I had only reverted the page once. And again, a warning would have been in order as far as I'm concerned. The Ungovernable Force 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate if AaronS would provide specific diffs as to what was said. That may clear out things a bit. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing. The bulk of the discussion that I am referring to is available at User:Tony_Sidaway#blocking_of_User:The_Ungovernable_Force. I would like to clarify that my primary problem is with TS's behavior and attitude, which I find to be definitely in the wrong, whereas my secondary problem is with TS' initial decision to block TUF, which I have a hunch is wrong, although I appreciate and have taken to heart NicholasTurnbull's comments on the matter. --AaronS 00:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not making any judgement calls on the validity of the block, I wish Tony would act with more civility. For instance, in this edit, there was no need to comment that TUF was so "ignorant". Just explain things nicely. We all know Tony is right most of the time (so shoot me, that's my opinion. I agree with him on many things.). But we all also know that he has a way of rubbing people the wrong way and not getting along. It is a repeating pattern that seems to strike Tony much more often than other blocking admins. Please, Tony, I urge you to reconsider your attitude when dealing in areas that are sensitive to others (read: blocking them). I'm not saying "do not block them", you know what you're doing... but you need to at least try and get along (especially with people who are following policy to the best of their knowledge). Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose I should make a report here on these blocks. The Ungovernable Force responded with civility to the block, but contested it. He posted an unblock template and the block was reviewed by CesarB (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who rejected the appeal. I reduced the block to 24 hours when the editor complained, reasonably I thought, that 48 hours was excessive in the circumstances.

    I slept. An administrator already familiar with the situation attempted to contact me while I slept with a view to lifting the block, and then released the block when I did not respond. When I awoke, I endorsed the unblock, searched for and released one autoblock, and informed the other admin of what I'd done.

    The Ungovernable Force seems still to believe that he has a perfect right to blindly revert edits ad infinitum. This is incorrect. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    On the suggestion that I was in any way uncivil, I utterly reject this. --Tony Sidaway 01:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not as bad as some, but not the nicest, by any stretch of the imagination. To quote, "I sadly admit that, given your manifest ignorance of how Wikipedia works, some effort should have been made to inform you that you shouldn't be doing what you did. I'm not at all convinced that you would have listened, however." How is saying that someone is "manifestly ignorant" civil? Directly followed by assuming bad faith ("I'm not at all convinced that you would have listened...") it looks fairly uncivil to me. Just my opinion though. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark, I was civil, even courteous. I am not at all convinced that The Ungovernable Force would have listened. Tell me this is uncivil, I dare you. --Tony Sidaway 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, you might consider that, in light of the comments of a few people unrelated to this incident, as well as the people who feel offended, it is entirely possible that, perhaps, you were not as civil or courteous as you may have thought. Usually, people do not note incivility or discourteousness without good reason. I've found that, in my own experience, when well-intentioned third parties have remarked that I have been uncivil, they are usually correct, upon further, even superficial, reflection. Certainly, when well-intentioned, good people tell me that I have offended them, I take it to heart. Now, it is true that, on Wikipedia, sometimes people "cry wolf" just to stir trouble. I don't think that anybody, here, is doing that. The main reason that I have a problem with this situation is because I am concerned that someone who has displayed the kind of attitude that you have displayed with regard to others charges himself with the enforcement of Wikipedia policy -- policies which include civility and the like. --AaronS 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about Lord V, but I'll dare. To say "I am not at all convinced that you would have listened" is condescending, assumes bad faith, and is uncivil. Period. You're an admin. You have the power to fix things around here. There's no need for you to say such things; just do what has to be done with the minimum of commentary. Kasreyn 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's prettily argued, but incorrect. The statement was appropriate to the context. It certainly isn't uncivil to infer from a person's resolute failure to recognise after a block that he had been doing the wrong thing that he would have been unlikely to recognise this if he had been told before the block. --Tony Sidaway 07:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, could you not have assumed good faith and blocked the sockpuppet or locked the page so that it actually stopped the problem? If you felt the way in which TUF was handling it then you could have handled it a lot better than just blocking both sides. As NicholasTurnbull suggested, a request could have been made to have him blocked, yet when you as an administrator was there to see it occuring, and knowing full well that TUF was attempting (remember good faith) to stop what he believed to be breaking the rules, instead of doing as Nicholas suggested you blocked them both. This seems to me to be a very heavy handed solution and one in which you are punishing a person for their choice of how to handle the problem. Enigmatical 01:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming good faith (which I have done at all times in this interaction) would not require me to make poor decisions. Protecting the page would have prevented everybody else from editing the article, when only two editors were acting in a disruptive manner. --Tony Sidaway 01:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And you consider automatically assuming he wont listen good faith? Enigmatical 01:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no automatic assumptions. I saw disruption, investigated the situation further, and terminated it. I informed both editor of their errors and patiently dealt with the many misconceptions of The Ungovernable Force, and adjusted his block. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just in general, could we please ask that when editors say "Foo said bar" can they provide diffs? it not only makes it easier for anyone who cares to see what happened, it also greatly increases the chances that anyone will respond. - brenneman {L} 01:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • If Tony had called the user "ignorant" I would agree that was uncivil. However, he did not actually do that. He referred to the user's "...manifest ignorance of how Wikipedia works,...". I think that makes all the difference in the world. Pointing out that someone has shown ignorance of the way Wikipedia works is not uncivil. He could have used warmer/fuzzier language perhaps, but the language he chose was in no way improper for the situation. Johntex\talk 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Just because I don't think I should have been blocked in the first place doesn't mean I will continue this type of action if I encounter a similar situation--do you think I want to put up with all this again? Yes, my own personal interpretation of policy was that I did nothing wrong. Although I still believe that written policy supports my actions, the fact that most admins who have commented seem to support your block shows that I am mistaken in the eyes of the people who matter (at least when it comes to blocking). And I agree with others--you are often quite impolite in many of you interactions on wikipedia. I was trying not to bring that into this, but someone else did for me and I can't dispute it. The Ungovernable Force 01:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you claiming that I was uncivil to you in this instance? Some diffs would be nice. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments being discussed above came accross as incredibly impolite to me. If it was a one time thing I would have forgotten it, but based on your prior history of uncivil and nearly uncivil comments (and the numerous attempts to get you to stop making them), it seems like a bigger issue you have. The Ungovernable Force 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you go back and look again, I'm sure you will see that you were mistaken. I was actually quite courteous (looking back, I surprise myself by how courteous). Here's an example:
    Looking at the edits you kept reverting on that article, they seem quite trivial. One was the addition and removal of the statement "Goldman was an anarcho-communist." (a statement that seems to be confirmed in the Emma Goldman article) and the other was even more puzzling: warring over the words "property" and "possessions". What harm would have been done if you had let the article stay in the form that drowner edited it to? How was the disru[tive pattern of a mutual edit war between you preferable to that?
    And here's another:
    No, let me explain. Edit warring of the scale on which you were carrying it on, and over such trivial content differences, is disruption. In less than ninety minutes, you each performed about six reverts. At each point you, yourself, had the option of saying to yourself "oh, the content isn't so bad, I'll wait until he can be blocked for evasion." And yet six times you decided to blindly carry on your edit war. That, my friend, is disruptive editing.
    See? What there was about this that you perceived as rudeness, I don't know, but it seems to have completely evaporated. --Tony Sidaway 05:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the difference between calling someone ignorant and claiming that they are "manifesting ignorance" of policy? Does that mean one can put any kind of attack after "manifest" and thus it is no longer being uncivil? So if I were to say that "given his manifest rudeness towards other people" does that mean I am still remaining civil? I think not. You can sugar coat it any way you like.. but basically Tony not only accused TUF of being ignorant, but also judged him on the spot without so much as warning him based on nothing more than his own views of whether he felt he would listen. I consider that generally inconsiderate to make such a judgement call. Enigmatical 01:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    section break - ignorant

    I think JohnTex is drawing a distinction between my remark to the effect that The Ungovernable Force is clearly ignorant of how Wikipedia works (he actually thought he was helping Wikipedia by blindly edit warring) and saying he was merely "ignorant." There is a clear semantic distinction in English. One is a factual observation, the other a slur. --Tony Sidaway 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That still doesn't address the bad faith, and like I said above, taken in context of your comments in general to others, I think there is a problem. The Ungovernable Force 01:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Please give diffs. If you are claiming that I assumed bad faith at any time in my dealings with you, just give the diff. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This one--the one being discussed above. I have had very little interaction with you on this site in the past, yet you seem convinced that I would have continued after receiving a warning. First off, that is false, just so you know for future reference, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that you made an assumption that the only way to keep me from editing that page was to block me. That is a bad faith assumption. As far as I can tell, you had absolutely no reason to assume that was the case. I have never been blocked before (which is surprising considering I edit some fairly controversial articles), nor have I ever shown willfull disregard for policy (in fact, I have often compromised my ideals to make others satisfied here, even when I wasn't convinced that I was violating policy or when I thought the policy should be changed). Besides, even if I'm ignorant of how policy works, do you really think I'm ignorant enough to keep reverting when I know I'll be blocked? Even if I think what I'm doing is right, I'm not stupid enough to do that. The Ungovernable Force 02:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy that this was not in any way an assumption of bad faith. I observed from my discussion with you that you still believed that you had been doing nothing wrong. I told you that I was "not at all convinced that you would have listened," I remain unconvinced. --Tony Sidaway
    But you blocked me before that discussion--you made an assumption that that was the only way to keep me from editing that page. And the fact that you remain unconvinced shows bad faith, especially considering the number of people who have recently vouched that I am a good editor, and the fact that I have never knowingly violated a policy, except for one instance fairly early on in my editing here. And the fact that I haven't done so since should tell you something, especially considering all the controversial articles I edit, problems I have had with other editors and disagreements I have with wikipedia policy. Despite those things I have not wilfully violated policy, and that should tell you something. I listen when others talk, because I know I'm not perfect, and because I'd rather not piss people off over something that probably isn't very important. Maybe next time you can wait and see what happens, rather than assuming I will screw up. The Ungovernable Force 03:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I blocked you before the discussion, while you were engaged in a pointless and disruptive edit war. I agree that you didn't wilfully violate policy--you actually believed that you were helping Wikipedia with your edits. I assumed no bad faith then, I assume no bad faith now. But I tell you, in all honesty and with the utmost incivility, you must not go on treating Wikipedia like this.
    If people have told you that you are a good editor, those people are mistaken. No good editor blindly reverts. Ever, --Tony Sidaway 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, what a fine time to make it about the person, not the behavior, and basically give us a textbook example of incivility. You're incorrect in your absolute statement. I've blindly reverted a permanently banned stalker, for example, based on a specific "block on sight, revert on sight" instruction from Jimbo. If it was a good edit, I've gone back and re-made it by hand. Making absolute statements like that is seldom an effective way to advance the discussion towards better understanding.
    Good editors make mistakes. Good editors can be dead wrong about some rule or another, or totally clueless about diplomacy and dispute resolution, and end up causing disruption after disruption on account of it, but they can still be good editors. Characterizing someone as "not a good editor" based on one misguided revert war is unhelpful in the extreme, not to mention uncivil, unproductive, and contributing to a poisonous atmosphere. It's bad for the Wiki. Please refrain from doing that, Tony. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about being wrong about rules. It's about engaging your brain before pressing the buttons. Blind reverting is a sign of someone who has not yet learned how to write an encyclopedia without engaging in warfare. I utterly refute your intemperate, inaccurate and unjustified accusation. --Tony Sidaway 03:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have misunderstood me. One point I made was that there exist exceptions to the absolute rule you stated. A second point was that making such absolute assertions tends to be unhelpful in the process of achieving understanding among conflicting parties. A third point, independent of the other two, was that taking a issue you have with someone's behavior and turning it into a comment about them, is unhelpful, uncivil, unprodctive and poisonous. All three of those points are correct. I would further suggest that you refrain from making any judgement about whether or not someone's brain is engaged. You're right that back and forth reverting is the wrong approach, but there is a much better way you could communicate that than the way you did. Your lack of diplomacy is stunning sometimes, Tony. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should read my comment again. I was simply responding to a claim by Ungovernable Force that others had said he's a good editor. He's not, and if he shows signs of believing that he is, he should be told in no uncertain terms that he isn't. The rest seems to be your own rather strange projections on the situation. You may to your own satisfaction have made some point or other, but it has little or nothing to do with the Ungovernable Force situation. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, good editors also listen when others have serious concerns about their behavior, especially when such a large number of them make the same complaint over and over and over and over and over again. Let me say now, because I don't think I have yet, I now realize that I could have handled the situation in a better way, but I still believe there was no reason to block, and even less reason to keep the block, especially after the other party involved was indefinitely blocked (which is what should have happened in the first place) which would have prevented any further edit warring (and blocks are preventative, not punitive). The Ungovernable Force 04:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, you still aren't hearing what I'm saying: it's not appropriate to say "this person isn't a good editor." That's not a call you need to be making for any reason. You can address the behavior perfectly well without characterizing the individual, and doing so is infinitely better in terms of the effect your words have on the situation. Talking about the person instead of the behavior is the textbook characterization of incivility. It's not cool, Tony. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really, truly believe that it is inappropriate to say "this person, who engages in blind reverting and whose friends claim he is a good editor, is mistakenly advised", then we'll have to disagree. Really, we shall. I stand by my words to The Ungovernable Force (which you appear to have misread in some creative ways: If people have told you that you are a good editor, those people are mistaken. No good editor blindly reverts. Ever,
    This in my opinion must be said to someone who has edited disruptively and believes that his behavior on the wiki is acceptable. I don't believe for one moment that it's uncivil. There is a pleasant way to say this and I deliberately chose the form that I did (rather than the form you seem to have misremembered) because I am sensitive to the meaning of the words. Civil, but nevertheless very firm. --Tony Sidaway 04:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony is exactly right about what I meant, and about the semantic distinction. Showing ignorance of X is not nerely the same thing as being ignorant generally. It's like the different between an athletic playing poorly one day and being a poor player. The subject may not like to hear the statement that they played poorly or were ignorant of something, but it is still a factual observation and it is not incivility. Johntex\talk 01:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I agree completely with your semantical distinction. What you are overlooking however is that in either case a person is being called ignorant. Does the fact they used the derogatory term in relation to a single topic invalid it as being uncivil? Does that mean I could call someone an idiot but only in relation to their driving and thus not technically be calling that person an idiot in general? It is still rude and it is still uncivil. Enigmatical 01:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It absolutely matters. Please consider my example of the athlete. The speaker is not saying that the athlete is terrible in general, or is unredeemable. The speaker is making a factual statement about a certain circumstance. Your example is flawed. He did not call you an idiot. He did not call you ignorant. He said you showed ignorance of something. He could have used the phrase "lack of awareness of" and perhaps it would have offended you less, but it would have meant the exact same thing. Saying you were showed ignorance of something is not the same as calling someone ignorant. Therefore, it is you that are overlooking something, not I. To use your driving analogy, it would be more like saying "you drove poorly today" than it would be to saying "you are an idiot driver". Johntex\talk 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for agreeing with me. I can clearly see that you also feel there was a better way of saying something other than using the word ignorant. Clearly this word is inflammatory and Tony could have used good faith and simply pointed this out to TUF. You nicely avoided the use of the word "idiot" and appropriately changed it to "poor" which again clearly shows you are being civil. The problem is exactly that, the use of such a blatantly harsh word without even the attempt to try and address the issue with civility or even good faith shows that it was uncivil. So now that we completely agree that a better word could have been used, I will be curious to see if Mr Sidaway would even admit that he could have been a bit moer civil.... somehow I doubt it, but unlike him not giving TUF a chance, I will give him the opportunity to prove me wrong. Enigmatical 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this case, The Ungovernable Force clearly is ignorant of that fact that blindly reverting as he was is disruptive. This is a factual statement. It is not uncivil. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you cannot see that purposeful use of such an inflammatory word is uncivil on your part, then I do not think there is any hope here. Using your own definitions (to try and highlight the point) I believe you have shown beligerance in this situation. Enigmatical 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Section break - stupid

      • I have to agree with Enigmatical, here. There is no nice way to call someone stupid, just as it would be offensive for me to say, "John, seeing as you are terrible at baseball, let me try, in my vast skill, to teach you. Of course, I'm sure that, despite my best efforts, you would continue to be a terrible baseball player." --AaronS 01:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that Tony did not call anyone stupid. First off, ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Ignorance is about a lack of information. Stupidity is about a lack of brain power. Secondly, saying someone showed ignorance of something is not the same as saying they are ignorant. Thirdly, I don't see anywhere in Tony's commetns where he said anything evern remotely similar to your "you are bad at ___. I'll try to teach you, but I'm sure you'll fail anyway". Since he never said anything remotely similar, your analogy is completely misplaced. Johntex\talk 02:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tony said: I sadly admit that, given your manifest ignorance of how Wikipedia works, some effort should have been made to inform you that you shouldn't be doing what you did. I'm not at all convinced that you would have listened, however. You still seem to think you did nothing wrong. Now, let's forget what most people would note as the condescension, patronization, and demeaning nature of such remarks, and simply focus on the analogy. My original analogy was attempting to convey the haughty tone of Tony's words, but let's forget that. So, "Sadly, given that you are terrible at baseball, I suppose that I should have told you that you are supposed to run to first base, not third base, after hitting the ball. Of course, I doubt that my expert instruction will help. You'll probably still be terrible at baseball." The analogy stands. Regardless, this isn't really the point. See my comments above about what seems to me to be some fairly obvious social standards. When someone says, "Hey! That was offensive," and then a bunch of other neutral people say "Hey, he's right. That was offensive," the correct response is to at least consider their remarks. In most cases, those people are usually correct in their assessment. The proper -- and civil -- thing to do is not to claim complete rightness. It certainly is not proper to say, "Wait, let us analyze the semantics of the words just spoken so as to determine their offensiveness." That's just silly. We already have many interpretations of the semantic meaning, here -- most importantly, the interpretations of those who feel as if they were treated uncivilly. --AaronS 03:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I believe your "manifest of rudeness, inconsideration and incivility towards other people" is what many are trying to highlight here. A simple factual observation shared by more than one person. Civilization (where the word civility came from), dictates that one does not make assumptions on behalf of another, especially where power is concerned. Thus to make such an assumption and block a person because you belief (bad faith) they would not listen is clearly uncivil. Enigmatical 01:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give diffs. If you're alleging incivility, show where I was uncivil. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll make a concluding statement here. I blocked two editors for profligate, ridiculous, edit warring over trivial differences of wording. After copious patient, detailed and informative explanations, one of them falsely accuses me of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. He will nevertheless be treated with precisely the same courtesy, patience and good faith if ever I am called upon to block him for disruption again. All in a day's work. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll make a concluding statement, as well, then. First, you say that you "blocked two editors for profligate, ridiculous, edit warring over trivial differences of wording." Such is statement is untrue on two grounds: (1) the reverts were not "ridiculous," even if they were wrong, as TUF had good reason behind him, even if you feel he was mistaken; and (2) it is absolutely clear that the reverts were not with regard to "trivial differences of wording" -- as has been expressed by TUF and numerous other well-intentioned editors, it was about stopping a banned user's sockpuppet from being disruptive and evading a ban. Still, you refused to listen to anybody. Your explanations were curt, dismissive, and short, far from "patient, detailed and informative." I am disappointed in you for refusing to budge an inch on this matter. Even if you were right in your initial action, I am now certain that you were wrong in every subsequent act of arrogance. --AaronS 03:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously have not viewed the reverts. This was a ridiculous edit war. They were obviously over trivial differences of wording. --Tony Sidaway 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have viewed the reverts several times. Please do not presume that I am ignorant of the situation. Perhaps the problem is that you are still looking at the reverts at this very moment and have not actually seen any of the discussion going on around them. Or, just maybe, those who disagree with you aren't suffering from ignorance or lack of perception. --AaronS 04:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've viewed the reverts "several times" then your conclusion can only be due to faulty perception. --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This smacks of utter arrogance as far as I am concerned. To say that the only answer is that someone else is wrong and Tony is right just proves why he treats people like this. I am sorry Tony, but this is just incredibly poor form. Who do you think you are to judge someone else MUST have faulty perceptions? Or is this another "semantical" display where he hasn't personally attacked someone but mearly pointed out a statement of fact? Bah! This i getting beyond a joke now. Enigmatical 04:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I'm arrogant. Of course I haven't attacked him. I'm suggesting that, in view of his reports, his perceptions must be wrong. --Tony Sidaway 07:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Section break - Friday

    Sadly, I must concur with GTBacchus. At the risk of being rude, I have to say that Tony's reponse only further demonstrates the basic problem: Tony has shown time and time again that he's here for his own ego, not for the good of the project. Tony, please: do us all a favor and stop with the Pope act. You're not infallible. Stop acting like you are, and stop being disruptive. Being a longtimer is no excuse for boorish behavior. Friday (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure it is. And Tony cares more about this project in his own strange way than most. pschemp | talk 04:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an excuse. Tony generates a lot of light, but he also generates many times more heat than necessary. His abrasive style contributes to an increase in pointless drama, for all the times he enrages someone instead of handling a conflict situation with any finesse. His being right means that he generally gets away without much criticism from those who understand how he's right, but none of that means that he couldn't do much more for Wikipedia if he went ahead and improved in the area of diplomacy, and stopped being the drama-magnet that he's become. When people walk away from a dispute feeling terrible, it's not good for the Wiki. Tony could contribute far less ill-will to the atmosphere here than he does, without compromising his contributions to the encyclopedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, I can't wait until a year or so, when I can start doing whatever I want. Maybe if I become an admin, everybody will agree with me without question, too. --AaronS 04:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't give him the right to act with such lack of consideration, nor to believe that he is infallable. Despite multiple people telling him that he was uncivil and showing him diffs to prove it, he still claims he has done nothing wrong (while I might add accusing TUF of saying the same thing and not even giving him a warning but judging him on the spot... hypocricy?) and is ignorant of peoples concerns in this (again I am using his own definitions to highlight the point). At what point (and how many people) will Tony finally understand that perhaps his way of handling it wasn't the best? Again, I sadly believe this is never, but unlike his judgemental actions of blocking TUF without warning, I am prepared to give him the opportunity he never gave TUF. Enigmatical 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a storm in a teacup. An editor gets upset about being blocked for disruption--this happens very often, just look at unblock-en-l. The blocking admin usually picks up some flack for not agreeing with the editor.
    There was no incivility, there was no assumption of bad faith, but these things sometimes take on a life of their own. Could we have handled it better? Certainly, I think we could all improve our behavior. --Tony Sidaway 04:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, maybe it's a storm in a teacup, but why do you generate dozens of times the number of teacup storms as any other admin I can think of? Why are you so terrible at walking through a teashop without for some mysterious reason being followed by hurricane season? How long will it be before you consider that you could be doing something better, and you could get more good work done while generating less drama? Why are you stubbornly closed to that possibility, that you could be better at diplomacy and dispute resolution? Maybe your ideas about how to treat people with respect and dignity are... wrong? Maybe that's why every other day someone starts an AN/I thread complaining about you? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are loaded rhetorical questions. I think I've demonstrated ample flexibility here while firmly resisting misplaced claims that I've been uncivil. If something happens to convince me that I've been uncivil at any point in this discussion, then I'll change my mind. I think the real complaint here, when you boil it down, is that I'm extremely arrogant. In some people, arrogance might show as rudeness and unwillingness to communicate, but fortunately this isn't the case here. I'm very sure of myself but I'm reasonable, I do listen to criticism (even if I don't agree with it) and I respond to it in a reasonable manner. Arrogance also means that I'm less likely to flinch from a messy situation. However I tend to make decent, workable decisions so it's not such a bad thing. In this situation I think just about everybody has admitted that I got the block right. I've heard no complaints from the reviewing administrator or the administrator who lifted the block (only thanks from him for lifting an autoblock).
    Now some editors, including The Ungovernable Force himself, tackled me at length about the block. I answered them civilly, patiently, faithfully and at length. I do not see how I could have done it in any other way. I obviously couldn't say "the block was wrong" because I wasn't and the reviewing administrator agreed with that. Instead I concentrated on getting through to The Ungovernable Force just how mistaken he was to edit war in the way he had. I think I did a very good job; the objections were trivial and seemed to involve a very creative reading of various policies. I was courteous and considerate, reducing the block when the editor complained about the length.
    Now I ask you: what else could I have done? --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that proper form would have been for Tony to warn TUF before blocking. Police use a force continuum to escalate the amount of force necessary to handle a situation. Police certainly don't shoot both a mugger and the citizen fighting the mugger in an effort to get the old lady's purse back. Even though both were fighting, one was trying to do something good, a block does not seem warranted at all. It is disappointing when Admins use the full force of their authority before taking a less aggressive form of action. Tony should reread all of this and learn to treat users with more respect. That would help encourage more users and grow the community. IAgree 05:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Warnings in situations like this, where clearly unreasonable and disruptive editing is going on, are not given that often. The Ungovernable Force insisted for some time, even when blocked, that he was doing nothing wrong, so I remain extremely skeptical about the suggestion that a warning would have helped in any way. --Tony Sidaway 05:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure would have been nice if you tried, that way you would have WP:AGF. IAgree 05:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We've been through this before. Blocking someone for disruption doesn't involve assuming bad faith. --Tony Sidaway 05:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "I sadly admit that, given your manifest ignorance of how Wikipedia works, some effort should have been made to inform you that you shouldn't be doing what you did. I'm not at all convinced that you would have listened, however." This does. You thought the only way to stop TUF from his reverts was to block. That is aggressive and assumes bad faith. Perhaps a message on his talk saying "TUF repeated reverts of vandalism is disruptive, instead of continually reverting, please notify an Administrator to help." That would be something you could have done that would have demonstrated good faith that the user was trying to work for the best interest of the Wikipedia community. Blocking is bad faith by assuming that was the only thing that would have worked. To continue the analogy from before a police officer can stop a fleeing suspect by shooting them in the leg, but per procedure they yell "STOP or I'll shoot" first. You did not yell, you just shot. That to me is bad faith. IAgree 05:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpolation of "bad faith" into this situation is novel. Blocking ongoing disruption is not "bad faith". --Tony Sidaway 07:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a pattern of yours [158]. IAgree 06:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm an administrator and I block edit warriors. --Tony Sidaway 07:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The phrase that has electrified me here is Tony Sidaway's above: "In this situation I think just about everybody has admitted that I got the block right." In this thread and on TUF's talk I see precisely two editors supporting this block: NicholasTurnbull and cesarb. Is there somewhere else I should be looking for this consensus that this was a good block? - Aaron Brenneman 06:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now let's get this straight. Are you seriously suggesting that it wasn't a correct block? --Tony Sidaway 07:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a nitpick here, but that isn't addressing the point. If Tony says that "just about everybody has admitted that I got the block right" but there only two admissions that this is so, then clearly there is no consensus. A quick read of this discussion shows that the consensus is that Tony should have been less forthright, and that this is repeated behaviour. Is this a fair summary? --Jumbo 07:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The block was completely justified. Tony's behavior was absolutely fine. I think Tony is showing wonderful restraint in dealing with these exagerated claims of abuse! FloNight talk 07:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the part of the job they don't tell you about. ;) --Tony Sidaway 07:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When a person is asked a question and responds by answering a different question, one that shows him in a better light, it unsettles me ever so slightly. A claim of consensus when only two voices are raised in support remains incorrect, no matter how many later voices may then be added. I am not saying that Tony was wrong or right, merely nitpicking at the inconsistency. --Jumbo 08:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I wouldn't have blocked TUF, I would just have blocked the sock, on the basis that blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive, and edit wars with a banned user can be prevented by blocking the banned user's sock(s). (Of course, you could stop any 3RR violation by blocking one side only, but that would cause further disruption when the blocked side complained - in this case the blocked side is not allowed to edit Wikipedia, ever, so they can't complain about being treated unfairly.) But Tony's view on this is also a legitimate interpretation of policy, and this is a lot of unnecessary fuss over a block that has already been reduced, then undone. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had problems with Tony in the past, but honestly, I'm tired of virtually every action he takes being questioned. It gets to be a bit tiresome. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly, then, it must be the fault of those questioning his actions, and not the source of the actions himself. I see that you've adopted Tony's own, if I might say, peculiar worldview. --AaronS 11:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I typically agree with his end results, if he got there with any care for the basic processes we have in place, there wouldn't be this constant hand-wringing over what he does. If he stops acting as if he's above the rules - even if he's wrongly called on it every so often - people would likely call him the best admin we've got here. Instead, we get this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible copyvio and unconstructive edits from an IP

    70.33.248.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a long time anonymous user that has a slew of edits in articles about Pokémon, Super Sentai, Power Rangers, and many other areas. However, this user does not leave edit summaries or answers to messages listed at his talk page. Another editor of articles on Super Sentai recently brought it to my attention that this editor was performing copyvio edits at some articles in Category:Super Sentai (specifically mentioned by the other editor as Denji Sentai Megaranger, which he made a mention about the copyvio on that articles talk page), as well as continued insertion of information that is deemed unnecessary for an encyclopedia entry at Pokémon articles. While a broad range of this IP's edits are constructive when I see them, the supported accusation of copyright violations may be rampant in his other edits. We do not know how to deal with this user. More information about the revelation can be found at Talk:Super Sentai#IP Vandalism watch. Ryulong 01:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like MascotGuy. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except this editor uses the edit section links, which is something MascotGuy is known to definitely not do (that and MascotGuy has not expanded his edits to Power Rangers/Pokémon; he prefers American animation/programs…and the Beatles…and concrete). Ryulong 02:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't think MascotGuy knows how to hide such offensive remarks such as this [159]. Ryulong 02:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GodziIIa

    Briefly: The username is confusing (note the two capital I's), and the user removed a sockpuppeteer template as seen in this diff. Ardric47 05:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "We are delicate" attack

    Refering to this edit (and others similar contribs) in light of this discussion, the IP 151.11.129.154 (talk · contribs) should be blocked. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it an open proxy? That edit was in May and it hasn't made any since that date. (Though Essjay has blocked it for 24h today anyway.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chikyuu Sentai Fiveman

    Moved from WP:AIV, does not look like a simple vandalism to me:

    abakharev 07:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another of his socks has also returned: 202.163.208.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). jgp (T|C) 07:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there is something here I do not get (as I'm not into the topic), but I think the changes could have been made in good faith; there was no attempt to discuss this on the talk-pages. Lectonar 07:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently reverted edits by these and the original IP 202.163.208.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and by .163 that appeared to be a copy-paste of a monster list from another page, shown by the spacing between the name and the word "Monster". I also notified one of the IPs of the Robo/Robot vandalism which is also notable to this range of IPs for Super Sentai articles (the proper name for one of the robots the Sentai use are usually some form of -Robo, whereas these editors have at times replaced every -Robo with "[Insert prefix] Robot"). Other edits include using the number 0 to precede single numbered episodes. Some of these edits are good faith, but they are done in an unconstructive manner. Ryulong 09:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    203.54.186.125

    This person using IP: 203.54.186.125 is removing stuff in the Talk page for [Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales history. I think the page needs to be block from Anons from editing it for a few days. -- RobertM 07:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reggae Sanderz, possible sock of banned user

    Reggae Sanderz (talk · contribs) may be a sock evading a block. Some of his contributions have just been strange, like a lame attempt to turn a prodded dicdef into an article [160], categorizing an indefinitely blocked user [161], adding a ridiculous internal link [162], and quasi-trolling [163]. He discovered RfA awfully quickly [164], tried (not very hard) to replace an imposter vote in one [165]. He asked a question [166] that provides the only clue about who he may be (and the most damning evidence of what he's doing). [167] also provides some evidence of who he may be. Hopefully someone who follows ArbCom can handle this appropriately. Thanks.--Kchase T 08:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin Stalking

    It has obviously got to the point with a post at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin Stalking that I need to request a review of my actions. In particular review the discussion at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales and if you can be bothered, the history as some discussion has been removed by the anon editor. Thanks--A Y Arktos\talk 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    - but you need to look at also 203.54.186.127 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.125 (talk · contribs) /203.54.186.96 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.128 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.202 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.26 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.33 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.57 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.75 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.78 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.106 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.250 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.19 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.197 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.152 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.141 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.98 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.9 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.214 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.225 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.125 (talk · contribs) 203.54.9.33 (talk · contribs) - probably not all but gives a sample--A Y Arktos\talk 09:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock me please

    my usual IP is 81.96.242.176, I am User:King of the North East, the administrator who blocked me is unresponsive (User:DragonflySixtyseven).

    I have outlined my case for the unblocking of my IP on my talk page and dragonfly's. Perhaps it might be a litte better if D67 took a little more time to investigate before blocking people, since the only thing I blanked was the table I accidentally put there 9 minutes b4. All I did was cut and paste the table from one page to another.

    The category I was editing at the time is Listed Buildings in Leeds, it can be found at the bottom of Marshall's Mill, I moved the table to Listed buildings in Leeds where I meant to put it in the 1st place. Take a look at the History of Marshalls Mill if you want some confirmation of the duality.

    The IP was only blocked for an hour. You should be ok by now. Thatcher131 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Probable sock engaged in personal attacks

    "New user" Secondary Source, whose first edit was a comment in an ongoing discussion about sourcing on Talk: A Course in Miracles has been engaged in personal attacks [168] [169] against User: Ste4k and has removed comments from his own talk page. Personal attacks are bad enough, but using a sock to do them is completely intolerable, IMHO. JChap (Talk) 11:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Konstantynów

    Konstantynów (talk · contribs) posted a small rant on his userpage and I'm not entirely sure what to do. He's got a point with some cases, but completely misses the point with others. I don't assume all copyvios come from the web, but I do expect a source when one is claimed and as far as I know I am entitled (obliged even) to ask for one. And I wasn't following him around with the intend to question or revert all his edits. I was just checking on the edits of a then anonymous contributor who's edits I found questionable at the time (I think it included one case of vandalism, but I could be wrong about that)

    Anyway, instead of contacting me on my talk page, this user reverted my edits. Not really a big deal there, but the comment he posted on his userpage is, in my biased eyes, totally inappropriate. I don't like being called "somewhat ignorant" and think it's a personal attack.

    Should this page be reverted/deleted or am I overreacting? - Mgm|(talk) 12:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Probally overreacting. Nookdog 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To make my response more clear: If he is a troll (probally) he wants to see a big reaction from you. If you just leave it alone, most will ignore it, he will get board and leave. Nookdog 13:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerning User:haham hanuka

    I removed part of this users userpage becuase,imho, it violated the guideline at Wikipedia:User page (Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia) ; please also have a look here. I consider a block. Any comments? Lectonar 14:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Mais oui!

    I find Mais oui! a very disruptive influence. He has an agenda of “Scoticising” every article he can - see, e.g. the comment on the “Orkney people stubs” discussion:

    “Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)“.[reply]

    (Note: the changes I was making were restorative ones.)


    My contributions on notable Orcadians have challenged Mais oui!’s prejudices and he seems determined to take revenge by changing every occurrence of “Orcadian” to “Scottish”. He has even attempted to remove the Orcadian article!


    “Orcadian” is a perfectly legitimate term widely used to describe all those people I have contributed stubs about – as Mais oui! would discover if he took the trouble to read some books on Orkney. For example:

    The Orkney Book edited by Donald Omand
    The New Orkney Book by Shearer, Groundwater and John D. Mackay (this is school textbook from the 1960s)
    An Orkney Anthology, edited by J.D. Robertson

    As an instance, the introduction to the last of these books begins with words: “Ernest Walker Marwick was a distinguished Orcadian ..” My stub on Ernest Marwick is one of those where Mais oui! is determined to constantly change “Orcadian” to “Scottish”.


    My attempts to make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia are being disrupted by Mais oui! This sort of behaviour undermines the whole Wikipedia project, and, quite frankly, is putting me off from making further contributions.


    I feel this user should be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (I have already issued him with a vandalism warning for removing the Orcadian article, but he has removed the warning.)

    Mallimak 14:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've asked both users to desist from labelling each other's edits as "vandalism", when they're clearly in the realm of "content dispute". Please don't rehearse the same content issues here: if you can't sort this out between yourselves, see the dispute resolution process. In the meantime, consider your contributions in the context of WP:NPOV and WP:FORK. Alai 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Linkspam or not?

    66.130.88.90 (talk · contribs) has been adding links to www.watchmojo.com videos to a few articles. This is slow (only a few a day), and the videos appear to me mostly pertinent. Not too sure if I should issue a warning or something. Circeus 15:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be helpful if you could provide diffs to any additions that you think might be improper. Johntex\talk 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual diffs are not improper, but the fact all edits seem to involve inclusion of a link to some Watchmojo.com video is rather disturbing. PLease note that I am listing here all edits by this user, all but one include WatchMojo links.
    Circeus 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by probable sockpuppet of Stoneboy3

    User:Social Rage 70 is making edits identical to User:Chicagoboy3, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Stoneboy3 (sorry for the convoluted explanation, but I did not have contact with Stoneboy3; I did deal with Chicagoboy3). He should be blocked indefinitely. TomTheHand 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drowner

    Drowner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) denies being a Hogeye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppet and wants to be unblocked. I would like to request a review of my block of Drowner. --cesarb 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=63643966"