Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Rogue reverter, won't listen or respond

At the recommendation of admin Steve Block, I'm asking on behalf of User:CovenantD, User:Doczilla, other editors and myself who have tried many times and ways to talk and work with a persistent rogue editor, User:Asgardian, over his repeated wholesale reversions to several sites in WikiProject: Comics. He insists he doesn't have to follow the comics project exemplar, he reinserts misspellings and other erroneous edits, he removes authoritative reference sources that I and others have used and cited, and he won't give straight answers to our questions and comments.

There's some discussion about all this at this article's talk page. There had been much more criticism of his edits at User talk:Asgardian — with other editors complaining about his clumsy wholesale edits of Galactus and other articles — but he erases all comments.

Could you suggest a way to go on this? Maybe have a third party compare, for instance, the properly formatted and written version of the short "Awesome Android" article here and Asgardian's consistently reverted, "nyah-nyah-nyah" version here. Just by skimming, not needing to know details of the character, the differences are obvious to the naked eye.

As you can see from these comments he erased from his talk page and retrieved from its History here, here, and here, other editors have tried to speak with him about his wholesale reversions that go against both consensus and editorial policy/guidelines/exemplar. The word "stubborn" comes up a lot in these posts. Several editors are at their wits' ends.

What can we do? Please help us: Dealing with him is taking up so much of so many people's times that could be put to good use writing and helping to improve Wikipedia articles. Thank you so much for any help. --Tenebrae 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes he responds. It's sporadic. Sometimes he takes a lesson to heart when it's explained in great detail. Sometimes. And sometimes he just repeatedly blows off style guidelines no matter how many people disagree with him. I first got drawn into his mess because someone else in WikiProject Comics begged for people to come take a peek and try to help find a way to resolve Asgardian's relentless edit wars over the Thor articles. At that point, he'd only been at it for a month. I think it's been three months now, fighting the same edit wars. See how he stubbornly insists on reverting Hercules (Marvel Comics) to tightly in-universe perspective. One night I spent hours trying to edit his version bit by bit to give him a chance, then he just redid all the same mistakes and guideline violations. It wears you out. So many of us got so tired so long ago of fixing his edits that we just can't devote the energy to selectively keeping his good edits when he makes so many bad ones, therefore a lot of people have to revert articles even when it means reinserting some problems he'd fixed because he did more damage than good. Several of us repeatedly advised him to make one edit at a time so he could learn from each. It's just bizarre. There are now at least two competing versions getting edited, bouncing back and forth for almost every article he keeps hitting. He has some good information. He makes some good edits. He's just so amazingly stubborn.

He got warned about 3RR. He got blocked for violating 3RR. I saw other times I could have reported him for violating 3RR after that, but chose not to because I really was trying to find a way to work with this intelligent, knowledgeable person despite how aggravating it could be. He deleted WikiProject Comics notices about his edit wars until I warned him very strongly that to do so was deceptive when he knew darn well that edit wars were going on. Lately he hasn't been as overtly contentious. Lately he simply hasn't been replying to people as often. Admittedly, a lot of us have given up on explaining all of our fixes to his edits when we've already offered the same explanations repeatedly. I still think there's hope for him. I really do, based on the times he has learned lessons, but after this much time, I question whether he's worth the effort because he creates so much work for so many people voluntarily helping edit Wikipedia articles. Doczilla 02:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary:

• He is willfully lowering the quality of Wikipedia articles.
• He is fully aware that his edits are contrary to various policies and guidelines.
• He isn't responding (well, severely unresponsive) to light methods of behavior correction.

He's doing no good and shows an obvious disinterest in collaborative efforts. Block him for a month; hopefully that will make him realize that, hey, we're here to improve articles together, not single-handedly make them shit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled across this user's edit war with Covenant D over the Thor comics articles about two months ago. Sadly, since that time, I have seen little progress, only regression. The edit war still continues and has expanded to other comics articles. I reported the disputed articles on the WikiComics Project notice board in order to get more people involved and, ideally, settle the dispute. However, rather than trying to work toward consensus, he erased my notice. [1] I know that we have to assume good faith, but actions like this strain credulity. Nonetheless, I have tried to work out compromises by changing problem sections within disputed articles in a piecemeal fashion, rather than a wholesale reversion. Initially, this seemed to be effective, but things eventually degenerated back into blind edit warring with little to no discussion. Occasionally, he will justify his edits on an article's talk page, but he is more likely to ignore or erase requests for discussion. When he does comment on talk pages, he is frequently incivil [2] [3] [4] and more than a little combative. [5] [6] Sadly, he actually makes some valid points in his arguements, but they are all but lost in the edit wars he provokes. Like Doczilla, I, too, had hope for Asgardian. But that hope is fading. --GentlemanGhost 08:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The posters here assume a great deal and present a fairly weak case. On behaviour, their own has been self-righteous and condescending on more than one occasion. Citing users such as CovenantD is also not a good idea given his track record and some of the comments he has made (such as "as long as that silly list appears, it gets reverted"). As for deleting comments on my user page, what of it? At least two of the persons cited do it all the time - as is their right. As for the argument that I am lowering the quality of the articles - I believe that's a very silly thing to say. They both know I have created over half a dozen sourced entries on characters that did not exist. Not for my benefit, but for the everyone's use and enjoyment. I have also added references and tidied up many, many more. They KNOW some of the entries were a mess prior to the fix. Rather, we are tussling over fine grammatical points, NOT revised articles per se (example - much of the Thor article is my version).

On co-operation - the posters here seem to have missed the discussion on Galactus, another comic character. I trimmed it back to an acceptable length, and was acknowledged by some as being quite good. Others responded with petulant insults. It is here that many posters fail - it is NOT about who knows more but the enjoyment factor, and of course presenting the information within a "Wiki context." I then offered another poster a chance at presenting his version of the Galactus article. I don't think he's been able to repost yet, but true to my word I've stayed off the page until he has had his chance and we can then discuss it. If that's not co-operation, I don't know what is.

As for 3RR, the first time was simply an experiment. I wanted to see if Wikiepdia followed through (I wrote a paper on Wikipedia and procedues). The second time I believe the moderator got it wrong - I was editing and improving on an article, not swapping backwards and forwards three times or more times. I explained this and simply received a "you should know better." I actually expect better from a moderator.

I am happy to discuss this, but there needs to be more objectivity and less exaggeration. At present, some of the argument smacks of "X must be stopped!" and is a tad immature. The fact that certain users have followed me to pages they had never previously visited speaks volumes (or those that I've created). There needs to be a little less "my way or the highway" from everyone, not just myself.

I won't be making any edits for the next fews day or so, but would hope that when I do that a discussion can follow - not a simple revert and complaint. They are simple grammatical issues that can be thrashed out courtesy of the Exemplars. So long as people are reasonable and a little less self-righteous, then a compromise can be achieved. I'll start with a topic over there in about two days and hopefully some positive change can come of it.

Regards

Asgardian 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Re: "As for deleting comments on my user page, what of it? At least two of the persons cited do it all the time - as is their right." Actually, I stopped deleting comments on my talk page because a remark someone else made on your talk page made me realize that wasn't how Wikipedia does things. (I'd thought of it like deleting old e-mail. Somehow I'd missed that Wikipedia policy along the way.) The one exception to this in the last several weeks was to revert a heading Asgardian should not have added to my note about my own talk page. Doczilla 06:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Wait a minute. It just hit me: Asgardian, you just said you deliberately violated 3RR as an experiment while writing a paper. You're not editing much this week because you're taking finals, aren't you? Did you start these edit wars as an "experiment"? Doczilla 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • That's it, isn't it? That would explain the thing that has baffled me beyond all else about you. Why else would anyone spend three months making nearly two thousand edits (seriously) on the same bunch of articles over and over, editing, reverting, defying Wikipedia guidelines, reverting, and reverting without branching out and taking an interest in other articles any more than you have? Doczilla 09:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Asgardian's answers here are simply spin. He is at the very least guilty by his own admission of violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Three editors here and a larger number throughout the affected Talk pages are all corroborating the extent and the nature of Asgardian's behavior. I don't know if he's been behaving as he has for purposes of some Sociology or Media class project, but it's extremely unfair to let him continue when so many responsible editors are spending so much time and effort on him. I don't want to give up on the Comics Project, but all it takes for his kind of behavior to flourish is for good Administrators to stand by and do nothing. --Tenebrae 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The comments are still somewhat self-righteous and quite a few assumptions have been made once again. I suggest more discussion on character pages where needed. Have there been any reverts of late? No. Cooperation? Yes - see Galactus. Some of the articles mentioned still need work (eg. Awesome Android) and some will also have to accept that a touch up is inevitable. I'll start with an Exemplar discussion today as some of the "accepted" features need to be readdressed. See you there.

Asgardian 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Have there been any reverts of late? No." How can you say that? Here's the most immediate example of how that's just not true: Your last four edits before this noticeboard report were all reverts.

[7] reverted all changes since [8].

[9] reverted a lot of changes since [10], keeping (or adding, whichever) two little edits

[11] reverted all changes since [12]

[13] reverted all edits since [14]

And we could keep going back through your edits, pointing out how very many of them are reversions. You tend to edit your version of each article and not the version most other people are working on. Doczilla 03:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to forget that I rewrote much of the information on those pages and it is still in use. The changes are also minor and acceptable. You are also not taking in what I've been saying. As this is an Admin Board, forward any direct comments to myself or place it under the relevant character.

Asgardian 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an Admin Board, and this information is for the benefit of whichever admin looks at this because they'll be unfamiliar with what you've been doing, even though I've worded these newest remarks in second person to Asgardian. I say them to you because part of me still hopes you'll work with other editors (remember, I personally made sure you knew about this so you could contribute to this discussion), even though experience says how stubborn you are about not taking other people's remarks to heart. I haven't forgotten your edits. I know you've reworked a lot of things, and I've tried to incorporate your better changes to see if you'd accept that as the compromise you mention further above, but you just don't back off. You've kept reverting and kept reverting for three months. You've got your own version of each of those articles. Someone reverts your version, other people edit, you revert back to your own version, it gets edited, it gets reverted. Notice how many different people have been reverting away from your version. You're the single person repeatedly reverting back to your version in spite of all the reasons people have outlined over the last three months regarding what's wrong with your changes. Yes, some of the edits in your versions still need to be added to the version everyone else is working on. I've entered some of your edits into the other version of some articles and I've left some for you, hoping you'd start working with the other regular contributors to those articles. It's just not working. If you really want a compromise, act on the suggestion that several of us have made: Make one edit at a time and learn from other people's responses to them. There have been good edits I'd have backed you up on if you hadn't made twelve bad edits at the same time. But you've gotten this advice and gotten this advice, and yet here we are now. Doczilla 06:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So let us begin with Exemplars. One final observation I will make is that the more serious contributors seem to fall into two groups - those that focus on technical edits, and those that contribute creative edits (I'd be the latter. I'll let anyone else reading decide what camp they sit in). Marrying the two together seems to be the challenge, which is not always easy. Asgardian 07:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that when you refuse to follow the consensus or the exemplars, you dismiss it as a "technical edit". Being a "creative" type doesn't justify stubbornness, unresponsiveness, incivility, or an unwillingness to work with other editors. --GentlemanGhost 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are making an erroneous assumption.

Asgardian 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Asgardian uses a fallacy called a false dichtomy to try and excuse the fact that he feels the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia do not apply to him. --Tenebrae 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not said. I am making an observation. Most of those I've talked with to date on Wikipedia perform more technical as opposed to creative edits. If still in doubt, ask yourself how many articles you've written or added to as opposed to correcting little technicalities. Anyway, this is not the place to be discussing such things at length.

Asgardian 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Using the erroneous "technical vs. creative" dichotomy not only splits editors along a nonexistent line, but also serves as a futile attempt to demean other editors (in short, an ad hominem attack). Regarding your assertion that it is hard to "marry the two together," apparently many have done so, with positive results. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have to disagree.

"Erroneous" is an assumption on your part. Analysis of many of the comic entries shows that some contribute via a technical "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" edit, while others are creative and may rewrite or create an entire new entry. Edit Histories will show this. It is certainly not a "nonexistant" line - people are different, and their contributions will also differ accordingly. Neither is better than the other, making your claim that it was ever a "futile attempt to demean other editors" a tad ridiculous. As for marrying the two together, not so easy with the comic entries. There's often a greal deal of passion involved but not as much logic. Just study the entry for Thor. It took months to get that article to the standard it is at now. People with pet fetishes, people wanting it to look like a fan site, people insisting such and such happened in issue X and so on. Asgardian 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you used it as example, I checked your last Thor edit. How does, among other things, repeated refusal to follow the exemplar for identifying him as a fictional character help keep the page from looking like a fan site? Doczilla 07:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that since Asgardian has refrained from doing much on Wikipedia this week, Hercules (Marvel Comics) has gone three days in a row without inspiring other contributors to fix it. The last time it went three days (two whole calendar days) without edits was also when Asgardian refrained from immediately undoing someone else's reversion of his work. That just happens to be the only page my watch list includes from Asgardian's edit war list. I expect this phenomenon can be found on other pages he has kept at. This illustrates what I have kept saying about how much work Asgardian creates for other people. Doczilla 07:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You make a good point and a not so good point. The "fictional" issue needs more discussion over at Exemplars (after all, of course Thor is fictional!) as do 1-2 other terms that aren't too clear. As for creating "work" for other people, you again sounding a tad self-righteous. Please remember no one owns Wikipedia, and that some changes are inevitable. There's being conscientious, and then there's taking the hobby (which is what it is) a tad too far...

Asgardian 09:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember no one owns Wikipedia. Words to live by. Can you take your own advice? --GentlemanGhost 22:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since I said it, I should think so.

Asgardian 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not "a hobby", but an avocation. Lay historians are contributing to a new form of academic encyclopedia. A hobby is for fun. We do it from a sense of duty.

And since you asked, go here to see I've created about 120 mostly lengthy articles, including several biographies of unsung, important comics creators such as Syd Shores and George Klein. Your schism of "technical editors" and "creative editors" is false and obscures the central issue: That by your actions you demonstrate your belief that the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia don't apply to you.

The consensus emerging is that you are doing more harm than good by being here. If this is just a hobby to you, and you aren't serious about collaborative historical scholarship, one has to ask whether you would be happier working on a comics fan site. --Tenebrae 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For me wikipedia is just a hobby and sometimes a obsession. Brian Boru is awesome 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For me, yeah, it is just a hobby (more like a habit), one I wish I'd spend less time on. Its being a hobby is a strong reason not to make waves (or at least not massive tidal waves), a reason to defer the exemplars, policies, and guidelines set by those who devote more serious time to it and to the consensus of contributors in general. If I disagree with an exemplar, etc., I shouldn't inflict my will on the articles. I should investigate the logic behind them and then, if I still disagree, I should discuss changing the exemplar. I'm puzzled by Asgardian's talking about the exemplar talk pages here when we've previously told him to take up these issues over there and yet he continues reverting to versions for which he has been repeatedly informed that they violate the Wikipedia way of doing things. Are you saying that you will now only take up these issues at the exemplar talk pages? Are you promising that you will finally stop making changes that you have been told violate the exemplars, policies, and style guidelines set by consensus? And beyond that, what about non-policy/exemplar-related changes you want to make that umpteen other people disagree with? Doczilla 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you contribute to the Exemplar discussion I've started? Two others are participating and some progress has already been made on an issue. Also, Tenebrae - I am not demeaning your contribution when I say "hobby" , but in all fairness we have all gone a tad too far before now. I am the first to admit this. Yes, Wikipedia is important in it's way, but it is not life and death when we are arguing over whether Thor has super speed or not. There is also someone who to judge by their entries sits in front of the computer hour after hour, watching for the slightest change. Condemn me if you will, but I believe that is going too far. In fact, in the interests of OH & S perhaps users should only be able to tweak a finite no. of entries in 24 hrs? It may help reduce edit wars and sometimes, obsession (another Wiki-related sin). Anyway, a good thread has been started at Exemplars. See you there.

Asgardian 08:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • You didn't answer the questions: "Are you saying that you will now only take up these issues at the talk pages? Are you promising that you will finally stop making changes that you have been told violate the exemplars, policies, and style guidelines set by consensus? And beyond that, what about non-policy/exemplar-related changes you want to make that umpteen other people disagree with?" Wryspy 09:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also encountered User:Asgardian, and typically in the middle of a reversion war of some kind Radiation Man, for example). I have to agree that the user has added quite a lot of information to Wikipedia (the quality of which, I'll leave to others to determine). To give some benefit of the doubt, attempting to ascertain who's doing what is often difficult because often those who he is in reversion war with do not use edit summaries, or he and they may use the edit summaries to merely attack each other, (which still does not describe the edits in question. and in most of these cases, rather than discuss on the talk page of the article in question, it often becomes a multiple user talk page assault. Imo a LOT of this disruption would be averted if both sides would recall that being bold also means not being disruptive. I think a potential solution (if wanted), would be to suggest that if someone has an issue with a change, a single reversion, with a suggestion that both (and any other interested parties) begin a civil discussion on the article's talk page. And if Asgardian has any issues with the current set of guidelines from the WikiProject, I suggest that the user start a discussion there. consensus can change, after all, but just going against consensus repeatedly, would seem to wear down even my tendency to assume good faith. Hope this helps : ) - jc37 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Propose a ban

I would just like to note that the arbitration committee takes a dim view of people needlessly changing an article to suit their personal preference. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2. I would suggest we are close to a similar situation here, and I would urge participants to resolve this dispute through some method other than arbitration. I would recommend parties file a request for comment on the issues or behaviour they feel most pertinent, and if that fails to settle the dispute, seek mediation. If that proves unsuccessful, then I think ultimately an arbitration request will have to be made. In the meantime, the arbitration committee has made it plain that where editors tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way ... they may be banned from editing in the affected area. I'd like to ask my fellow administrators if they feel Asgardian (talk · contribs) is editing in such a manner that a ban from editing comics related articles for a period may be neccesary. Steve block Talk 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this editor's edits, and I support this ban. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why would we abandon this dialogue? It has actually been quite useful. There have been a few candid admissions from several posters. I've also made no edits for the duration of this dialogue and created a discussion at Exemplars. You also seem to be overlooking the number of articles I've created. I'm going to raising issues on the appropriate discussion boards where I feel it necessary, but beyond that will not play with the agree structure. That said, some creative changes (eg. images, reworking information) are permissible and indeed expected - and can be discussed, rather than being a source of outrage. I also believe that using the term "obsessive" is dangerous and a two-edged sword. There are several posters who have been a tad obsessive from time to time, not just myself. I suppose it is the nature of the hobby.

In short, I find the suggestion of a ban to be premature. I also have to say that I am concerned that someone who professes an interest in comics on their homepage chooses to get involved. Given that the subject matter is comic-related, objectivity cannot be guaranteed.

Asgardian 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:"candid admissions from several posters" Some candid admissions from you would go a long way to help smoothe things over. Doczilla 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would also like my last 6 odd edits noted bfore anyone does anything rash.

Asgardian 08:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, something like RfC, a ban, or more could certainly be more appropriate if the previous edit wars resume. But now? I go back and forth on this. We already took the step of bringing this to the incident board, after all. If Asgardian is actively trying to work with consensus and striving to play by the rules Wikipedia set for its sandbox, that's all we really need. (Is that what Asgardian intends to do? Unless I missed it, he still hasn't explicitly said so. Not fully.) Skeptic that I am about pretty much everything, I would nevertheless like to assume good faith. Given the history, though, we need some strong assurance. One week of backing off (a week when Asgardian had already said he wouldn't be editing much), well . . . it isn't a lot to judge by when weighed against three months of edit wars, is it? I would certainly support a ban IF that mess resumed. His apparent lack of humility (telling other people to be smarter, calling other people self-righteous or rash when his repeated edits have worn out their civility, lack of acknowledging that he has been pushy no matter how many people oppose his edits) can make it hard to want to work with him. If we were going straight to a ban, though, I'm not sure why he'd have been given the opportunity to discuss things here and change his actions. Doczilla 09:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the being the voice of reason, Doc. I think Steve block's suggestion is after the fact, given that you and I have just cooperated on and improved two entries. I also don't think Chris Griswold even read the rest of the discussion. At any rate, I think this has gone on long enough and needs to be resolved. As previously indicated, my edits of late speak for themselves.

Asgardian 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Like Doczilla, I remain skeptical. Are we going to have to go through this again in another month or two? I'm not a crystal ball, but User:Asgardian has edited responsibly at one point after complaints came up, but he only did so temporarily before all this flared up.

One has to go through with things or else some people will always call your bluff. A month or so ban to show how seriously the rest of the community takes Asgardian's actions would drive the point home once and for all. Maybe then the rest of us can get some rest and channel our time more productively.--Tenebrae 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in calling anyone's bluff. By the by, you should avoid making comments on behalf of everyone else. "The rest of us can get some rest" is a tad melodramatic. Again, just follow the recent edit trail.

Asgardian 04:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• But you didn't address Tenebrae's point. (Admittedly, a lot of points have been brought up, and not every one has to be addressed directly as long as the key issues get covered.) The recent edit trail is a spit compared to the bucket of nearly two thousand prior edits. You still haven't addressed the concerns regarding (1) showing concern for what you should have done differently over the past three months and (2) what you're committing to doing in the future aside from discussing exemplars. Again, some assurances in these areas would go a long way to help smoothe things over, to help convey that you're not just making nice again for a couple of days only to go right back to the edit wars when the heat's off. I hope that's not the case. You're the only one who knows your intentions. So please help clear this up: What are they? Without some clear and strong assurances, a ban of a month or two from the pages you've edited most seems likely to be pursued soon. Doczilla 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would think that my actions of the past few days speak for themselves. Nothing has been a blind revert. If in doubt, I have discussed - you know this. Given that I've changed some of the articles, and others have made some additions which I've then added to, it would be counter productive to revert. Close examination reveals that most of the entries are still my words anyway - I was just getting stuck on the minor points, which can be discussed (eg. fictional). This will be my modus operandi in future. What WOULD help, however, is if we all took this a little less personally, which might make the discussions a tad easier.

Asgardian 09:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think perhaps a probation might be the best move then. I suggest a probation of two months whereby Asgardian is to discuss any changes, to avoid reverting and is to follow civility and good faith assumptions. Does that cover the behaviour? If an admin deems Asgardian has breached the probation, short blocks can be imposed. Maybe we should consider the idea of mentorship, too. Steve block Talk 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice this section was a part of the above until after I posted there : (

I think probation sounds like a good idea. Though I'd like to re-affirm my suggestion above that he (and others interacting with him) should make better and more use of article talk pages, and edit summaries. - jc37 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Doc will attest to the fact that I have already been doing this. As for probation, I would have assumed I am already on it, yes? At least three people seem to keep track of my movements. That said, I think this has gone on long enough and business as normal can resume (if there is such a thing on Wikipedia). The only thing I would ask of fellow posters (the reasonable ones at any rate) is that there is a little lessv "the sky is falling" if edits are made on some entries (someone recently said that their edit on an entry was more or less perfect, which I can't agree with as nothing is perfect and change is inevitable on Wikpedia) and more discussion. Jc37, thanks for acknowledging the contributions I've made thus far.

Asgardian 00:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has a probationary status? Where can we find details on how that works? One might argue that an example should be made to deter other edit wars (and it can be a strong argument), but if that were the only acceptable outcome to this discussion, then the step of coming to this page should have been skipped. Tenebrae's question was "What can we do?" not "How do we get rid of him?" Given that people bothered to come here instead of going straight to ban discussions, probation seems appropriate and Asgardian has indicated willingness to work with that. If he continues as he has for the last several days, he will make useful contributions to Wikipedia. If he's just lying low as some suspect and waiting to resume old behavior, he'll get busted out for violating probation. (Boy, that sounds dramatic, but those are the words, aren't they?) As for the "mentorship" suggestion, it would need to involve an objective party who hasn't been particularly involved in this along the way. And how does that work? Where is a link for information on Wikipedia mentorship? Doczilla 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart edit warring and User:Mael-Num

The Derek Smart article is in a sorry state of rampant edit warring which lead to the semiprotection of it and its talk page too.

Mael-Num (Mael-Num|talk • Mael-Num|contribs) has been pushing to have two cited incidents from reliable sources, namely the notable incident involving the alleged assault by Derek Smart of a coke machine, and a cite from ben kuchera of ars technica. User :Mael_Num has claimed a consensus for deletion of the cited information based on a discussion in the talk page that has lasted only a few hours, and with only three contributors out of many, which is not acceptable. He has warnings for civilty on his talk page. He can be possible SPA by his contributions Mael-Num|contribs.

I kindly request the admins to mediate and offer a acceptable solution to this long running (>13 months) edit war. I would also request for a checkuser to be performed on Mael-Num and Supreme_Cmdr and WarHawkSP to see if there is any violation of the blocks placed under WarhawkSP and SC.Kerr avon 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I mirror Kerr avon's stated concerns. Except the check user is much more complicated. Besides the 3 usernames, there are also anonymous IP addresses that have recently appeared editing the Derek Smart article and it's talk page. They all purport the same viewpoint, share writing styles (mostly) showing uncanny similarities to recently blocked WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr, and always agree with each other. The IP addresses are 63.28.69.164 and 63.44.66.100, which are both Fort Lauderdale IP Addresses, where Smart lives and runs his business. Also, it should be noted that these violations may fall under WP:Auto policy because it is likely the person is Derek Smart himself. --Jeff 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: I don't believe Mael-Num is a sockpuppet. Supreme_Cmdr/WarHawkSP and the IP Addresses are. Mael-num has a distinct writing style, but there are still issues that need some oversight over at the derek smart article.--Jeff 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned as well. I'm concerned that there is organized off-wiki attempt to push a POV on this article that removes cited sources. As mentioned above on this page, WarHawkSP and Supreme Cmdr have been single purpose accounts blocked from editing due to this. There have been numerous more single purpose accounts and now a rash of anon edits. Checkuser is inconclusive, but did not rule out the possibility that these are socks. I mentioned above, this edit war does not appear to show signs of slowing down soon, and I believe it will likely continue until everyone is 3RR blocked, or it goes to ArbCom. We absolutely need some administrator intervention. Users are misquoting policy, especially BLP to remove cited, reliable material. This is a major problem. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is beyond tiresome. I believe this page needs full protection until all parties can form some sort of agreements. --InShaneee 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm working with Mael-Num to try to keep him civil and try to find a reasonable solution to this. I guess you could call it informal mediation. However, I do think this case would be good for a formal mediation attempt, which I have neither the time nor the interest for conducting myself (not to mention I'm not AMA). I agree with InShaneee. This page needs to be full protected, a mediation needs to be conducted, administrator oversight towards those who continue to be uncivil needs to be enforced with short blocks, and hopefully this can be fixed without the time and frustration of an ArbCom case. Unfortunately, I think that it will end up coming to that otherwise. For further reference, see the cross conversation on my talk and Mael-Num's talk. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Screw it, I'll go ahead and do a full mediation on this. I posted on the talk page. Got nothing else going on anyway. Hopefully this will at the very least determine who is willing to help advance the article, and who is not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fully protected. It's getting hard to keep track of all the SPAs on that article. -- Steel 12:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting a moderate length block on WarHawkSP: after agreeing to mediation, and after the article was protected, WarHawkSP is now deleting comments off the user talk that disagree with his position. He cites WP:BLP as his validation, and calls it vandalism, but the comments he deleted were a) opinion and not subject to libel, b) nothing that would even be considered a personal attack if you were to subsitute a wikipedia editors name in, and c) directly related to the validity of inclusion of a link in the article, which is why the page is protected in the first place.

WarHawk is a single purpose account, that has been blocked for 3RR on this account. It's inconclusive as to whether he is a sockpuppet or not. I'm requesting a block length of 48 hours so that further talk page discussion can go on undisrupted by him. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anything? Hello? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swatjester, looking at the talk page there appears to be a reasonable enough discussion about WP:BLP, specifically concerning the removal of poorly sourced material from talk pages per policy. To be honest, I don't see anything to support a block... Addhoc 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, reverting someone's opinion on a talk page is considered bad taste, and to do so while WP:BITING them by declaring them to be vandals, and this is a continuation of his prior behavior on the page which is full of personal attacks and incivility (not that there hasn't been that on all sides). It's one thing to be incivil, it's another to be incivil, remove someone's valid talk point opinions, and then call them vandals over it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Arbitration has been filed on this topic. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, be happy

Can someone please check this song's page? I went in to add a movie reference in that section, thought I was fixing something, but further look showed me that someone at 147.10.240.73 did some massive changes that are all incorrect this morning. I moved it back to the december 7 version and then added the reference, but if someone else could check it for any other errors that would probably be good.

User:61.91.191.11

Please take a look at this IP's edit history. He is constantly putting in unsourced POV wherever he sees fit and even removes large portions of text. The IP talk page has several warnings. Can we get this guy blocked from further edits? --Unreal128

I also noticed while going through the edits he is spamming it with commercial links or childish remarks. Look at his edit on the Ayutthaya Kingdom. --Unreal128

Indefblock on User:Tasc

User has been indef-blocked, it seems, by User:J Di, for death threats (see contribs). Just bringing it to attention here. While I support the indef block for the threats, I cannot support how J Di dealt with the situation initially with a one-week block. That seems extraordinarily long for general incivility. Even given the user's past block log, last civility-related block was in May. Cannot see how a new bout of incivility warrants one week. Still, fully support indef block. – Chacor 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not leave J Di a message on their talk page and discuss it with them? A Train ^{take the} 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's general practice for most admins to note indefblocks here for other admins to review. I happened to come across this one. No idea why J Di did not do so. – Chacor 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the practice and understand your concern completely, but I still don't see why a public callout here is preferable to bringing the matter directly to Tasc, J Di. A Train ^{take the} 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, he didn't block for death threats, only "threats". Tasc was extremely uncivil and deserves a two week break, maybe even a month, but I don't support an indef for telling someone to "fuck off". The indef should be shortened. pschemp | talk 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, "I'll fucking kill you" is a death threat to me... – Chacor 16:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. It was in the edit summary, not the diff where I was looking. Hmm. Well I think the initial bock was a bit harsh and might have precipitated this behaviour. If tasc apologizes, his indef should be removed though. pschemp | talk 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

agreed with pschemp. The original one week block was a bit excessive, even if a block was warranted. However, I could definitely see a 3-4 week block, perhaps even with a talk page lock to prevent that kind of nonsense. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree w/ pschemp and Pat (i.e. a month). HOwever, he should apologize and understand that comments like this got no place here. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would we invite this person to keep editing here? Jkelly 17:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well unless he apologizes, I don't think we should. But if he does, a second chance is warranted. pschemp | talk 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've seen this guy revert war on several templates, and I've seen him be uncivil to another user about one. He had the block coming; he's been warned enough about his incivility on other pages by other users. He chose to continue. Because of that, I felt a one week block was justified. I'm not going to blame anything on the first block because how a person behaves is up to them. I'm not going to try and stop anybody from unblocking him if there's some sort of agreement to do so, but I'm also not going to support it. J Di ^talk 17:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about unblocking him, rather shortening the block if he apologizes. If not, then it should be left. pschemp | talk 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How long, exactly? J Di ^talk 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think one month is enough to make him rethink his conduct and apologise. If behavioural problems persist, the block should be extended to indefinite. Let's see what others think. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really that happy with shortening the block at all, but if that's what everybody wants, then I want an apology first. Somebody's going to have to unprotect his user talk page if that's what's happening. J Di ^talk 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The user posted "I'll fucking kill you"[15], an indef block is warrented, easily, without hesitation. In my opinion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion may be flawed. I interacted with Tasc when he edited Russian wikipedia and saw no incivility from him there. I did not follow his edits in English wikipedia closely, but saw him repeatedly removing vandalism from Russia and other pages. I suppose, if he apologises for his angry outburst, he should be given a chance to reform. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This certainly warrants an indef block.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus on that one; telling an admin to fuck off, and that if he communicates again with an another "fuck you" with death threats, I do not think he should be here any longer on WP. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Piotrus and Zscout on this one. Death threats bad. The block should be indefinite. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

While agreeing that death threats are bad, I don't see why the fact that it was an admin is relevant. Trollderella 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Good call J Di. I'd unprotect the talk page though, and agree with J Di shortening the block if an apology is granted. -- Samir धर्म 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tasc already had three civility warnings on his talk page (I did not count inside the archives) when he began the exchange at Template talk:LGBT that earned him his fourth. This is also not counting the civility warning by J Di at 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) on the template talk page. So the civility warning that Tasc flamed in response to was the second one regarding this particular situation. The whole incident began out of Tasc's decision to revert war instead of seek consensus, behavior for which Tasc had been blocked at least five times previously (plus one earlier civility block). In light of the earlier civility block and two directly related civility warnings, after demonstrated disregard for consensus, I do not think that the week-long block was excessive. Upon viewing the block log and noting that so many previous shorter blocks had failed to get the point across, a week sounds like a very reasonable next step. I also don't think that apology for a death threat should reduce the block. If indefinite blocks are given for anything, what is more serious than a death threat? — coelacan talk — 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot that I need to point out that I am the one who Tasc origninally began incivility toward on the template talk page, in case this constitutes a conflict of interest. — coelacan talk — 19:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So many previous shorter blocks? I have no personal interest in this case, I don't know Tasc and had never heard the name before reading this thread. But I think it worth pointing out that before the incident described here, Tasc's bloc log consisted in tutti, since March 2006, of three 3RR blocks plus one 24-hour block for edit warring, plus one--count 'em--one 48-hour block for "incivility, removing tags". This, which was also his latest previous block, was logged in May 2006. Tasc has been blocked for incivility once since joining Wikipedia. His block log has been clean from May to December. Bishonen | talk 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Objection

Wait a second, I don't like to see this. Tasc is being very rude and angry, yes, I don't like that, OK, but please focus on the timestamps here:
18:10, JDil: Remain civil. You won't be warned again.
18:14, Tasc: Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page.
18:15, JDil: You've been blocked for a week.
18:17, Tasc: Go fuck yourself, idiot.
18:19, JDil: Your block has been extended to two weeks.
18:22 Tasc: What part of "Fuck off" don't you understand? (This is the one with the edit sum "one more signature on my talk page and I'll fucking kill you")
18:23, JDil: You have been indefinitely blocked for making threats.

• Etcetera. From civility warning to indefinite block in 13 minutes. I have to feel sorry for the guy without the power in this exchange. That's not to accuse JDil of deliberate baiting--I'm sure he was simply angry himself, too--but those admin responses are just much too quick. I would ask any admin issuing warnings to not do it with a machine gun, but give the user a real chance to cool down between bursts--to make pauses. This escalates much too fast.
• Secondly, no, I don't agree that "I'll fucking kill you" is a death threat. OK, "I'll kill you" is a death threat, but with "fucking" in there, it's not, it's just an expression of anger. It's a technicaldeath threat, but hands up, anybody who's actually scared by it. Heck, I scare real easy, and even I'm not frightened.
• Thirdly, I don't like to see an indefinitely blocked user with a fully protected talkpage. That means a full gag. Tasc has not specified a valid e-mail address, and now that he's blocked, it's too late, he has no way of doing it; in other words he has no means of e-mailing JDil or anybody else to argue, or to apologize. The page has remained protected for a day and a half; if the user is ever going to cool down, he probably has; I appeal to JDil to unprotect and invite himto apologize for his angry outbursts. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Bish, since you asked me to comment, here goes: I disagree with you about there being an appreciable difference between saying "I'll kill you" and "I'll fuckin kill you." It's possible this explanation may be applicable here, but it nonetheless sounds equally threatening to me. El_C 10:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I want point out that the 18:10 civility warning was not the first one in this incident, it was the first one on tasc's talk page. See my comments above "Objections" for the details. And consider that "I'll kill you, motherfucker" is also a common expression of anger, but the intent of the statement still rings clear. Whether the expletive is inserted at the end or in the middle of the sentence is merely a linguistic curiosity. — coelacan talk — 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this escalated very quickly, and the block for a week because Tasc said "Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page," was perhaps provocative. I would support a short block but not an indefinite one, unless Tasc has been a general nuisance and was heading toward an indefblock for other reasons. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, Tasc has been "a general nuisance and was heading toward an indefblock for other reasons." RfAr/Israel-Lebanon reads:

3.1) Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans. Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC) ^{(bold is my emphasis)}

El_C 10:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Israel-Lebanon conflict is a different matter, I daresay. While death threats are bad and certainly merit an indef block, I believe that blocking one's opponent for a week for "Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page" was a sort of baiting and did not conform to our blocking policy. When you are young and feel powerless in a dispute, you tend to use very strong language. I advise to leave the indef block in force but to unprotect the talk page. Then we'll be able to see whether Tasc regrets his unacceptable behaviour. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block tasc for that comment alone, and I wouldn't block anybody over something so trivial unless they'd already been uncivil towards other people. The comment he left was uncivil, and he had already been warned for his incivility on other pages. Do we not block for incivility anymore? J Di ^talk 17:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes we do, but we also give people a chance to apologize and we don't jump to indef so quickly either. I'm unprotecting the page for the moment. We'll see what he does. pschemp | talk 18:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page unprotected

Tasc's response, from User talk:Tasc:

I can communicate in civil manner, when I'm addressed politely. But I refuse to communicate normally in response to:

• unjustified warnings
• vandalising of my talk page
• repetitive use of terrible, highly unpleasant colours on my talk page after being told not to do so.

I assume that quietly and indefinitely banning an active editor with almost 8 thousands edits for threats could do only inexperienced admin and failure to report my case only supports opinion that user wasn't sure about his actions. I reckon that for the majority of editors it can be clear (well, may be after reviewing all diffs of our discussion) that it wasn't a threat, but rather a figure of speech. --Tasc 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I copied that verbatim. — coelacan talk — 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So, he believes that he shouldn't have been warned for incivility, someone was vandalizing his talk page (when?), and he finds J Di's signature to be aesthetically unsound, therefore he was justified to "refuse to communicate normally in response". — coelacan talk — 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is his talk page. If he wants to blank it or format it, he is allowed. pschemp | talk 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I've suggested anything to the contrary. — coelacan talk — 19:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've asked User:132.73.80.117 to join the discussion here. — coelacan talk — 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is that IP and why do we care? If its Tasc I hope you aren't suggesting he evade his block with an IP sock. pschemp | talk 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is Tasc and that he has already evaded his block. — coelacan talk — 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then I suggest you go visit RFCU rather than make disingenuous suggestions you know are against policy. pschemp | talk 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather suggested to read WP:SOCK carefully. below nutshell. I can confirm that User:tasc is using this ip. --132.73.80.117 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Or should you be the one doing so? WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy. While I'm pleased that your talk page was unprotected, I do not condone your use of the IP to circumvent the block and can no longer support a full unblock. – Chacor 12:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, fully support indef block. just few lines above. was that supposed to mean that you did support unblock? very confusing.

Let me also add more citation: considered uncool unless you have a good reason – can assure you that I do have a very good reason. multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort so? this ip is troublemaking? If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. Didn't I do so? If someone wants to block an ip - go ahead. just check contribution and point out what this anonymous editor did wrong. --132.73.80.117 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well something has ensued and Tasc has claimed he wasn't making a death threat. I recommend the community evaluate his responses. pschemp | talk 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If he makes a formal apology to the person he attacked, I'd suggest giving him a one week block. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposing a formal community ban on Tasc

Given this user's unrepentance, and repeated block evasion with that IP address used above, I cannot imagine this user is really here to work in the wiki spirit co-operatively to introduce good content. As Tasc still refuses to apologise, and in fact seems to be continuing to be incivil, I hereby ask for comments about a possible formal community ban on this user. – Chacor 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am formally oppose to the proposed indefinite ban. We need more than a single incivility fit to permablock a productive editor with the 8K edits. Give him 2 weeks block doubled if avoiding Alex Bakharev 08:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with a community ban, but, considering his behaviour, I think he should be given at least a month long block.--Aldux 17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My two cents, if I'm welcome to give them: 1-2 months. He said, "I'm gonna fucking kill you" like 8 times, and is not the slightest bit repentant. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze (talk · contribs)

Hello. I am posting this in order to solve the problem of overload of edits by uncooperative editors on the NLP article. I believe a helpful warning to stop editors making ridiculous amounts of edits in a day will help. And if it is deemed that meatpuppets or sockpuppets are an issue, then take the appropriate action. The NLP article [16] seems to have been under attack from either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of user Comaze. User Comaze runs a company (Comaze.com) in Australia promoting strategic ties with NLP companies as is in evidence on his userpage [17][ http://www.comaze.com/links.html][ http://www.comaze.com/biography.html]. The activities involve pushing for the same POV (deletion of relevant views on the talkpage using the same language [18]). They have also been removing relevant scientific views from the article on a regular basis. This also involves removing criticisms from the opening thus creating an unrepresentative opening [19] [20][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=93542877&oldid=93534538]. The strategy seems to be one of confusion and they have made a vast amount of undiscussed edits over the past few days. They also seem to be resisting efforts to calm down in a quite uncivil way [21]. Comaze seems to be using the anonymous editors: 210.50.221.248 and 58.178.102.143 as meatpuppets or sockpuppets which both seem to be Australian IPs according to an IP check, or are using the same editing pattern as Comaze [22]. They seem to be only editing on the NLP article and have arrived only recently to support Comazes promotional pov. The situation makes it impossible to edit constructively on the article and indeed the evidence shows Comaze and related suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets to be highly uncooperative. The incivility and uncooperative editing seems to have pushed an editor away already and I am pretty much sick of it also. A well placed warning may well prove to be a good solution but its all up to you. Thanks. AlanBarnet 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In reply, compare the article now with a version from few weeks ago I think you'll find the current one is of much higher standard. As AB states I have collaborated with the other editors including 210.50.221.248 (talk · contribs), 58.178.102.143 (talk · contribs) over the last few weeks. I think the page is improving. I believe these editors arrived affter the AN/I, checkuser and request for page protection that I requested on AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In response to the allegation that I have sockpuppets. This is unfounded. While the IP locator shows those IPs are located in Australia. I have no idea who they are specifically. I was surprised how well we work together though. When we had disagreement we would find a comprimise and move on. We have worked together to check the current document. Fix all the references which were broken, provide links so we could check facts. AlanBarnet claims that I have a NLP promotion business. While I have been involved in a the NLP Research Project (Australia, 2006) and have trained in NLP. My business is primarily in freelance web design and programming. I am also a student studying cogntive science. I really do not enjoy the adversarial that AlanBarnet has taken. It makes wikipedia less enjoyable and scares off legitimate professionals and academics. --Comaze 07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More information; Comaze is requesting collaboration with allegedly banned sockpuppet Vanilla Flavius: [23] who I suspect also comes from Australia. This in addition to the overdose of edits (that involve compromising the integrity of the article) over the past few days is going to make reasonable discussion or editing impossible. AlanBarnet 08:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. I that editor to email me to to make suggestions on how to make the article more critical (as in objective/wikipedian). While this editor was banned for incivility (including for defamatory remarks directed on me and for personal attacking the mentors). He did make some well-research critical contributions to the article in the past. I really don't think the collaboration of the article over the last few weeks has "involve[d] compromising the integrity of the article". As I said it has improved and has sparked additional research. I'm trying to extend good faith here. --Comaze 09:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am user 58 and 210, an independent editor to Comaze. There is no checkuser evidence nor edit-style evidence to assert otherwise. I've been editing at wikipedia since early 2005. I had a user account but got sick of wikistalking. User:AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came straight to the NLP article when he joined wikipedia and began pasting edits from banned users back into the article; edits that were originally both beligerant and known to be fraudulent [24] [25] [26]. He claims he just coincidentally grabs these from the history tab and often cites his opinion as fact (and hence "neutral"), and when he gets angry his edits are phrased in the superlative degree, as can be witnessed above. His edits are remarkably similar to the banned editor User:HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and related sockpuppets in that he removes tags without discussion [27] [28] and engineers politics on talk pages in the same way as HeadleyDown [29] [30]]. Recently, other banned editors (64.46.47.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) have turned up at the article [31]. It is quite plausible to surmise that AlanBarnet is somehow connected with them. HeadleyDown and his 20 user sockuppet farm has been known to orchestrate complex sockpuppet scenarios. I feel it is worth investigating users involved in this incident so we can get to the bottom of the growing problem. 58.178.193.158 09:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

58 and all. I arrived using the IP 88.106.13.232 [32]. I promptly got myself an account so that I could cooperate with other editors on verifying the sources on the NLP article. I found no cooperation at all. Just resistance to direct quotes and Comaze and other IP numbers adding lots of argument to promote NLP or to negate science views. AlanBarnet 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear AB. Please read WP:TIGER and WP:CABAL#There_is_only_a_cabal_if_you_want_there_to_be_one. 58.178.199.62 04:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello this is Fainites, the only editor currently on the blighted NLP page not yet accused of sockpuppetry although probably now about to be accused of smugness. 1)There is problem with substantial undiscussed edits being put in over a short space of time because it upsets other editors. However, this partly arises because half the editors are on the other side of the world to the other half so everybody is on different timescales. However, Comaze has always been amenable to discussion, consensus and changes to edits as far as I can see and alot of the edits on that occasion filled in stubs giving everybody something to work on. 2) There is a problem with bad temper and assumptions of bad faith leading to ill thought out reversions to much older versions resulting in alot of hard work on sources and verification being removed. One recent example of both these problems together was the removal by Comaze of the second half of the Research Reviews section at 12.09 on 13.12.06 to the NLP Science article and the subsequent reversion to a much older form by AlanBarnet losing agreed edits and leaving the whole section a mess of half sentances, non sequiteurs and duplications. However, on a positive note, AlanBarnet agreed to put back the more recent edited version and when I sorted out the duplications and whatnots, the removal of the research has not been repeated. So there is hope. 3)Everybody appears to agree that sources need to to be verified. This involves alot of work as there are still past inaccuracies in references and POV statements hanging around in the article. However, the bad temper and accusations and large undiscussed edits not only slow work down but have just frightened off a valuable new editor who was a science researcher and very adept at hunting down and verifying scientific sources and quotes. 4)I think in the context of this article it is unwise for AlanBarnet to put in old negative views from old disputed versions from banned editors, with references, stating it has all been checked and verified but not providing evidence of what the source states at the time. It was inevitable that this would lead to accusations of sockpuppetry, whether they are justified or not. It would be better to assess the source afresh and agree an addition based on that with other editors. 5) alot of good collaborative work has gone on recently. Lets try and keep it that way. Fainites 14:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Having compared the version from December 1 with the current version, it seems to me very much as if Comaze and a few others are promoting rather than documenting the concept. The article becomes more promotional with each batch of edits, and the fundamental fact that NLP is essentially a cult with no scientific validity is more and more obscured. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that something has no scientific validity does not make it a cult. That's a seperate question. If you have any verifiable evidence that NLP is a cult, please come and put it in, in the section that already contains reputable views to the same effect. As for promo, the section marked 'views of supporters in various disciplines' is empty and has been for a while, whilst the sections marked 'research', 'views of critics' and 'mental health' are full of nothing but criticism and views to the effect that there is no scientific basis to NLP. The article needs watching to ensure it is not taken over by either camp. Fainites 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things. Firstly, NLP is fundamentally a seminar and consulting based personal development field (and it is definitely unclear whether it is also a cult, a psychocult, a good idea, a bad idea, a pseudoscience, a protoscience, a dangerous practice, therapeutic magic, or anything else). Secondly, there is no cabal of editors in either camp. Please treat editors as individuals. Have fun. 58.178.199.62 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Guy. Thanks for your input. I've been editing on various articles I know something about or have access to sources such as journalism articles and various historical and geographical areas. I've been removing any argumentative phrasing (usually very little) from those articles and found no resistance at all. I spent a lot of time having to remove a massive amount of argumentative and overblown phrasing from the NLP article during the end of Nov and early Dec. I met nothing but resistance from Comaze and other numbers who scream bloody murder over the simple NPOV correction. They're still making a massive amount of edits per day. I don't see how anyone can conduct proper cooperative or rigorous verifications in such a way. I'm pretty much done with it. I have WPjournalism articles to edit with editors who are willing to collaborate and I know I'll get cooperation. I really hope things can be resolved on the NLP article. AlanBarnet 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I din't mean to imply that there were existing camps now on the site but there clearly have been in the past and may well be again. It sems to be a subject about which feelings run high.Fainites 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy pointed me to the conflict of interest policy. I have read it and agree with it in principle. It does suggest that editors should dislose their interests where there may be a conflict. My interests are written on my talk page. And aim to base my edits on reliable, verifiable literature. The current editors all know that I am a student of NLP. I am also a student of cognitive science and computer science with an interest in psychology. That does not stop me from editing on the cognitive science or computer science articles. Nonetheless, I will hold myself to a higher standard for verifiability, and reliability of evidence. While being an student in the field is not required, it can help. I intend help write a balanced article by collaborating with the other editors who have different views to arrive at a balanced article. Keep in mind that I have gone through mediation, arbitration and mentorship and have learnt alot about wikipedia policy. I have read the conflict of interest article and will be more critical in my writing on those articles especially where there may be a conflict. --Comaze 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AJAX issues

The donation header source code (siteNoticeValue = ...) seems to be breaking XML parsing of MediaWiki pages. All Javascript scripts using XMLHttpRequest fail. Is this affecting anyone else? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-16 11:44Z

Banned User:Sussexman

Whatever this User's "crime", from what I have read it has been blown totally out of all proportion. he appears to have been banned for some considerable time. Yet overall he has done sterling work on Wikipedia. It appears the controversy into which he pitched himself has gone. Is it not time to restore him to some sort of probation status? Chelsea Tory 12:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned for legal threats, reviewed here at the time. Sterling work is open to question, many of his edits (and especially comments) were highly biased and gave excessive weight to minority views, and he edited several articles on which he had a conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had a look at about 20 different pages regarding this. It would seem that if anyone had a very clear conflict of political interest here it was you. You have some sort of irritant with these people and are clearly opposed to them. I therefore think you should not be leading the comments on this. As you say, "at the time", but it apears from what I have read he was not personally in a position to threaten anyone, so presumably he was warning others. Surely that sort of thing should be taken in the spirit it is offered? In any case it was all a long time ago. He who is without sin throw the first stone. Chelsea Tory 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• No. The problem here was that Sussexman and a bunch of other anonymous IPs started making legal threats against myself and other users without any attempt to play by the Wikipedia policy. I recieved a solicitors letter and was labelled as 'scum' by a small core of this users assosciates, something which I did not enjoy. Like it or not the Sussexman situation appears to cause a great deal of malicious trolling, something which I (and I'm sure a good deal of others who were involved in this situation) can well do without--Edchilvers 12:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone care to check Chelsea Tory's IP to see if it matches Sussexman's? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting edit history. I see why you asked. -- Donald Albury 15:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It won't. Is that a legitimate response to a legitimate request? It is childish. Chelsea Tory 10:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser says definately probable. Essjay (Talk) 10:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that sufficient to get Chelsea Tory blocked? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Definitely probable"? That's a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really, if you have much experience with checkuser. Checkuser is not a science, it is a matter of interpreting results, and in this case, the results are solidly within the range of "probable." There are cases where they are borderline probable, and cases where they are not. Essjay (Talk) 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand Earle's bafflement, but I also understand what Essjay is trying to say. The problem lies in explaining the degree of certainty, which if not expressed well can lead to confusion. Perhaps explaining the level of confidence as "more than probable" or "probable, tending to definite" -- or using a numerical grdation from 0 to 4 -- one of these may convey the degree of certainty here better. Just a suggestion. -- llywrch 06:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have something like that for use on RFCU, but I didn't really think saying that it was most certainly probable would be such a big deal... Essjay (Talk) 00:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition

Can someone please review my actions on Goa Inquisition. I first became aware of the problem when Rumpelstiltskin223 reported Xandar to AIV for repeated blanking (see this edit for an example, it's basically just a revert war between those two versions: [33]). When I reviewed the case, I decided it wasn't obvious vandalism and was actually a content dispute, and blocked both users for 3 hours for 3RR violation. I also reverted the page to Xandar's version, since I felt it was best to have the version which didn't make controversial accusations be the one visible while the issue is discussed. User:Bharatveer then reverted my revert, giving a very similar edit summary to mine (how his version can be considered the safer version, he didn't explain). I reverted him and left a message on his talk page asking him not to revert again and saying I'd protect the page if he did. He did revert again, leaving a message on my talk page about placing disputed tags rather than removing the text. I reverted again (my 3rd revert, for those counting), and protected the page. Opinions, please. --Tango 15:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch Tango. I endorse your actions. The last 100 edits all seem to be edit-wars. I also see a lot of 3rr evasion and gaming going on. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be related to the Joan of Arc vandal. Akhilleus has included Xandar in his checkuser request on suspected JoA vandal socks WP:RFCU#AWilliamson. One day after a different checkuser request specificially related to Goa Inquisition got declined I spotted CC80 on the list, whom I strongly suspect of being a JoA vandal sock. Durova^Charge! 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Tango (talk · contribs) used admin powers in an incorrect way to further the edit war. He could have merely protected the article in interim but since he reverted a user on the article, I dont feel he had ample right to protect it. Xandar's version is the vandalized, censored version of the article. Wikipedia doesnt publish what is "safe" it publishes what is verified. With durova's new evidence. I smell trolling on the part of CC80 (talk · contribs) and Xandar (talk · contribs) (who most probably are the same person).Bakaman 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree that admins should protect whatever version is showing when they get there but, in cases of controversial accusations, I think it's best to play safe. There was debate on the talk page as the whether or not the accusations were verifiable, so playing safe meant I assumed they weren't and removed them. I didn't investigate to see if they were valid or not (I since have, and I don't think the source given is very reliable, it's an opinion piece.) - that's a content issue and is "not my job" for want of a better phrase. --Tango 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Checkuser request mentioned above has been done. User:CC80 is a sock of AWilliamson, and has been blocked. User:Xandar is probably a different user than CC80. For more details see WP:RFCU#AWilliamson. 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving discussion from below, I see now reason not to keep it all in one place. I know people check the bottom of this page, which is why this section was put at the bottom when I first created it. There is no point putting it at the bottom again. --Tango 18:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tango and use of admin privileges

In a edit-war that ensued on Goa Inquisition, User:Tango who is an administrator, used admin tools to revert-war three times with another user. Misuse of rollback and then reverting to his own version – [34] [35], [36], and then protecting the page – [37]; after reverting to his own version, calling it a safe version in his edit. A discussion over this is avaiable here – WP:ANI#Goa Inquisition. However, instead of apologising for this misuse of admin tools and intimidating non-admin users he insists that it was a safe move and within admin discretion; hypocritically warns them of a block here – [38] and asks them to assume good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with nick - I feel like I cant post my replies anymore on that talk page, for fear I will be blocked for "incivility". I myself have found an academic journal to source most of the page (do refer to The Goa Inquisition. Being a Quatercentenary Commemoration Study of the Inquisition in Goa - Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 84, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1964), pp. 483-484) but am afraid if I quote sections of it and comment, I may be insulting people an therefore will be blocked under a variety of false premises. Instead of encouraging informed debate, Tango is stifling it. Bakaman 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Protection_policy#How → Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, this seems to be a bad month for administrative... contention. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I told Nick on my talk page, this has already been discussed here. Try scrolling up a bit and put your comments there. --Tango 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have provided the link to that discussion here. I believe this location would provide a view to a larger audience. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the same page. How can it provide a view to a different audience? --Tango 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point of the discussion really. Users/admins tend to look at the bottom of the page, rather than coming down from the top. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The earlier discussion focused on sockpuppetry.Bakaman 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Though i have not edited Goa Inquisition myself, i am compelled to comment here. User:Tango appears to have prematurely blocked the article without an objective analysis of its recent edit hostory. Goa Iquisition of late has been plagued by POV-pushing-sockpuppets. While check user on User:Xandar may have been inconclusive, his edit patterns do bear striking similarities to CC80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s...

User:Xandar though largely civil, seems to be highly prejudiced and obtuse in his dealings with Indian editors. He for one simply rebishes every argument and reference presented to him as "unrealiable". The situation has become unworkable and i doubt whether discussion on the talk page would be conclusive. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 18:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Tango protected an unsourced version of the article. I disagree with his actions. article should be either protected to the correct version, or uprotected. He protected xander's version who seems to be vandalist troll.--D-Boy 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever might be the issue here, m:The wrong version is not. Don't complain about the wrong version getting protected. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What kind of talk is that? I'll remember that when try to go for admin. Keeping false info protected like that and abusing admin privileges hurts the credibilty of wikipedia.--D-Boy 06:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's put to rest one recurring complaint: although CC80 was a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal butXandar isn't. The checkuser came up unlikely and my investigation also determined they're probably different. This article has several problems and I've only cleared up one of them. Durova^Charge! 15:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I object to the behaviour of Nick. He initially asked me for an explanation on my talk page and when I asked him to be more specific he responded sarcasticly (bordering on uncivil) and reported me here without actually discussing the matter with me first, what was the point in going to my talk page if you weren't going to actually talk to me? He then created a new section which has the only effect of giving his comments more weight that those that have gone before. He has misrepresented my actions in his description - he says I called my version the safest version, which is nonsense, when I used that edit summary it was my first edit to the page, how could it be my version? I was never in a content war, I was simply determining what version should be there while the discussion takes place, I have no opinion on what version is the better one, only which is the safer until consensus is reached. Also, he quotes me as saying I used "admin discretion", I never used that phrase or anything similar, I have no idea what he's refering to. He says that I didn't apologise for my actions when I explained them here - that's because I was the one that brought the matter here. Why would I apologise when I hadn't been told I'd done anything wrong (other than by someone already involved on the page)? I was asking for a 2nd opinion (and the one I got was that I'd done the right thing), if I felt I had anything to apologise for, I simply wouldn't have protected the page in the first place. Nick is trying to make out that I've refused to listen to criticism, which is complete nonsense, I was the one that came here to ask for criticism in the first place! --Tango 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Dont lie. You made three reverts rv1rv2rv3 and then protected to your version. After that you threaten me [39]. I should have reported you on AN/3rr (at least for going against spirit of 3 revert rule). The worst part was the threats, I was afraid of getting blocked by an abuser of admin powers. I demand that Tango (talk · contribs) recuse from harrassing editors on the page, and to find another (preferably impartial) admin to take care of it. You're back on ANI for threatening users after abusing admin powers.Bakaman 22:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Tango saw that xandar kept repeatedly deleteing sourced material. He not only rved a couple times but he protected it. and imparital admin would be better.--D-Boy 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I am concerned that this seems to have turned into a kick-a-man-while-he's-down incident against Tango, by what seems to be users with similar interests. I think that until a neutral admin reviews this, neither side should attack the other any further. – Chacor 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing us of POV-pushing? I find it incivil on your part to examine users' motives through your POV on the matter. I happen to be the main contributor to the Goa Inquisition page and have worked for months to fight vandals and find reliable sources (refer to the one I discussed above). If were kicking Tango while he's down (for abusing admin privileges) then I could theoretically assume you are here to back up a fellow sysopstruck out see below. Note that at least two admins have posted here attesting to the findings.Bakaman 04:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am neutral, and have not looked at the article. NEither am I a sysop. It is very inappropriate to mischaracterise my actions as you have done. – Chacor 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And accusing me of "kicking someone when they are down" is appropriate? especially when they threatened to block me? Quite hypocritical on your part.Bakaman 04:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of kicking someone when they're down. I said I'm concerned a group of users seem to have turned this into such an incident. – Chacor 04:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It only looks as if User:Tango seems to be bent on justifying his protection of the article, after misusing his rollback and revert-warring on it. Bordering on incivility? (Although, I don't think I ever was), I believe that it is better to be uncivil rather than abusing your admin privileges. We are not given muscles to protect/endorse our own versions while asserting neutrality and intimidate non-admin users with blocks. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 04:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I read Chacor's comments and did not think they were directed at a specific group of people. However, I did notice a group of people responding as though it was directed at them. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What is done, is done (unfortunately)

This is my assessment of the situation and some comments; feel free to respond below.

• There was an edit war on the article page Goa Inquisition – [40] , User:Tango protected the page – [41].
• User:Tango used his [rollback] tool in order to revert another user, – [42], [43], and reverted once manually – [44], calling this a safe version.
• Tango then protected the article to "his own version", so the talk regarding the "The Wrong Version" is not really the point of discussion here, Amarkov. Not material at all.
• This is where Tango says that he meant to keep the article safe, as the did not believe the source given was reliable enough. – [45], – Nothing but exercising your discretion and protecting your own version.
• I requested Tango to explain what he meant by this – [46], and his reply was rather convenient – You're going to have to be more specific... that's just a history page. – [47], I did not see any point of discussing this with him any further.
• In a single edit, Tango tackles the content dispute and warns other users of a block in general to assume good faith with him. – [48]. I am monitoring this discussion, and will be handing out 24 hour blocks to anyone violating these guidelines.
• In his complaint about Nick's behaviour – [49], – he states He has misrepresented my actions in his description - he says I called my version the safest version, which is nonsense, when I used that edit summary it was my first edit to the page, how could it be my version? I was never in a content war, I was simply determining what version should be there while the discussion takes place – I am not even sure if Tango understands what really is a content-dispute and how administrators are expected to behave in/respond to a particular situation. I have no opinion on what version is the better one, only which is the safer until consensus is reached. – well there's his point of view. (see the diff)
• Regarding Chacor's comment here about kick-a-man-while-he's-down – The man has kicked himself once again, by repeatedly showing that he disregards the community's guidelines and policies.
• I never wanted Tango to apologise to me, or any other person for that matter. Just express his sincere regrets to the incident and give his assurance that it would never happen again. The matter could have been sorted out, there and then.
• The point in having this conversation was that the community should be aware of the facts as they happened there; as I, personally see no point in unprotecting the page and having the other users revert-war over their own version.

Thanks, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You do mean that m:The wrong version is really the point, right? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"His own version" is precisely my point. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 06:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my thoughts from above: I do agree that Tango should not have used rollback on a content dispute, neither should he have protected the page, but rather gotten someone else to look at it. – Chacor 06:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion a better way User:Tango may have approached this by requesting protection at WP:RFPP or ask other admins to protect the page since he reverted the article OR revert then immediately protect, WP:PPol did say that admins are allowed to "Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy.". Though I would say the outcome of the page is likely to be exactly the same as it is currently, so I would say this is more of a procedural issue than an abuse of admin power. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The article in concern has been experiencing an onslaught of edit-wars from 21^st August 2006. Tango did not revert to that version at all. He has admitted that he reverted to what he termed a safe version. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 07:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ach, this isn't good at all. It's always better to get a second opinion when tools are needed in a content dispute, and I think Tango got involved wrt content here. RFPP would have been a good neutral option if the page needed protection. And mentions of blocks really just ends up escalating the situation [50] -- Samir धर्म 07:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rollback is to be used only to revert vandalism. Pages should never be protected if you're involved in a content dispute.--MONGO 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourselves, you're just wasting everyone's time. I know I reverted three times and then protected, I said exactly that when I initially brought the matter here. You don't need to accuse me of something I've admitted to doing. I've given an explanation of why I did it, and so far no-one has even tried to explain why they think that explanation is flawed. If you have a problem with what I've done, argue against the points I've made, don't repeat things I've said myself... --Tango 13:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove? You are not only assuming bad faith but your comments are audacious. You never admitted that you used the rollback tools. Do you have any idea what a content dispute is? Kindly familiarise yourself with the admin how-to guide. In case you did not notice, I have also responded to the comments you made before this. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not responded to my comments, you have simply quoted them. Tell me why it was wrong to revert to the safer version. As for using the rollback option - why should I revert manually when I can revert automatically? The only reason I can see is to give an edit summary, but it's fairly obvious that I did the 2nd and 3rd reverts for the same reason as the first. --Tango 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

/me facepalms. I will wait for somebody else to comment here. Keep watching this page. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rollback is only to be used for removing vandalism. If you're mechanically reverting someone thrice over, you might want to take a step back and realize, that while technically not violating 3RR, you are violating the spirit of it. Ideally you want to cool-off revert wars; one good way to do that is to put further rationale in your edit summaries. If you don't provide any new information and use a standard admin rollback edit summary, they're just going to keep pushing back. Please stop using admin rollback except when dealing with the specific situations it is authorized for. --Cyde Weys 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

There's a problem at that page. It desperately needs some serious intervention by uninvolved parties to try to clean up/mediate the dispute. It's also obvious that Tango should never have protected the page after getting involved in a content dispute, and definitely should not have reverted it after protecting it. The important question is "what next"? Tango has reverted to what he called a "safe version". That would be ok if this were a BLP issue, or some other libel issue. However, the version he reverted to lacks sources, while the one he reverted is sourced. A quick look over the talk page suggests that the issues have been discussed and the sources are fairly reliable.

1. Page protection seems reasonable. Tango shouldn't have been the person to do it, but that's just bureaucracy. He did the right thing even if he broke some rules.

   I think the page should be protected until the issues can be sorted out finally and more outside editors involved.

   I trust that Tango will bear in mind these issues in the future.

2. Reverting after protection was uncalled for - there were no burning legal issues, as far as I can tell (I may have missed something, there's an awful lot of back and forth here). The other version is better sourced, but per "wrong version" that shouldn't be the issue here.

   Assuming that there are no legal issue, Tango's revert should be undone. The page should spend its "protection" in the version that was actually protected.

What do people think? Guettarda 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see some WP:BLP issues; but this is one of User:Tango's reverted edit – [51]. I see removal of sources, whether disputed or not; and then revert-warring once manually and two times using rollback tool. Tango should have ideally protected the first version he came upon or asked some other administrator to exercise his discretion without getting himself involved. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

All right I'll speak frankly: Tango stepped into a very rough situation and did (his?) best. As Sir Nicholas states, I agree it would have been better to have either protected whatever version was current or to have asked other administrators for input. Any page protection during a content dispute is likely to draw accusations of administrative bias or misconduct (no matter how spotless the administrator's conduct and reputation actually are). So by rolling back or reverting for anything other than the most narrow paramaters such as WP:BLP compliance, an administrator runs the risk of inflaming the dispute rather than quelling it. I think I see the point Tango was trying to make in the caution, and I also see how that went over: sysop tools seem much less important to people who have them than to people who don't. Administrators are expected to have the wisdom of Solomon in the messiest situations, so even when I might choose differently I usually respect others' decisions. Yet I've been uneasy about this particular action because it's right at the outer limit of what's acceptable, maybe a few inches beyond it. I wonder what's the fairest way to take a few steps back and defuse the dispute. Durova^Charge! 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin, and I'm involved in the discussion on Talk:Goa Inquisition.) I don't think the page should be changed at this point. The edit war is stopped and users are discussing sources on the talk page. The wrong version got protected, but at this point, any version will be wrong--the edit wars have been going on for a long time. I'd recommend letting the discussion run its course, but if another admin could step in and monitor the procedings, that might be helpful. (Or we could go to some form of mediation.) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No one here wants to change the page. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear--protecting a different version (which Guettarda suggested above) would be changing the page. I think the page should be left as it is now until discussion is completed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Yeah. However, let us discuss on the talk page and then go by consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I apply the principle of WP:BOLD to administration, just as I do to editing. I do what I think is best (within my interpretation of policy, and using WP:IAR where necessary), and then if I think what I've done might be controversial, I come here and ask for people's opinions. In this case, I recieved two responses in the first couple of days, one was an admin endorsing my decision, and the other was a non-admin involved in the page who questioned it and then didn't reply to my response. If what I did was so terrible, why didn't anyone say so when I first brought this matter up for review? This page is watched by a large number of admins, I'm sure plenty of them saw my message and they obviously decided it did not require comment, which is an implicit endorsement of my actions. Had an admin suggested I undo the action when I first made it, I would probably have done so (depending on their reasoning), but no-one did. There is now a discussion going on on the talk page, and hopefully those involved will soon reach a consensus, if not the matter can be refered to the dispute resolution procedures. Undoing an action like mine 2 days after it happened would do more harm than good. I strongly support admins reviewing eachother's actions and speaking up if they disagree, but reviewing days old actions is of limited use. Try monitoring this page more closely in future, and perhaps your opinions can be taken into account before a decision becomes difficult to reverse. --Tango 18:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Tango, it is fine to be bold to stop a revert war. It is not fine to become involved in a revert war, use your admin rollback button in that revert war, and then protect the version you prefer. I can understand the accidental use of the rollback button to revert something that is not obvious vandalism, but twice? And protecting an article where you have just been engaging in an edit war is unacceptable. We hold the admin tools in trust. You have betrayed that trust. I normalloy would not be commenting on this, but you do not seem to understand the seriousness of what you have done. Your actions, and your refusal to acknowledge how wrong they were, cast a cloud over all admins. -- Donald Albury 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe I was involved in any kind of content dispute, and I have explained my reasoning for that. Until someone at least tries to refute my points, why would I acknowledge any wrongdoing? --Tango 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you keep reverting? It was an edit war. You used your admin rollback button. Are you claiming you were reverting vandalism? That's the only excuse for doing what you did. But, protecting an article that you have just reverted three times is the biggest problem. Once you reverted the article the first time, you were obligated to not use your admin tools. If you wanted to stop an edit war, you should have protected the article without making any edits to it. Appearances are, in a sense, just as important as intentions. You have created the appearance that you have used your admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute. You may say that it was not a content dispute, but I don't understand then why you were edit warring. -- Donald Albury 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept that every version is wrong and a discussion of sources would do this article much more good. If keeping the current wrong version helps that discussion move forward then so be it. Tango, the reason I didn't speak up sooner was that when I saw this I scratched my head a bit, wondered whether the uneasy feeling was just me, and moved on. I noticed this was ongoing today and realized I wasn't the only person who had some misgivings. Maybe I should have spoken sooner, in which case I apologize. I hope you'll take the candid feedback to heart. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me try and work out exactly what the problem is here. Consider this alternative: Rather than reverting 3 times, as I did, what if I'd protected after the first revert (the manual one, so rollback doesn't come into it)? Is the problem that I chose a version to protect, or is it that I reverted to that version a few times before protecting? --Tango 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The second one, and your threats on the talk page. First you abuse rollback, then you threaten to abuse the block button?Bakaman 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The simple solution I use is to just hit "protect". Nobody from the Goa Inquisition is alive today. After an initial burst of eep, that's wrong the editors usually settle down to discussing their differences. Since I haven't altered anything - and reject any thanks or complaints - the editors usually accept me as a neutral party if I need to give block warnings. Durova^Charge! 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving WIkipedia

Somebody please delete my user, talk page and archives. I understand that they can still be accessed by admins if need arises, and I do not want to leave them public. —Hanuman Das 00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has been involved in a long ongoing dispute which has been submitted for arbitration here. Please do not act on this request until the outcome of this arbitration has been finished, as many of this user's edits are material to the complaint. - WeniWidiWiki 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is the users actions that are under complaint and they are leaving, I fail to see why you would need to keep the arbitration case open (having not read it yet). I also setrongly hope that right to vanish is not being overridden by an ongoing dispute. Viridae^Talk 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. A wider case may have had discussion on the user's talk page. Deleting it now may compromise evidence to be presented in the case. I wouldn't support deleting his talk page. And, also note that the main problem with deleting talk pages is that the main contributors to them aren't the user himself, but rather other users, whose contribs you're deleting. – Chacor 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, why should an ongoing dispute override m:Right to vanish? Viridae^Talk 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the case itself, only that it's been brought before AC as a request. If this user is not directly involved as one side of the dispute alone (note emphasis), it's not far to the case to remove evidence. – Chacor 00:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have done everything except the User talk page. On m:Right to vanish it says Delete your user and user talk subpages. That wording is a little obscure, not entirely sure wether that means the user talk page may be deleted or not. Viridae^Talk 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the user talk pages - it will at least stop the harassment that the user is experiencing. If the edits are necessary for arbcom, they have the ability to look at the deleted edits anyway. Should the user continue to edit, his pages will, of course, be undeleted. Cowman109^Talk 00:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. It's right now not a full case yet. Evidence may need to be presented that was on the user's talk page. Can't support a talk deletion while the case is still being presented. – Chacor 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there still a case if they have left? Viridae^Talk 00:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving does not necessarily end a case. The history should be undeleted. If there is vandalism, you can protect the page. NoSeptember 00:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears so. Is their involvement in the dispute important now they have left? Viridae^Talk 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the case myself, but it is possible that the case was not solely against this user. However, if there has been evidence which could be of use, in the history of the talk pages, then you're compromising the case. [after 4 edit conflicts!] – Chacor 00:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read the case as it is so far, the user appears to be a small part of an ongoing dispute for which the arbitration was called. However, the request for arbitration has not even been accepted yet, and there is no guarantee that it will be. Viridae^Talk 01:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And there may be diffs from the user's talk page that are needed to present a case for such a case in the first place. With the talk page deleted the whole case is compromised. – Chacor 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A comment from an uninvolved user. This is a tough one. Chacor has made some good points here, and so has Cowman109. If I was an admin involved in a situation similar to this, I would probably have tried to get consensus here first for deleting a user talk page before doing it. --SunStar Net^talk 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

When someone leaves in the middle of a dispute you have to be careful that they may not have really left. Socks or a resumption on this account may occur. I doesn't hurt to wait a few days to see what will happen, even if there is no active Arb case. A user talk page is a community shared page much more so than a user page or subpages. Right to Vanish can be abused. NoSeptember 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think a certain four-capital-lettered user asked for his pages to be deleted a while back, but is still actively editing... – Chacor 01:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The nature of the user request and the reference above to harassment suggest there may be aspects of this matter that should not be discussed on-wiki. Cowman109 is an Arbitration Committee Clerk and I am sure that he will be sensitive to any issues raised by the pendency of a proposed ArbCom case. Newyorkbrad 01:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to Vanish is not really an Arbitration issue. Please check here for the current list of clerks (though Cowman has been doing a good job of helping out). NoSeptember 01:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice consensus. I am requesting that the talk pages and archives be restored and locked. This was an attempt to pre-empt arbitration and it looks like it worked. Hanuman Das' status on wikipedia is not material. If he/she wants to leave that is his/her choice. However, this user has been involved in a protracted dispute that has involved numerous other editors, and the content of the user's talk page is pertinent to the discussion. After the arbitration - if it is even accepted - I think the page should only then be blanked. - WeniWidiWiki 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd second an undelete/blank/protect for the sake of arbcom evidence. Someone can add a request that arbcom deletes the page when the case is complete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I encourage anyone to undelete the page if they'd like - I won't mind, but personally I see nothing that makes me think his talk page is necessary for the arbitration request (and you're not really supposed to be giving that much evidence on the request page anyway, but merely supposed to be showing there exists a dispute). The user has plenty of edits in other areas, and it would seem that the focus of the dispute lies in the article of the arbitration case anyway so I don't see how his talk page is relevant. Oh, and I'm not an arbcom clerk, in response to Newyorkbrad, but just one of many volunteers who try to help out. Cowman109^Talk 02:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the editor who removed the "speedy" tags from the user's talk page, so perhaps a comment from me will be useful. First, I don't think that there is a significant amount of evidence that would be unavailable to parties to the arbitration. There are two principle editors on one side of the arbitration. The user who has left Wikipedia, and a user who is associated with numerous links. Although the users collaborated, I think the issues in arbitration are quite different between them. Long and short, I did not remove the "speedy" tags because I feared deletion of evidence. (Of course, I did not file the arbcom case, so I do not pretend to be speaking for anyone else -- others may disagree).

Having explained that I was not worried about loss of evidence, I feel a need to explain my motivations. At the time that I removed the "speedy" tags, I was unaware that the user was intending to leave Wikipedia. I was sensitized to seeing the speedy tag on his talk page from a previous interaction. On a previous occassion, the user had a puppetmaster tag on his user page. My understanding is that before a user or talk page is speedied, the deleting admin should check to see if a) the page has been editted by other users, and b) whether there are warnings on the page that ought to be preserved. For better or worse, it appeared to me that the admin who deleted his page on that occasion did not notice that this user had first deleted his warning tag, and then added the speedy tag. I understand that in such situations, users may "lose their cool". Further, the user made a declaration that he would not use sockpuppets. At that point I thought it appropriate to let the matter drop. However, I was sensitized, and worried that we were seeing a repeat. When I learned that the user planned to leave Wikipedia, I had no interest in preventing his pages from being deleted.

I hope that someone may find these comments useful. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. As long as someone can resurrect the talk pages if it becomes an issue later, I don't foresee it being necessary unless it gets really protracted. Probably should establish some sort of protocol for such instances though.- WeniWidiWiki 02:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We frequently get these people claiming that they are leaving for good in the middle of an RfA, who, lo and behold, after the RfA has been closed because they are gone, come back and start the same behavior all over again. PLEASE do not close the RfA. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. I believe all the arbs are sysops as well, so deleting the pages should not significantly hinder that process. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I have a proposal that I believe addresses m:right to vanish and the need for evidence for the RfArb. I suggest that the talk page and archives be undeleted and then moved to an appropriate sub page(s), eliminating all redirects created in the process. (no suggestion as to where they should be moved to - but if the RfArb case was taken on then a sub page of the case page would be appropriate). When the RfArb is finished or if it is rejected then the pages get moved back to their original position and redeleted. The purpose of the move is to assume good faith and honour the right to vanish. The username would no longer be associated with the content of the pages, any more than any other comments he has made on other talk pages would be. The purpose of re-moving the pages to their original position and then re-deleting them would be to have them availiable for revival in the right spot in the event that the retirement was not permanent. All these actions could be performed by any of the sysopped RfArb clerks, or if that idea is rejected, I would be happy to take them on myself as long as someone notifies me of the outcome of the case. I would have his talk page and user page on watch, looking for signs of editing (ie other users questioning edits) and a note in the RfArb case to be notified of the close or rejection of the case. Thoughts? Viridae^Talk 10:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the situation at status quo for now (i.e. deleted). Evidence of Hanuman's bad behavior toward others (if such evidence exists) will be mainly on their talk pages, the mediation pages associated with the case, and the articles themselves. Assuming Hanuman's talk page contains evidence of other editors' bad behavior toward him, it can be restored or examined by the arbitrators if the case is accepted. Thatcher131 12:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman may be only tangentally involved in this case. My concern is that we are accepting all this at face value when in the past there have been users who have used Right to Vanish to game their situation. We also don't want to start expecting Arbitrators to be the gatherers of facts in a case. We need to let involved parties find their evidence to present where ever they can find it, and not tie their hands in building their case. NoSeptember 13:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question - if someone invokes the right to vanish (sounds like a magical spell), insisting that their talk pages and user pages get deleted, is their account also blocked? Proto::► 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No. User talk pages are not deleted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, user talk pages are quite frequently deleted. The argument that a user's warnings and history of problems needs to remain visible only applies if they don't stay vanished. (I used to be more hard line on this, but I have come to really dislike the scarlet letter mentality that some folks have.) In this particular case the talk pages will probably be undeleted if the case is accepted. I'm not convinced they are needed in order to make a case for acceptance. Thatcher131 17:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to distinguish between a vandal's talk page full of nothing but warnings and unproductive messages (which we can delete without a second thought), and that of a long time user who has had much discussion about articles and other productive Wikipedia issues over many months (which is the case here). The history of the page has value to the project (and since he used page move archiving, so do his talk page archives). It's about having the history, the top page can be blanked and protected (this is not about the removing warnings issue or anything like that) NoSeptember 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question and comments

Please pardon my ignorance, but doesn't m:Right to vanish being a meta-directive, trump en.wikipedia concerns? I've read through the meta page and the meatball page linked from it, and IMO you are treading on very treacherous ground here. The ability to vanish is listed as a "right", not a privilege. In my opinion, it should not be conditional in any way. Perhaps mediawiki foundation needs to clarify the talk page issue on m:Right to vanish, but with it being ambiguous, and with talk page deletion having been done for other users recently (e.g. User:Ars Scriptor), it would seem to me that if you are going to undelete H.D.'s talk page, you'd need to undelete every other vanished user's talk page for consistency.

In any case, as someone also involved in the issue, I don't think H.D.'s talk pages are significant in any way to the arbitration request. He was occasionally quite rude - on other people's talk pages. His edit history is still available, and I beleive the contention is that he kept restoring links after other editor's deleted them. I also believe that both sides believed that they were in the right, i.e. it was not a case of intentional vandalism. Anything that was said to him on his talk page about the situation is most likely also brought up on one of the meditation pages. And Mattisse has been keeping "files" on her user subpages about all of her percieved "enemies", so she should be able to answer precisely what information might be needed from H.D.'s talk page. (Interestingly enough, Timmy12 keeps "files" on his "enemies" in the very same way as Mattisse does). It seems like perhaps some people want to go on a fishing expedition on a user who decided that his involvement in Mattisse's manipulations was a waste of his time. That doesn't seem right to me.

Finally, please do kick this up to the MetaWiki level. I would like to know definitively what exactly I could expect if in the future I should want to avail myself of the Right to vanish. Currently, based on observation, I believe that I could expect to have all my user space pages deleted, including talk pages and archives. If this is not the case, I think Mediawiki Foundation should be clear and explicit about it on m:Right to vanish. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish is not an official policy but a general internet principle which we apply in a way that we try to balance the competing interests of this project. Just because an essay is written on Meta instead of enwiki does not confer to it more authority. See m:Privacy policy to see what is our official policy (which leaves tremendous leeway to each project on the Right to Vanish issue). NoSeptember 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If the concern is harrassment of HD after he leaves, then blank and protect his talk page. Nobody can leave messages, but the history is still available if people need to review discussions or other information (whether to provide diffs for an arbitration, or for other constructive purposes). If HD believes that there is information in the history which compromises his privacy, then by all means he should ask an admin to delete the appropriate revisions of the page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The page :m:Right to vanish describes removal of personal information (real name, address, political views etc.) that are pretty far short of deleting an entire set of user and talk pages on request, that are of interest in an ongoing dispute and that don't all contain personal information. It also explicitly says info is deleted "provided it is not needed for administrative reasons (which are generally limited to dealing with site misuse issues)" (IMO that would include an arb case, if there's a legitimate need for the material).

I have some knowledge of the former contents of HD's talk page and don't remember any personal material on it but (from what I saw) it also wasn't obvious there was important evidence on it. I don't see a compelling reason to undelete the page at the moment, though that may change if the arb case progresses. I think Matisse should work this out with the Arb clerks, as Thatcher131 suggested [52]. They can undelete it or grant private and/or redacted access to Matisse as appropriate. To Matisse: try leaving Thatcher131 a talk message or sending an email (you can send email through the "email this user" link at User:Thatcher131).

IMO, HD is not the most important participant in that dispute. 67.117.130.181 10:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Other people's contributions

The whole thing about deleting user talk pages (and talk pages in general) is that they also consist of other people's contributions. If I have a long and involved and productive discussion with someone on their talk page, I don't want that discussion to vanish with that person. I want my contributions, which might contain important material on my thoughts on certain issues, to be preserved somewhere. Should I really have to keep a list of all the user talk pages I've edited and then 'rescue' my edits if the page gets deleted? Carcharoth 11:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are (at least) two valid issues here. On the one hand the possible usefulness of previous comments by the user and/or others and on the other hand the possibly embarrassing comments of the user and/or others. Historically on user talk pages the balance of those two possibilities has always tipped in favor of the individual user. For instance, users are allowed to blank messages left for them... archiving is favored, but not required. That, of course, makes it more difficult to locate past conversations... requiring a search of the history instead of just browsing the page/subpage. We have a speedy deletion criteria allowing 'user subpages' to be deleted upon request... which is described as including things like 'User talk:Username/Archive 1'. The 'right to vanish' deletion is just another aspect of this. All of these things make it more difficult to access past comments when there are legitimate reasons to do so... but I think that's preferable to keeping things users don't want in their user-space. If a user has done something they are embarrassed about we allow them to delete it... we can still get it back if we have to, but there should be no reason for it to be publicly available (even if just in the history). Ditto nasty or embarrassing things said to the user... people shouldn't be able to drag those up to harass them elsewhere. If we want to retain comments made to user talk pages then that needs a systematic change to a number of Wikipedia policies, but I think it is better to just proceed with the understanding that comments on user talk pages are potentially more ephemeral than anything else on Wikipedia. If it is really of long term importance move it to an article or project space talk page. --CBD 14:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a page is nothing like archiving or blanking. With archiving or blanking, the contribs are still found in the commenter's own contribs and in the page history, and do not need an admin request. With deletion, the contribs simply disappear unless the user keeps a separate list of users they have talked to (a list which would otherwise be in the contribs) and then if the user is experienced enough to know they can be restored at all they can ask an admin. Also, if Right to vanish allowed someone to simply request deletion of the user talk page, that would not simply be "ephemeral", that would be instantaneous. This case is a somewhat good example, where there is apparently an active Arbcom case that could be related to comments on the talk page. If you want to delete the talk page of a banned or permanently vanished user after a year, that may be okay, but that's not what your interpretation of a right to vanish would mean. —Centrx→talk • 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean we should just accept that user talk page comments would be more ephemeral? With everything else on Wikipedia, comments are permanent except for deleted articles where the comments are not relevant to creating or having a legitimate article. Should I simply not talk on other user's talk pages? Or should I duplicate every comment I leave on a separate page of my own, thus defeating the purpose of deleting those comments in the first place and demonstrating even more clearly that those comments are not his to delete? If the vanishing user has a comment he wants to get rid of, that comment could possibly be arranged to be removed. If someone else leaves a somehow embarassing comment, the vanishing user has no right over it; if appropriate it can be deleted under a no personal attacks policy, which applies anywhere. —Centrx→talk • 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What's more, it would even be legal to simply copy his talk page entirely and save it somewhere else; his comments are under the GFDL. If user talk pages were to be ephemeral, one could and should simply keep a separate record of all conversations—but that's the purpose of the original talk page in the first place! —Centrx→talk • 22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Centrx's points. I also have to admit that it took me over a year to realise that my contribs to deleted pages were not appearing in my contributions list. I was partially misled by the availability (now withdrawn) of a tool to list a user's edits to deleted pages. Now, instead, I watchlist every page I edit, make regular updates to an off-line copy of my contributions list, look for redlinks in a list of pages on my watchlist, and compare my current contributions list to my offline list to find what contributions have disappeared. If the edit summary indicated a long essay or comment, I might try and retrieve it through an admin, but trying to explain all this would be rather tedious to say the least. This is also why I avoid trying to improve articles at AfD, or contributing to the talk pages of said articles, until the AfD is over. Writing on something attached to something that then gets deleted feels rather inefficient. Carcharoth 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... ok. When a comment I've made gets deleted, if I even notice, I shrug and go on with what I was doing. In the extreme hypothetical that I absolutely had to get it back for some reason I know it can always be undeleted so... seems less than crucial to me. In short, I don't see alot of value in having every past comment easily and immediately available... just doesn't seem important. That balanced against, 'annoy people by making stuff they want to get rid of readily available to everyone'... seems like a clear case for allowing deletion. You two apparently place ALOT more value on 'easily available records', but... can you point to a case where it has been more than hypothetically important? When have we ever 'needed' some edit and it has just been terribly difficult to get it back? --CBD 12:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just the general prinicple of the thing. I don't normally delete things that I have written, and I like to keep track of what I have said and done. It would seem courteous to allow people to keep copies of what they have written, or at least to make it much clearer that their contribs list is not complete. I would have no problems with such pages being deleted if I could in general, at any time, see a list of my deleted contribs (the reason it is not done at the moment, I think, is because the way it was set up, anyone could see anyone's deleted contribs - that would not be a problem if viewing was restricted to the user only - similar to how only the user can see their watchlist). My contribs are what I wrote, so what is the problem in letting me access them, even if only to make a copy before they are re-deleted? I realise that this system can be abused by those wanting to paste back in deleted content that should be kept off Wikipedia, but most POV-pushers do this anyway, and are stopped by the normal means. Carcharoth 12:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And a more specific point. Edits to the blurbs of category pages (the bits at the top) are deleted when categories are renamed, as categories are not moved like article pages are, but are deleted and a new page made. These are not 'ephemeral' talk page edits, but are integral parts of the encyclopedia where contribution history is, if not completely lost, made far more difficult to track down (and nearly impossible if the deleting admin does not mention the CfD page or date), though using "what links here" for the deleted category or the newly created category usually works in tracking down the debate and the deleted page where the contributions history is "kept". Carcharoth 12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have gone back to user talk pages to find out about some situation where a user was blocked, etc. There have been several times where I went back to another user's talk page to retrieve my own words and put them on User talk:Centrx/Meta-writing. This is then used for personal reference, for future essay and guideline material, and for having easy access to best-of-breed responses to {{helpme}} requests, m:OTRS queries, etc. If I forget to copy the writing when I comment, these are accessed by looking through my own contribs; I do not otherwise keep a list of every talk page I've commented on or remember the exact username of someone. Anyway, this is just one practical example; there are thousands upon thousands of people, commenting on things over the course of years, on Wikipedia. We have the general principles so we don't need to take a survey of everyone's all possible uses for old talk page comments. A user does not own his userspace; we let him retract some things if he wants to vanish, but we do not let him retract article contributions or discussion comments—and article and policy discussion do happen in the user talk space; the only comments it might make sense to allow him to retract are comments that never really belonged on Wikipedia in the first place; none of this means he has control over other users' comments. —Centrx→talk • 08:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Canuckster

Canuckster (talk · contribs · logs) seems to be harassing Sarah Ewart. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for the latest in a long line of incidents. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman will give you some background. I am rather concerned that this will be a waste of everybody's time and energy, and be unnecessarily demoralising for Sarah, who I think is one of our better admins. Canuckster's case seems to be that Sarah ought to apologise to him for saying he was anti-American, when even a very casual trawl of his contributions revealed this. It seems to me Sarah was quite correct in what she has done and does not deserve to be treated like this. In the spirit of defend each other, I thought I would raise the matter here, as my intervention on the user's talk page has seemingly failed to produce any real response.

If my suspicions about this account being a sockpuppet of Ottawaman turn out to be unfounded, I will be the first to apologise. Meantime, I propose a community ban of Canuckster, and as speedy as possible a resolution of the sockpuppet question. --Guinnog 08:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree on all counts, my attempts to support Sarah have not worked either, it seems, as he persists... – Chacor 08:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the suggestion of a community ban, as this is blatant trolling. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 08:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, this is harrassment, and it's pretty obvious he's a sock. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of his discourse has been bordering on legal threats. (Throwing around the words "libel" & "slander".) An indef block might be in order. ---J.S ^(T/C) 08:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for informational purposes, a checkuser has been run; a conclusion of sockpuppetry is probable based on the technical evidence. Essjay (Talk) 09:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've indef. blocked him. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think a block would be in order even if he is not a sock. This is just obvious harassment. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think it'd be good to establish concensus for a community-based block/ban, as a failsafe just in case. Hence, I urge people to keep giving input as to the merits of a community ban or block. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 09:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support the block per harrasment reasons. Viridae^Talk 09:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support indef block, clear trolling -- Samir धर्म 09:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this person's behavior shows a resemblence to Hollow Wilerding/Eternal Equinox/Velten: he has some kind of obsession with Michael Ignatieff - he probably thinks that he can somehow "own" that article by edit warring, attacks, etc. Furthermore, Ottawaman claimed to "quit" [53] [54], but since this has now been disproven above, I think it is highly likely that he will (at least attempt to) come back under a new identity and begin this whole cycle over again.

On the other hand, however, I'm not exactly sure if a community ban is necessarily needed at this point. Since I noticed that the vast majority of this person's edits are to Michael Ignatieff, I'd suggest the following: (1) restriction to only one registered account; (2) ban from editing Michael Ignatieff and related articles, and (3) prohibition from interacting with Sarah Ewart & other users he harasses. Scobell302 09:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i could support that, but then there would be no raison d'etre for this person. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support community ban. Durova^Charge! 14:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I would prefer a community ban over restricted editing. Eternal Equinox at least tried to improve articles. Ottawaman, on the other hand, has shown a singular focus on smearing Michael Ignatieff. Some of his accounts have even been used for vandalism (eg [55]). I don't believe his contributions this far justify allowing him to edit at all and I don't think that he will honor any restrictions anyway. Sarah Ewart 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but have contributed to the Ignatieff article for the past while and watched the article closely even longer (I have an interest in human rights and humanitarian law). For the longest time these sockpuppets (Ottawaman / Neutralizer / 64.229.*.* / 67.71.*.* / 70.48.*.* / Etc) often "contributed" badly written POV edits on the article and bullied other editors with accusations of "sanitization" or being "PAID PRO-IGGY ORGANIZERS" when balance was attempted in content. The sockpuppets were easily identified by their editing style: pov plus multiple reverts with capitalized accusations such as "REVERTING PRO-IGGY EDITS!!". Some edits contributed by these puppets were, as Sarah points out, clearly smears, such as the instance where some ridiculous content about "Ignatieff" popping up in the "Yahoo searches" for "pornography" was added[56]; this was not mere vandalism, each of the above sock puppets contributed to the discussion attempting to feign consensus to have the content added. On another occasion, a story was fabricated on Wikinews and used as a source to add content about Ignatieff's private life, including his divorce and children. Outrageously, one editor (Joel Bastedo) who attempted to stop the smear was accused of working on the Ignatieff campaign! [57] This sort of thing continued for months until Sarah had the courage to do something about the abuse and she has apparently suffered accordingly. I commend her for that. This sort of conduct really undermines the credibility and useability of wikipedia; it must be dealt with effectively. I can't see how a simple edit restriction would do the trick. - Finnegans wake 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The above comments do not address the edits actually made by Canuckster at the Ignatieff article; Perhaps the discussion could address these edits which are not disputed as to origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Ignatieff&action=history (cur) (last) 15:15, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 15:01, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 14:59, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 14:46, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 14:46, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) m (added another citation) (cur) (last) 14:35, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 14:34, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 14:19, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) m (→The lesser evil approach) (cur) (last) 14:18, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→The lesser evil approach)

I personally think they are very well cited additions to the article. TomBlackstonez 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And I smell a sock. – Chacor 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

and I smell ad hominem deflection by a biased [58]party. 65.95.150.180 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages used for password swapping??

I just deleted the talk page of LilSWIMMY lol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (see Special:Undelete/User_talk:LilSWIMMY_lol), which only consisted of notes like "My friend just got on her username is Cindy1234 and her password is 123456abc". The user has no other contributions. This is obviously not what talk pages are for, but is there anything else we can or need to do here other than delete this page? Kusma (討論) 22:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, assuming you haven't already, you could block all of the accounts listed under the "Public accounts" section of the blocking policy. —bbatsell ¿? 23:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I could only log in to one of the claimed accounts and have blocked it. Kusma (討論) 09:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You logged into someone else's account? I know you did it to test whether the password was real, but still, that feels wrong somehow... Carcharoth 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I got punished by an autoblock on myself. Anyway, blocking without even attempting to log in to verify that it is a public account would have been worse, I think. Kusma (討論) 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef Block

I just blocked 70.48.205.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for making legal threats on quite a few user pages, see Special:Contributions/70.48.205.239. Posting this notice for review. --Trödel 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This IP posted on the talkpages of almost all of the active ArbCom members, and I suspect it might be Canuckster himself (or at best, a meatpuppet). Any thoughts? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

IPs should not be blocked indefinitely, unless they're open proxies. I suggest Trödel shortens the block to a week, or something similarly effective but temporary - otherwise somebody else probably will. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty basic—a different person is going to have this IP tomorrow. Where can we put this information in big, glowing letters for the several admins who appear to have little understanding of Internet technology or Wikipedia blocking policy? —Centrx→talk • 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the policy re IP's figured I could always reduce it - and will - just want to get some more feedback first. I know my IP is leased for 6 months, so a 1-3 mo block does not seem to be out of line, IMHO. --Trödel 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Id say a 1 m block would be more than enough to seee if this user is a serios conributor to WP or not--Light current 00:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be a waste of effort on your part and liable to failure. It would make more sense to just block it right the first time. Use whois; most IPs on Wikipedia are dynamic. —Centrx→talk • 01:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, actually, it's pretty basic that a significant number of IPs are statically assigned, or only semi-dynamically (that is, they stay the same for months on end). I've had the same IP address now for months, so if I was anonymously posting all sorts of threats and harassment and you only blocked me for a week, I could easily continue it again the next week. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is Ottawaman/Canuckster/etc. However, he uses dynamic Bell Sympatico IPs and comes straight back with a new IP soon after being blocked. For this reason, I've always tried to use short blocks. I think even a week long block will have collateral damage. Sarah Ewart 00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He can just disconnect his modem and get a new IP, possibly right away. You would need to block 70.48.204.0/22 to be effective. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he just used a completely different IP address, so we may have a problem here, or he may be utilizing open proxies now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me more like false accusations and uncivil behavior by Ewart followed by abusive cover-up activities by her supporters. Why were her false accusations archived and protected? Even she herself could not provide evidence to support them? TomBlackstonez 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,here's the personal attack comments that were archived.

"I must say that I agree with Guinnog that the downside completely outweighs any minor positive contributions Ottawaman might make. If he was going to become a productive editor, I think he would have done so by now. He has shown here and on Wikinews that he has no interest in following policies and simply has an anti-American, anti-Ignatieff agenda to push. An interesting block log [104] and edits from the same ISP [105]. Sarah Ewart 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - - I'd like to note that the vicious attack above was entirely unprovoked. Sarah said she would gladly unprotect my user space. She did not. She said above "And I'm warning him now that this is his last chance"; now she says she does not want to give another chance; she accuses me of having an "anti-american agenda" which is a blatant lie and she makes all kinds of other crazy accusations. The anti-american slur is particularly libelous and, these days, a potentially harmful accusation to make. I did say that Ignatieff's allegiance to the US should have been in his article but at most I am anti-Bush foreign policy. Perhaps Sarah thinks Cindy Sheehan is also anti-american. It is shameful that here on Wikipedia I am having to defend my political opinions in this way. I came to this noticeboard to ask for help with the userspace protection issue. That has been settled by an admin. who unprotected the space. I then tried to remove this incident report that I placed here but was told I could not. If Sarah (or anyone else) wishes to be making ongoing and false accusations I am willing to engage in dispute resolution but I do not think this is the place. In the meantime I hope her supporters here will encourage her not to continue with the libelous namecalling. Canuckster 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - I didn't unprotect your pages because you didn't actually ask me until after I had gone offline and when I came back and received your message, it had already been done. I never said I would "gladly unprotect [your] user space". What I said was I would have if you'd bothered to ask me. Please stop twisting my words. As for whether you get a second chance, I'm leaving that in the hands of the community. As for you being anti-American, the evidence is in your edits. Sarah Ewart 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - Please show us my "anti-american" edits. I'll call that bluff. Canuckster 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - I've no interest whatsoever in what you want and I'm not going to be trawling through the contribs of your various accounts for diffs. You've wasted more than enough time over the last six months and I'm not wasting anymore on you. The edits made by your various sock puppets have indicated a deliberate intent to smear Michael Ignatieff and a decided anti-American slant, something which contributed to you being community banned from Wikinews. Sarah Ewart 03:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)" TomBlackstonez 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from putting "new user" on his userpage and talkpage, these are User:TomBlackstonez's first edits. Newyorkbrad 19:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, pointed that out above. Bloody socks. – Chacor 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

ad hominem deflections aren't helpful to the discussion guys. 65.95.150.180 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BITE Case

Recently a user was indef blocked due to a problem with his name. I feel that it was completely uncalled for and a violation of WP:BITE. Quite clearly the user had no clue what a talk page was all about, he only once made an attempt to use one, nor did he know what the edit summary was; but was a very good contributor in a specialised topic. The actual allegations that his username is offencive should be reexamined as it was clearly the fruit of over cautiousness. Please unblock and find some way to apologise so he knows about it. Thanks frummer 06:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This user's last edit was 2 Dec, and many editors talked to him/her about changing the username before the block occurred. Email is not enabled, and there hasn't been a message on the talk page in over two weeks. In all probability, the editor moved on to a new account. It's unfortunate that a great contributor was blocked, but I don't see anything to indictate the editor was bitten.--Kchase T 07:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, the above editor has persuaded me to leave this offer to unblock on Jewish's talk page, conditioned, of course, on him going to WP:CHU with me to get this all settled.--Kchase T 09:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why this username is deemed offensive though? It simply denotes that the user is jewish...? Viridae^Talk 09:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. I mentioned ANI thread to the blocking admin. I have no opinion and no problem w/ anyone unblocking User:Jewish, though please look further down this tread, first.--Kchase T 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:U prohibits usernames dealing with "religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs". I would assume that it was blocked under this section. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That prohibition is because wearing such a username might be taken as claiming to be "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which would be blasphemous to their believers. Claiming to be "Jewish", "Muslim", "Christian", or "Buddhist" does not commit such an offense, and should not be prohibited for that reason. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:54, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Please note that some other usernames beginning with "Jewish" — JewishKaveman, Jewishgenius, Jewisharific — have been used and remain unblocked. Other such names have existed, some offensive (due to the rest of the name), some not. Why is the single unattached word "Jewish" now so controversial? Are all these "Christian" usernames blocked, or all these "Muslim" usernames, or all these "Buddhist" usernames? There's no username block on User:Christian or User:Muslim or User:Buddhist. So what's wrong with being User:Jewish? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 20:27, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC).

This brings up an issue which I believe needs addressing. Blocking users with usernames that could be deemed offensive (excluding trolls) happens very frequently and at the judgement of of the blocking administrator only. I believe (and I have been guilty of this myself) that far too often, a potentially useful user with a username that is deemed mildy offensive is blocked without warning within seconds or miutes of registering. Indeed, with some of the obscurely offensive usernames that get reported to WP:AIV sometimes, it seems like some of those trawling the user creation log are playing a giant game of whac-a-mole. I propose that except in the case of usernames that are deemed wildly offensive (including but not limited to swearing etc), the user with the offending name has a politely worded template added to their talk page with a request to change their username (or just get a new account) and newbie friendly directions on how to do so. This template should also have a category in it or some way for a bot to organise them so any usernames that have not been changed after a set period (say a week) get dumped to another page where they can be blocked by admins and the {{usernameblock}} template be added. If this proposal gains some momentum/support, I ask that someone with skills mock up an appropriate template to fit the above. It would also be good to approach one or more of the bot owners with bots that currently complete tasks similar to that which I have outlined and ask them if they would be willing to add this task to their bot. (once again - none come to mind, but I am sure someone will think of some)

To expand on the "whats deemed offensive" issue. We need to establish some sort of consensus as to how far we take the potentially offensive boundaries. Wikipedia is not censored, so it could be argued that outside of the troll accounts like Christians are fags (talk · contribs), no good faith account that doesnt violate the other WP:USERNAME rules like non-commercial or non-latin characters (for example) should be blocked for having an offensive username, even if they are encouraged to change it and don't. However as current policy precludes "Inflammatory usernames" we need to work out some sort of system to determine what exactly is inflamatroy and what is being over-sensitive or rigidly enforcing the rules for no good purpose. Viridae^Talk 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I second this. The indef-blocks with no prior warning have a bite-like effect and are unnecessary in most cases. I'd also extend that to other criteria such as the non-Latin characters one (that rule will need to be reviewed soon anyway, once we have wikimedia-wide single usernames). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Any figures on the "very frequently"? Last time I did any looking into this the number of blocks based on username over a 24 hour period was less then 1% of all accounts created. I didn't look further to exclude the very obviously offensive, but I would guess that the borderline cases were a small fraction of that. --pgk 10:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the BITE issue; WP:USERNAME already says but should be emphasized: Co-operative contributors should normally just be made aware of our policy via a post on their talk page. Voluntary changes (via Wikipedia:Changing username) are preferred: users from other countries and/or age groups may make mistakes about choosing names -- immediate blocking or listing on RfC could scare off new users acting in good faith. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-18 10:11Z

Not sure I entirely agree, without reference to this precise case: Immediately reverting a new users edits may scare someone off, a bite like effect, if that edit is unsourced rumour in a BLP situation it is exactly the right thing to do, similarly a truly inappropriate (offensive, confusing etc. etc.) is still inappropriate no matter who owns it or how long it has been created gor. As with WP:AGF, WP:BITE isn't a call to look the other way. To my mind immedidate (i.e. point of creation) blocking in many cases is preferable to blocking after an edit or two, provided the situation is explained and creation of a new username simple, then it isn't the rather emotive "Biting", but good housekeeping. --pgk 10:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think immediate blocking to be in order, because I think it quite probable that a user so encumbered upon his initial attempt to contribute (under an account) to the project will not readily appreciate why his account has been blocked and will be unlikely to return. Except in such cases as a username is plainly inflammatory and disruptive (e.g., User:Jewish people suck ass, as against User:Jewish), it is, I imagine, as Viridae and Quarl seem to suggest, appropriate that we instead welcome the user and suggest concomitantly that his editing might go more smoothy were he to change his username. If an editor whose username is troublesome is indeed here to disrupt or in any event to contribute other-than-constructively, such tendency will be borne out in his reply to such a suggestion or in his editing, and we ought not to risk the loss a prospectively good contributor because we apprehend some nebulous tendency to disrupt in his name and (as sometimes seems to happen) impute to him malign motive. If an editor contributes constructively but is particularly unwilling to change his username and if such username has seemed to be disruptive or inflammatory, surely an WP:RfC#NAME should be in order, and surely a constructive editor will straightaway change his username upon the community's expressing a preference for such change. Joe 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"upon his initial attempt to contribute (under an account) ..." and how is that not true of reverting the unsubstantiated, potentially libelous rumour they add to an article? WP:BITE isn't a permission for new accounts to ignore policy, or a call for us to walk on egg shells. Yes we need to be sensible and proportionate, but lets not lose sight of the project and its purpose. There are 1000s upon 1000s of usernames created everyday. A small amount of those get blocked as blatantly inappropriate usernames a very small number of those are arguably borderline cases. My own experience has been those I've queried a blocking of (those which seem at worst borderline), often the blocking admin has quite a different take on the name to my view and so doesn't even see it as borderline. Context of creation is also important, we have for instance one user who mass creates socks created relating to WTC, anti-jewish etc. etc. so a name which normally may be borderline might be merely caught up in the middle of such a session etc. --pgk 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There actually is a User:Christian, which doesn't seem to have caused any controversy. (Of course, in that case "Christian" actually does seem to be the guy's real first name.) If "Christian" is acceptable as a username, why not "Jewish"? I don't really like the whole "offensive usernames" business where admins take it on themselves to decide the inherently subjective issue of which usernames might possibly offend somebody. *Dan T.* 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between Jewish and Christian is that Christian is a first name, and that this user Christian probably had no religious connotations with his name. What I wonder though is what will happen to a User:Osama, which is a common Arab name. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm all for blocking users based on usernames that are offensive (e.g., User:Nigger, even though it might be a self-identified black, User:God, or even User:Osama), perhaps we ought to give a rehash on whether we want to block any user with a religious part of their username unless the editor is patently editing against that perceived bias. For example, I believe User:Allah was around to push anti-Muslim propaganda. But if User:Jewish is indeed Jewish, then he/she should not be blocked. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree w/ Pat here. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I did not comment on this particular block of this particular account, but merely on the semantical perspective of a point raised by Dtobias. I have no opinion on this particular issue. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, I did a brief survey once and found some interesting history behind some well-known names: User:Carcharoth#Test. Carcharoth 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what we need to do is place the "Your username must not contain" section of the signup page above the form for entering username/password and add a message saying that accounts with inappropriate usernames will be blocked indefinitely without warning. (Looks like that's one for the devs). As it stands, it barely shows up on the 1024 * 768 screen without scrolling. MER-C 10:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in case anyone's interested, the user has since gotten a new account, Kahanechai (talk · contribs). I am guessing that they're the same person based on the contributions. Khoikhoi 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)n

I was among those who asked him to consider changing the name, but I didn't expect it would end up like this. BTW, Kach and Kahane Chai is an unacceptable choice because it is a terrorist org. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for. ... You may get it." – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:53, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).

What's that supposed to mean? Someone is knowingly making a clearly bad choice on their own will but you seem to assign blame onto others. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

When i first left a note to this user re his username back in May i did so not because of the word Jewish but because that would have caused trouble to NPOV (i.e. Names that give the impression that you intend to cause trouble). Since that time, User:Jewish has been editing w/o bias. I don't see why he got to be blocked. We had User:Islamist who was blocked not because of his username but because of being a sockpuppet. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with username User:Jewish: IMHO (my POV!) it may look like the user speaks for all Jews. JewishKaveman is free of this impression. And Christian is a regular name of course. It seems we are given a choice between confusing or offensive username. It does not have to be either. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

it may look like the user speaks for all Jews. to who exactly? This isn't the Simple English Wiki. If wiki is to make assumptions about reader intelligence at that level, we'd get nothing done. I think what is really at the core here is certain activist admins busily spreading their political views around Wiki have a problem with anyone writing anything which might potentially disagree with their party line, yet appearing to come from the same community. This is a straight up grossly irresponsible abuse of admin powers, and stinks of special treatment.89.100.52.30 19:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Starblindy

I was a user with a history of great edits that I thought were helping and constructing wikipedia. A short message to starblind saying I thought a block of a previous user might of been a bit harsh and he decides block me without reason. I then post a message on his talk page and he refuses to respond. I want my good history and credibility back. I won't ever edit wikipedia again unless I get my user back. I can't have whenever I make progress being blocked as a sockpuppet. It just is counter productive. If I didn't know better I would think starblind is trying to stop anyone with apposing views gain a reputation to become administrator. User:Starblindy. Please respond with your comments.--12.16.126.98 13:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that you only have twenty edits. Your block was in accordance with our username policy. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note 2 of those were creating articles. I hold to the point that no one has ever confused we with anyone else. Am I expected to go through every user and try and come up with an original username. Also he sights me being a sockpuppet of Enknowed or something. Is asking him for an explanation of why he blocked a user all of a sudden proof of being a sockpuppet with no other evidence.--12.16.126.98 13:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat that you were quite rightly blocked. Your username is way too similar to that of User:Starblind. Could you please explain your relation to Enknowed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He is mentioned in your block log. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All i see is that the block was unjust. There is no proof of sockpuppeting and no prior notice at User:Starblindy re his username. Has anyone informed this user about all that? It is the blocking admin User:Starblind who should answer those questions. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A notice on Starblindy's talk page about the username might indeed have been appropriate, but that does not make the block unjust. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A new user with a name confusingly similar to an admin shows up out of the blue at the admin's talk page to complain about the block of a sock puppeteer. I may be missing something here, but why is that an unjust block? Starblindy, if you are reading this and honestly want to contribute in a positive way, just make a new name and get on with life. BigDT 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and having a look at this user contribs nothing tells us that he hasn't been contributing in a positive way. Again, nobody told him anything about his username. So how come the blocking admin got to the conclusion that this user is a sock of User:Enknowed (compare those w/ Enknowed's contribs)? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So if User:FayssalFy or User:Szvesty, who has 20 contributions posts on your page a complaint about the block of a known sockpuppet, you wouldn't block him? BigDT 14:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Although ... on further review, the Enknowed socks from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Nobby Norton were all from Australia IPs. User:12.16.126.98 is from Massachusetts. So I don't know ... politely informing the user along with the block that he should choose a new name would have probably been a good idea ... but it's distinctly possible given the different contributions and locations, he is not a sock. BigDT 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a position to tell, but I assume that this message might have something to do with the block. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see guys. This edit is the only one that tells alot. I didn't see it actually. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look I just wanted to say that it is painfully obvious to all that have looked into it that I am not a sockpuppet of Enknowed. It isn't fair to damage my reputation by making random claims. I asked a question (I'm sorry I didn't make this clear above) about a certain user and I was fairly pleased with starblind's response. However that in no way should make me a sockpuppet that get's no explanation. A nice a message somewhere saying that it was because my username and had nothing to do with my edits, would of been nice and much well recieved. It seems to me that my reputation has been damaged. Is this what administrators do?? You ask a question about one of their blocks give a nice answer then block you almost immediatly as a sockpuppet of the user you were asking about?? It points out my comment to starblind in the first place, he blocked Enknowed for being a sockpuppet too. It seems if you don't love a user it is easy enough to claim he is a sockpuppet. I remember reading about the case, and starblind or another user saying that though the edits were close together after Silentbob got blocked and thus his ip that he could of run down to the library and started vandelising wikipedia around 30 mins after his block (this dosn't seem probable too me). It just seems to me that it has become way too easy for admins to say someone is a sockpuppet of another user without any evidence, except weak links. This was my complaint in the first place. Block a user for reasons not for weak sockpuppet links!!! Instead of starblind getting this point, instead he blocks me for (in part) being a sockpuppet. Well I am sorry for trying to make a constructive point about wikipedia. BTW look at his response to my comment he then gives a nice response without any indication of the impending block on me. It just dosn't seem fair, and those 20 edits were fairly big (including 2 article creations) and I don't really feel like wasting more of my time creating a reputation. This may be the end of the line for this user.--151.204.56.2 23:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have calmed down a bit though I still believe I was wrongly done by, but I have a new humorus username TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy I hope this doesn't upset anyone and I will recieve no more problems from administrators. If I am blocked again for being a sockpuppet of Enknowed as I will be making very obvious that I am the same user as starblindy, who according to starblind is the same user as Enknowed, well lets just saying stuff will happen. If there is a problem with this username POST A COMMENT WHILE BLOCKING OR BEFORE SAYING WHY!!!--TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for the User name. Choose one which doesn't include another User's ID. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, there exist User:A, User:B, User:C, User:D, ... and User:Z. If no other username can be chosen which includes any of these, we'll have a very limited set of editors. The above user has just been given an impossible task. Incidentally, based on three of those names, you should also (to be utterly consistent) block and change your username.... though to what you could change it, I can't guess. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 08:11, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps this list will make the point more clearly. How many variations of "Zoe" are there? Should all the other "Zoe"s be blocked because their IDs include yours? Should your ID be blocked because it includes "Zo" (#1 in the list), adding only the single letter "e" at the end? By the rule you enunciated, yes. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:17, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Near the close of the last post by 'TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy', the statement is made "If I am blocked again for being a sockpuppet...well lets just saying stuff will happen". This is definitely a threat and should be taken into account in dealing with this editor, in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the "stuff" that "will happen", doesn't it? The sun will rise in the east? Not much threat in that. Starblindy will start behaving himself, or simply go away forever? Not much threat there either. If TWFKAS were to spend the rest of his life in a catatonic trance and do nothing whatsoever, stuff would still happen. I state this with no threatening intention at all, in case that needs to be said.

What I consider a more serious issue is whether someone who can't distinguish between "Formerly" and "Formally" is really up to editing an encyclopedia. But there doesn't seem to be any policy about literacy requirements. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:17, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Reset Indent.

I wonder how many of us remember the process to create an account. if our first choice of name fails, and only then, we get this message:

BEGINS Registering a free account takes only a few seconds, and has many benefits.

Simply choose a username and password and click "create account". All usernames must begin with a capitalized letter. Do not use an e-mail address as your username. You are not required to share your e-mail address, but providing one is the only way to retrieve a forgotten password. Your username must not contain:

   * offensive, confusing, random or unreadable text or characters
   * names of celebrities, notable world figures or events, or known Wikipedians
   * words like "bot" or "script" that refer to automated editing processes
   * titles like "admin" or "sysop" that imply authority on Wikipedia 

For more information about which usernames are acceptable on Wikipedia, see our username policy.

Notes:

   * You must have cookies enabled to log in to Wikipedia.
   * Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; see the pros and cons of using your real name.
   * Do not use your e-mail address as your username. It will be very visible, and make you a target of spammers.
   * Find out more about logging in. 

ENDS

The salient part is names of celebrities, notable world figures or events, or known Wikipedians. I suppose that means that one should not then choose a prefix or a suffix of one's rejected user name, but it really ios not clear. We have plenty of registered unknown wilipedians. I place myself in that category!

If the user name registers without a hitch I assume no such message appears.

So, ignoring totally any accusations of sock puppetry for Star... what shoudl he have done in the first case, assuming his registration went through straight away? Under those circumstances a block (etc) does seem unfair and cliquey.

If we ignore the individual for the moment, surely the process is incorrect. My user ID, for example. Timtrent. What if someome registers Timothytrent? Fiddle Faddle 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We should never ignore the individual. I can't think of names off the top of my head (someone can help me out here), but we've had a number of editors with very similar usernames over the years. In general, where those editors have both been useful, productive members of the community, we leave them be. Coincidences happen, after all.

On the other hand, in this case, Starblindy went and posted a critical message on Starblind's talk page as his eleventh edit. Even if this were an innocent coincidence, it would be darned confusing to have Starblind and Starblindy arguing back and forth. There's a near-infinite number of possible usernames out there; it's not that difficult to choose another one. (And to choose one that isn't making a point.)

Let me turn your last question around. How would you feel if a new editor named Timothytrent showed up at your user page and started criticising your actions? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm. We got 4 problems here Fiddle. First, User:Starblindy was blocked for suckpuppeting. Second, this same user commented on User:Starblind (can't you see the similarities between the two usernames? Can you find that normal? Starblindy asking Starblind about a block of another user?). Third, after changing his username to User:TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy he was clearly illustrating a point. Fourth, in this thread, he made threats and has refused to change his username so far. I explained to him many time that there are TRILLIONS. We are still being patient though waiting for his cooperation. I hope it is clear. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important, in this and any case, to ignore the user until there is a true reason to investigate properly and with the correct tools. The reason is because the user's actions and the user's name must be considered different things. Thus the user's actions dictate whether a block (etc) is appropriate, and the user's name identifies that user as a unique editor unless proven otherwise.

Taking the question about a user with a similar id to mine arriving at my talk page, or anywhere I have edited, the first reaction is mild perplexity. The correct next reaction is the assumption of good faith.

There is nothing to stop me from questioning that user politely, and nothing to stop me from asking fellow editors for their thoughts, but, unless and until proven otherwise, I believe that editor has the right to an id similar to mine. I must assukme, because those are the guidelines withun which we work, that there was no malicious intent. That other editor has as much right to question me and my actions as I have to question them and their actions.

I would not exaclty "like" another editor to exist who might seem to be me, but my likes and dislikes must have nothing to do with this. While this all sounds very altruistic, I should point out that it is. Wikipedia is based on altruism and trust until the trust is betrayed. Fiddle Faddle 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the only one defending his case at first. This means that WP:AGF was in action. I don't know if you had read the thread below already. What should be done now in your opinion? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read the thread in detail, yes. I see that there are issues, but cannot be clear if they were caused by assumption, or are real. I am not an admin and do not have access to the admin toolset.

I am concerned that the admin who made the initial block is the one with a similar username. I am not accusing that admin of anything, please let us be clear on that. I simply see it as not best practice to block yourself someone with whom you are in disgareement. My first thoughts were I that admin, would be to ask my fellow admins for a review of my actions, and present my reasons.

The remainder hangs upon that review. I believe until proven otherwise, that the user must be considered innocent and good faith assumed. Thus, if the block is rescinded, all else must go as well. That block should be viewed as a causative element to the rest of the behaviour by the user. I agree that this behaviour was not of the best, but I can also see that they coudl feel agrieved at an unjustified block.

If the initial block is upheld then the user's behaviour should be examined, as should the subsequent block on the humorous user name. That block seemed to me to be rather hastier than desirable. It was humour, rather than malice if we assume good faith.

From a non admin's perspective this user does not appear to be a sock puppet. Assuming good faith can be hard when there is a user of few edits who makes a complaint to an admin about a sock puppetry blocking. But we should also look atthe quality of that user's edits (I have not done so) as well as the quantity.

When things blow up like this it is important to be seen to be even handed and open minded. This means that, whiel actions must be taken fast to protect wikipedia from an assumed malicious user, those actions must be open to scrutiny and documented well. These look less than well documented, and more like a battle in which the user is the underdog. Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is worth bearing in mind that choosing a username is an action. That username wasn't given to him by his parents at birth; it was a deliberate choice made by this person. Coupled with some of his other behaviour, it is difficult to sustain any further assumption of good faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but often usernames are fashioned from experiences and interests without regard to the context in which they are being used; for instance, someone who really really liked Tom Jones music might want 'LoveTJMusic' as a username - it's not fate, but it's influenced by things so outside the context of Wikipedia that it might as well be considered fate in some cases. Nonetheless, it is a choice and inflexibility flexibility on the part of an editor in altering a username something that should be expected of a good-faith contributor. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not disgaree with you, and yet I still see separate compartments here. A username is a username. It is a unique key valu einthe database and distinguishes one person from another. It may not be desirable that his user is is one character different from another user, but it is not "unlawful"

The other actions must be considered as other actions. As they show up here, in this page, silly impotent posturing threat or not, they do not look to me to be blockable offences. Fiddle Faddle 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I swear this will be the last thing I'll say on the subject: in regards to impartiality, if Starblindy registers a new name XOPOPOREHRITRIX and three months down the line finds XOPOPOREHRITRIXTER has registered an account and who contacts XOPOPOREHRITRIX in XOPOPOREHRITRIXTER's 5th edit to make a comment about a user that it is unlikely XOPOPOREHRITRIXTER (being a new user) would have had contact with I will do my utmost as a wikipedia administrator to protect XOPOPOREHRITRIX from impersonation. Cheers. Syrthiss 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

the user ID is a key to the database. The edit histories etc are different. If in stead the user used a nickname to look "the same as another user, that would be true impersonation. Let is say I altered "Fiddle faddle" to show up as "Syrthiss", and started to post where you post and to look as like you as I can. That is impersonation. Fiddle Faddle 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That would also be impersonation. As would if I piped my signature to Fiddle Faddla and posted to articles you edited. AGF is a very very good thing, and its noble that you can continue to AGF in Starblindy / TWFKAS...but AGF isn't intended to be Assume Good Faith Beyond A Preponderance Of Suspicious Circumstances (AGFBAPSC). Syrthiss 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Noble? No. Pragmatic. Were I an admin I imagine fondly that I would have tools to investigate a suspicious circumstance which I would investigate while assuming good faith (in other words, silently) until I reached a conclusion (either no action and remain silent, or action and rationale for action). That is fair and reasonable. The circumstances are, at best, unusual. But I would also want to make the work I had done totally transparent when and if I chose to take blocking or banning action. The respinsibilities of an admin are far greater than any apparent priviliges, and they are to show beyond doubt that their actions are like Caesar's wife is meant to be. I am making no slurs, casting no aspersions; this comment is for all who are admins whether part of this mini saga or not. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle. I don't know why neither you nor the user in question could consult Wikipedia:RFCU. This is time consuming. You are arguing and repeating ourselves for a long time now. Being blocked or not, having User:Starblind and User:Starblindy editing both wikipedia or arguing Vs eachother. It's COMMON SENSE! Now, is User:Starblindy's willing to change his username or not? If yes, welcome. If not there nothing we can do! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is simple. I find it strange that the guidelines are not applied with uniformity. But, since you know that I will leave the topic alone. Please don't do the capital letters thing. It is not common sense one way or the other, and using capitals does not make it so. Please do not take lack of a further reply as agreeing with you, I have said my piece and have not seen any reason to alter my thinking. I think the user behaved in a foolish manner, but that is the sole conclusion I can draw from what is in front of me. I understand your very human reaction to the behaviour, but that very humanity is a weakness when dissecting an issue like this. Fiddle Faddle 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the caps but it's common sense and that's been argued by to all admins involved. I don't see why we should let this user edit w/ an account so similar to another user and especially that he doesn't want to cooperate. Wikipedia needs people who are willing to do compromises and not a user who wants to illustrate a point. The compromise offered from our part is that he still can edit w/ another username regardless of his prior indef block. That's a compromise Fiddle. Are we looking for a solution? Yes. So that's the one. The ball is in his camp. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Need an outside opinion on User:Miracleimpulse

After inserting images that have continually been removed per consensus and having them removed yet again, User:Miracleimpulse posted this little gem on his talk page. Beyond the fact that this appears to be a thinly veiled personal attack against everyone who has reverted or argued against him (he thinks we are all "industry spin doctors"), it also appears the continually escallating blocks he's accrued for disruption and personal attacks have had no effect. per WP:AGF I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt, but at this point it appears he is pretty committed to continuting to be disruptive and attempt to insert his own original research into articles. So my question is, does this merit an Arbcom or is there another avenue that should be pursued? Based on his attitude I'm not sure a User RfC would have any effect at all.--Isotope23 14:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are absolutely right, Miracleimpulse is trolling, I removed the comment as being utterly unhelpful to anyone (least of all Miracleimpulse). Guy (Help!) 14:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll wait and see if your comment has any effect on him at all. If this continues I'm going to open an Arbcom.--Isotope23 14:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• And I will be right there with you. Enough is enough. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have ocassionally seen the arbitrators decline to review "righteous community bans" (I think "righteous" is Fred's terminology.) Do we really need to bother them about this? (Or maybe we want to toss a softball so the newbies can get some batting practice.) Thatcher131 15:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Those interested may also look at Talk:American Greetings and Talk:Hallmark Cards for issues involving this user, as well as several prior threads on this board. Newyorkbrad 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My impression from the IfD circus was that Miracleimpulse already had an ArbCom case [59] that was being re-opened. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that was a RfM I had originally requested on the Sweetest Day article (after a couple failed RfCs) that was going to be reopened by the mediator, but was closed when User:Miracleimpulse was blocked for the IfD disruption. The original mediation ended in what appeared to be a consensus; just not a consensus that User:Miracleimpulse agreed with. Re-opening the MfD at this point wouldn't be helpful because this has gone well beyond a content dispute.--Isotope23 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support an indef block. This Single Purpose Account has been nothing but disruptive. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for some time with interest. I want to point out some things I've noticed.

1. I've noticed multiple "NPOV" disputes on this article. I need someone to explain to me how factual information, photographs, and related newspaper articles going as far back as 1921 can have a "point of view" attached to them. If the facts about a specific issue are condemning, then they are condemning. It IS NOT a point of view issue just because someone pointed it out. Point of view as it relates to photos and newspaper articles from eighty years ago is not relative, as the photographers and journalists responsible for the photos and articles are not currently editing Wikipedia.

2. There were multiple complaints about the quality of some of the uploaded images. I noticed that the images were replaced with higher resolution scans as requested by multiple users, and subsequently deleted without a trace or a debate. Can someone explain?

3. Certain users on here have entirely too much time on their hands. Edits get reverted sometimes within MINUTES of their occurance. It does, in fact, makes someone wonder if there are people on wikipedia who do this for a living. Who exactly sits in front of their computer and mashes f5 while looking at an article about such a seemingly insignificant holiday? People with stake in said holiday, thats who.

4. User: Miracleimpulse's information seems completely factual. I don't understand why factual and highly relevant information would be removed from the supported topic in an encyclopedia article. Is it really possible to have "too much" information about something? He seems to be the only supporter of facts editing this article. I haven't yet witnessed a single person disputing his content, only his format. I see multiple users supporting the removal of content, and only one supporting the addition of content. Why? There is absolutely no reason to delete the content unless you have something to suppress. Suppression of information is not permitted on Wikipedia. A small group of editors is talking about arbcom-ing someone for posting facts. It's not right, and its not the spirit of free information upon which Wikipedia is based. Stop focusing on the syntax and format and start focusing on the information in question.

What is going on here?

68.60.17.31 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, this exact same message was posted to Talk: Sweetest Day by Meisterchef (talk · contribs) [60]. This was Meister's only edit. The IP who posted here only has one other edit from in September [61], which was to correct a spelling error by Eyetomhas (talk · contribs), who's only edit was also in support of Miracleimpulse. Not sure if these are socks, but Miracleimpulse does have a known history of using multiple account on other online forums (see unanswered concern expressed at User talk:Miracleimpulse#Multiple accounts?. Not a dog 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:STALK

Would somebody mind asking User:ATren to stop following me around, please? With no previous comments on User talk:MONGO ([62]) it is beyond the bounds of coincidence that he popped up there shortly after I made a comment to MONGO. It's getting a bit tiresome. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the controversy around him, it's not entirely impossible. I have his talk page on my watchlist for some reason. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO has never, as far as I can see, interacted with ATren, anywhere. As far as I can see this passes the duck test :-) Guy (Help!) 15:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You did allude to your dispute with ATren, and he responded about it. I don't see where the stalking comes in there. Frankly, Guy, you've really no grounds of complaint. WP:STALK is about systematic targeting of someone's edits to revert or undermine them. It doesn't ban someone using 'User contributions' and responding to an analysis they disagree with. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that you have any beef with me here, of course... Perhaps I should just make a new thread and ask that all my little friends post their trolls in a separate section, that might be simpler all round. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go again - if you want people to go away and shut up and leave you in peace, the best way is to apologise for your mistake, not to repeatedly call them trolls. Have you read anything on the social psychology of roles? PS: I note you didn't actually contradict me that this is not a case of Wikistalking. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since numerous admins pointed out independently that the mistake was yours, I await your apology with baited breath. Oh, wait, I forgot - Fys is never wrong, even when in a minority of one. How foolish of me to forget. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. Does JzG attack *everybody* that politely disagrees with him? Fresheneesz 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

When he alludes that I am a "POV pushing troll" on another admin's talk page (even though he didn't reference me by name, anyone who saw his vote page knew who he was talking about) I am going to defend myself. Is that stalking? JzG continues to go around complaining to other admins about this "POV pushing troll" who is "stalking him", but he's the one who continues to tell blatant lies about our long-standing dispute. Why is he bringing me up here in a completely unrelated discussion?

See, it's like this: if I don't defend myself against JzG's accusations, then it looks like I'm guilty. Then, fast forward a month when JzG asks MONGO or some other admin for help with the dispute: of course, that admin might remember JzG's unchallenged version of events, and (s)he comes on the scene with a preconceived notion that I'm still "POV pushing" or "stalking JzG". The fact that a respected admin (and friend) has called me a POV pushing troll (and now a stalker) will inevitably color their interactions with me from the start.

For a casual editor like myself, I have no choice but to defend my reputation in the face of groundless accusations from a respected admin.

Now, I've tirelessly documented my reasoning in voting against JzG - I've provided at least a dozen diffs to support my case. JzG has not only repeatedly insisted on his version of events which is entirely contradicted by my evidence, but he has also not provided one single diff to prove his assertions about me. Am I to keep my mouth shut and allow him to spread lies about me (yes, lies - look at my evidence) to all his admin friends? ATren 15:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think my point is proven, thanks. Oh - over there is a small spot which I think might be a blood spatter from the horse, you might go and beat that just in case. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What point? That I watch your edits to make sure you don't spread lies about me? Guilty as charged! ATren 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy, you did refer to ATren (unnecessarily) on Mongo's talk page before ATren showed up there. But ATren could have stayed out of it, and is taking his attempts to contact/irritate/influence you to fairly drastic levels (I note that over half of his last 200 edits are about you in some way). However, Guy, it might be better not to provide any further temptation, and just ignore his provocation, if you view it as that. If he is a troll, don't feed him. If he is not a troll, then ignore it or file an RFC. Proto::► 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proto, I am defending my reputation. He continues to insinuate that I am a POV pushing troll, and I have to defend myself against that completely groundless accusation. What do I do here? Do I ignore it and watch my reputation get tarnished in the admin community, or address it and risk being called a stalker? I choose the latter, but for a casual user like myself trying to defend himself against an admin spreading lies, it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't". You will note that most of my so-called "trolling" and "stalking" is me defending myself when JzG misrepresented the dispute on AN/I or elsewhere. ATren 16:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, serves me right for conducting a breaching experiment :-) Still and all, there is no doubt but that he is following me around, and it's somewhat trying. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that you were trying to bait me? If you want me to stop "following you around", then stop spreading lies about me. ATren 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I forgot that you are allowed to "lie" about me (i.e. present your version of events, which I dispute and have told you so numerous times) but not vice-versa. I'll try to remember that. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, "my version" happens to be the truth, backed by diffs. For example, you continue to deny it was a "mediation", despite the fact that you yourself called it a "mediation process" at the time. This is a blatant, provable lie by you, and it implies that I am lying, which I am not as the diff clearly shows. This is the type of thing I am fighting against - casual remarks by a respected admin that completely misrepresent the dispute and serve to taint my reputation by implying that I'm a POV-pushing, lying troll.

And now, we find out that you've apparently been intentionally baiting me in an attempt to get a stalking charge against me. So not only have you lied to others about this dispute, not only have you called me a POV pusher without a shred of evidence, not only have you accused me of lying when I tried set the record straight, you are now (apparently) intentionally starting threads like this one solely for the purpose of proving that I am a troll or stalker. Now, given all that, I find it very ironic that you are now requesting that I leave you alone. ATren 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How about you both try and leave each other alone? Do it for me, and for Christmas, and, darn it, for the children. Just give it a try, go and do something constructive. Guy, you particularly should know better than to get drawn in. Proto::► 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Love to - just ask him to stop following me around, will you? ;-) Guy (Help!) 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

... and yet, his very next edit is this bucket of lies - I guess he's still conducting his "breaching experiment"? ATren 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, will both of you just stop pointing fingers at each other? This dispute is both ridiculous and childish. Continue on, and you guys won't be "protecting your reputation." You will have none left to protect. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have indicated, I have no choice. As long as JzG continues to call me a POV pushing troll to all his admin friends, I'm forced to defend myself. What can I do? What would you do? This is not a random, nobody editor spouting off on his talk page; this is a well-known and well-liked admin broadcasting "ATren is a POV pushing troll" on AN/I and other admins' talk pages. I can't just ignore it. ATren 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your attempts to protect your honor are only serving to lose it. If I were you, I would just shut up (really). Believe me, I've been spat on enough to know what you are talking about. If you aren't a POV-pushing troll as JzG alleges (and I don't condone said accusations unless they are true), then your record will speak for itself. Your continuous attempts to protect yourself using more and more hysterical (pardon the word) means are only embarrassing yourself. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, if I don't answer the charges, others will just take JzG's word for it. See, I'm in a no-win situation: if I ignore his charges, others take his word at face value and I'm labelled a POV pushing troll; if I don't ignore it, I'm a stalker. Damned if I do, damned if I don't, so I might as well go down defending myself. ATren 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What you two seem to be doing now is engaging into a fight to have the last word, a game you two should have stopped playing in kindergarten. Please, for the sake of God and sanity, STOP. I don't care who called whom names, this "yeah, I did it, but he started it first" farcical exchange stops here. ATren, I don't care whether JzG called you a "POV-pushing troll" or not. Wikipedia editors are smart enough not to buy accusations unless they are proven. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, may I suggest an RfC or other means of dispute resolution? This isn't something that administrators have to deal with, since it is so minor (if not fallacious already). --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As I am engaged in a somewhat similar situation, I can sympathize with the issue here. I'd tend to agree with Physicq210 and also suggest a DR. Nonetheless it seems like a case of 'bad start getting bad': I have seen JzG, who is otherwise an experienced admin who often helps resolve other dispute, be sometimes too quick with labels like 'trolling'. If ATren got annoyed with this - as I once did - well, I can see the situation going downhill. So before a lenghty RfC, may I suggest you 'rollback' all the personal comments between you to the very first time you started interacting, and see if perhaps you both would like to WP:REFACTOR your comments? I'd strongly suggest WP:AGF after a WP:TEA, and try to become friends :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster issue

Big problem here

I had the following pasted on my talk page. If we believe this user or not is up to you guys; perhaps we want to be more cautious, or, instead outright block the user if the sockpuppetry is dead obvious. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart has blocked 4 or more people who work or live at this hospital calling us all sokpuppets? So some of us can't use our user names anymore. Please look at the topics I just tried to contribute to; it looks like my associate, Canuckster, has been railroaded. 67.71.123.25 14:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pat: WP:DFTT. Quite simple imo, let's just ignore them. – Chacor 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't privvy to the previous discussion. Like I said, if it's obvious, WP:DFTT. -Patstuart^talk|edits 15:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster issue is over

He decided that the conflict had,as Chacor said, gone too far with range blocks being employed. He never was banned as a vandal you know; because he never did vandalize..he just wanted to clear his name. But anyway; that's it. There'll be no more contact from him but I really do think you should remove those accusations Sarah made about him having an anti-american agenda. That was really a false statement that should not be in the permanent record. Good bye. Leaf06 04:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube link deletion

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has been removing all links to YouTube (and Google Video) from a large number of sites, despite the utter lack of consensus on WT:EL regarding the validity of YouTube links. In at least the case on Barrington Hall, the link he has removed is claimed, with no contrary evidence, to be on YouTube with the copyright holder's permission.

There needs to be significantly more clarity in the policy, or this sort of thing will continue to happen ad nauseam. As it is, I am tempted to obtain a copy of AWB so I can go reverting all the unjustified deletions. Argyriou (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would resist that temptation. Just my opinion but the gross copyright violations on Youtube render all such links invalid. As I understand it, that policy does have consensus support. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading Links normally to be avoided i understand that YouTube is to be avoided and that Sir Nicholas was being bold in removing it:

• Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content
• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read the multiple screensful of argument on [[Talk:WP:EL]], I see no consensus that YouTube links are automatically invalid. I won't rehash the particulars of the arguments here, but suffice it to say that there is enough legal content on YouTube that anything other than case-by-case examination of each video for copyright and relevancy is an action which does not have support of a community consensus.

YouTube links are not Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content. The guildeline states: It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media. That is exactly what one gets with a YouTube link. Argyriou (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "Direct link" point is not relevant here. We still have the much more relevant copyright problem, of course. --Conti|✉ 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Which, in the case of the Barrington Hall video, Talk:Barrington_Hall#you tube, is not relevant, either. We have an assertion from the copyright holder that the YouTube link is not in violation of copyright, and no evidence from anyone else that the statement is not true. As the content is not hosted on any Wikimedia project, we don't need the ironclad proof we would need for content hosted here, merely enough to create the presumption that we are not contributing to copyright infringement by linking to the YouTube page.

However, there is still a larger policy problem, because there is quite a lot of content on YouTube released by independent filmmakers who would rather have the exposure than the royalties, and we have deletionists and wikilawyers like Sir Nicholas who continue to remove content without checking the links for copyright issues or relevancy. Argyriou (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following has been copied from my talk page. This user has not only assumed bad faith with me by putting a vandalism warning on my talk page; and then goes on to ruleslawyer about WP:EL, when it is clearly stating the obvious. It is obvious that he does not understand the policies and guidelines provided on Wikipedia.

Relevant links –

• User:Dmcdevit/YouTube
• User:Dmcdevit/YouTube links

Barrington Hall

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Barrington Hall. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. See the discussion on the Talk:Barrington Hall page - you are incorrectly interpreting the policy. Argyriou (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kindly review the concerned guideline and revert yourself. Also your warning, to a edit made in good faith came as unwarranted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the YouTube links are not reliable sources as any person with an internet connection can upload any kind of file over their website. Many of the vidoes uploaded are copyrighted by their respective owners and links to those should not be used on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion on Talk:Barrington Hall and [[Talk:WP:EL]]. There is no consensus that it is against policy to link to YouTube videos which are not clearly infringing copyright. That particular video clip is claimed to be allowed to be posted on YouTube, and nobody has offered any evidence that the clip exists on YouTube in violation of copyright. Deletion of a link which does not knowingly violate copyright, which has been discussed at grat length on the talk page, is not a good-faith edit. Neither is wholesale removal of links to YouTube throughout Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? We do not need consensus on Talk:Barrington Hall for deciding if we need to keep YouTube video links on this website. Speaking of WT:EL, the guideline clearly states –

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. – YouTube is not an authority, there is not reliability as anyone can upload new videos, including copyrighted ones. Facilitation of copyright violations is not a choice with Wikipedia. Either link it to the website retaining the copyrights over the video or remove the link to YouTube.

Kindly get yourself familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines of reliable sources and external links and revert yourself. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the videos you delink? In the Barrington Hall case, the video is not some talking head talking about Barrington Hall, it's a video of the actual building; it is by its very nature, a reliable source. The restriction on personal websites, besides being controversial (see the WP:EL talk) is also a guideline to the potential reliability of a link. The guideline is titled "Links normally to be avoided". It does not read "Links always to be avoided". The guideline assumes (not entirely justifiably) that in the "normal" case, most personal web pages are not reliable sources, but it does not ban such links.

If you were removing video links after having examined them, and tagging them as copyright violations or irrelevant to the article, or such, you'd be doing useful work. But if you're just going through articles and automatically removing all YouTube links without checking them, you're vandalising Wikipedia. Please stop. Argyriou (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fys above (and didn't want to miss the chance to say so). I think virtually all of these links should be removed. Any that are to be kept should have their inclusion justified individually. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The particular link in the Barrington Hall webpage has been repeatedly justified on Talk:Barrington Hall, but because of User:Dmcdevit's misguided YouTube deletion project, users like Sir Nicholas will continue to blithely delete every single YouTube link, irregardless of whether it has been justified previously or not. As I stated at the top, the issue is larger than the specific case - having looked at Dmcdevit's page, I think his project ought to be stopped until he can put in some protection against deleting previously justified YouTube links. As it is, he provides the information necessary to allow AWB users to find and delete YouTube links without any protection against removing valid content. Argyriou (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

MOST links on wikipedia to YouTube should be removed. (Yeah, not all... but most). It is not ok to copy a music video, upload it to YouTube and add a link to it from an article. That’s copyright infringement and that’s basically what 9 out of 10 YouTube links on wikipedia are. I haven't seen the Barrington Hall video yet but, I will when I get home so I can respond about that link directly... however, reverting all YouTube link-removals would be disruptive and against numerous policies. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I took a look and don't see the problem with the link. I commented on the talk page of the article; shouldn't we be discussing this there? --NE2 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as reverting all YouTube link removals would be disruptive and against policy, so is mechanically removing all YouTube links without examining the articles or talk pages to check if the link has been justified. Argyriou (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has stated on his talk page

“ Unless the video's copyrights are exclusively owned by YouTube, no – you cannot link to the site. ”

Anyone with such a blatant misunderstanding of WP:EL, WP:COPY, and the DCMA should not be mechanically removing links from Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Or if the user has uploaded it as free-licensed. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither do we entertain unreliable and unverified sources on Wikipedia nor copyrighted videos uploaded by general users of the internet on to that website; which is clearly facilitating copyright violations. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS does not apply to WP:EL. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We have two problems, first we cannot be sure that whoever uploaded the video is actually the person who shot the video, making it so we cannot confirm copyright status. The goal is more then just not being liable, but on building an encyclopedia with content that anyone can use freely. The other problem is blanket rules being applied blindly. Considering some publishers and people have put work on YouTube, to state that everything on it is copyright and can be removed is also false and quite disruptive. Those who decide to take up the task to remove an item need to research it and find out who made it as best they can and if it was put on YouTube as an advertisement etc. If the person is not willing to do this correctly then they should not do it at all. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS does not appy to WP:EL? Is that so, dear sir? I request you to read the guideline carefully. Every guideline and policy is inter-related in one way or other. We are here to build an encyclopedia, which is free-for-all and has free-content. However, linking to copyright violations and unverified research sites like YouTube – damages the reputation of the encyclopedia and makes liable for a legal action by the real holder of the copyright. Neither do we violate copyrights on this website nor do we facilitate blatant copyright violations. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct it does not apply, saying everything is inter connected is like saying anything I post on my talk page has to be cited per WP:CITE. Most external links are not WP:RS if they were they would most likely be sources, wouldnt they? I mean think of all the home pages on BLP articles, fan sites on movie/artist sites etc. So perhaps you need to go read WP:EL, it does not say sites need to be WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Egad. At least conduct a little research before commenting here. From WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided –

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 10:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see a huge problem with the video - it contains a copyrighted music track with no evidence of permission to use it. Also, there is no verifiable information to show that the uploading user is in fact the copyright holder of the footage. This is about as clear cut as you can get - it is a more than probale copyright infringing clip on a site that is reknowned for its availability of such copyright violating clips.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else involved in the YouTube cleanup project, but I review the link in the context of the article. If it looks obvious (like, 10 min clip from The A-Team) then I nuke it(WP:C). If it's redundant to other links, I nuke it(WP:EL). If it's irrelevant to the article(WP:NOT), I nuke it. If it doesn’t provide any new information for the article I nuke it(WP:NOT). If it's being inappropriately relied on as a source, I nuke it(WP:V). If it's not obviously inappropriate, I look closer. I've found very few that are truly legit. The best I can usually get is "likely legit." So I leave... 1/50 usually... and I'm the most liberal of the 4 of us.

Remember: this website is NOT a linkfarm. Our guiding philosophy is to make an encyclopedia. It is our job to make the articles great and include as much relevant information in the article as possible. Adding tons of semi-relevant links to questionable material does not advance our goal and it puts us in bad position legally. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You have repeated this in three places, and are wrongmy mistake - one of the two links has music, and the other does not; I changed the one with to the one without; there is no music or sound at all in the video. Let's take this discussion to the talk page so I don't have to debunk you in multiple places. --NE2 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page. Please can someone else comment on the fact that there is music? I have checked this on several computers now, so it does have apparantly copyright infringing music.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe further discussions are to be continued at Wikipedia talk:External links. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department" ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a talk message for User:Mahlenmahlen who supposedly made the Barrington video, suggesting s/he GFDL the video and upload it to Commons, but that user hasn't logged in for a while so might not see it soon. I think the video is of interest for the article. It documents the subject and it provides a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a featured article (WP:EL). There isn't a serious WP:RS concern since as someone explained, it's a video of the building itself, like a photo of the White House. I didn't notice anyone questioning anything about its content, just that it's hosted in a "ghetto".

I'm not a YT fan but I don't believe there should be any type of project to remove every YT link from Wikipedia blindly, since that's what the spam blacklist is for. There are occasional situations where they're appropriate and the deletion frenzy seems to be a bit much. We import suitably licensed pictures from Flickr etc. all the time without going berserk about verifying the licenses unless we have some reason to think something is amiss. We similarly allow totally anonymous contributors to insert potentially-copyvio text directly into the wiki. We should not link to known copyvios but we are also not in the business of finding every way we can to protect the interests of the MPAA. See: m:avoid copyright paranoia. 67.117.130.181 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This non-music version seems fine. I do remember this one... I looked at it weeks ago. The argument at the time was copy-vio.... and it was. The music in it was a problem. However, this one seems to satisfy all my main conserns. I'll let others argue for/against relevence... thats not realy my main issue. ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no project to remove YouTube links blindly. A bot could be made to do that, but AWB is not a bot, it is a program designed for user oversight. Any editor removing links for it is responsible for what they remove. Having said that, the video in question still has no licensing information, so, while I'm not interested in arguing about it, and while I'm not going to make any reverts myself, I don't mind it being delinked. I'm not going to waste much time on this single link, though. The bigger problem is blatant copyvio like music, TV, and movie clips, of which there are probably still thousands on Wikipedia. Attacking the project to help that is counterproductive, especially for one borderline case. Giving vandalism warnings for it is offensive and uncivil, and will probably get you blocked if you continue. Part of the problem I've noticed is people who respond with an argument like "no one's going to sue us or we're not legally responsible for linking to copyright infringements"; no matter how true this is, it is absolutely opposed to the Wikimedia vision, to create reusable and free (as in speech, not beer) content. Dmcdevit•t 07:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are being willfully obtuse if you believe that "(t)here is no project to remove YouTube links blindly." Editors like Sir Nicholas and others are taking the information you've posted, and removing every link to a YouTube page without checking either the talk pages of the affected articles or the videos being removed.

People like User:J.smith and User:Tom harrison are correct when they say that most YouTube links should be removed. But most is not all, and your project is encouraging people to remove all YouTube links, without any checking. Tom Harrison suggests that each YouTube link requires individual justification, but how is someone running AWB with the regexes you supply supposed to know that there's a talk page with 30k of discussion on why that particular YouTube link has been repeatedly justified?

Ok - I've just answered my own question. Will you, and the people who are part of your YouTube deletion project, honor notices like the one I've placed on Barrington Hall? I've placed it in a way that it's nearly impossible for an editor to miss. Note that I don't agree with Tom Harrison - I think the burden of checking should be on the deleter - but if people in the YouTube Deletion Project are willing to actually stop and notice that there is a history or justification behind a particular YouTube link, I'm willing to accept that it's up to the person linking to YouTube to justify and restore (once!) the link. Argyriou (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, don't expect anyone to heed you once I've given you a warning for incivility and your response is to repeat the very same incivility, and then even come here to point it out. Vandalism is a bad-faith attempt to harm the encyclopedia, not a disagreement over links. Stop it. Dmcdevit•t 04:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...you are way out of line talking to Argyriou that way. First of all, his vandal warning was clearly given in good faith. Bringing the issue here is precisely what he should have done, and also done in good faith, not "pointing out incivility." Moreover, you are not The Arbiter of civility (and I have personally noticed Argyriou to be more civil than I have noticed you to be). Last but not least, it is a gross failure to AGF to decide that you will ignore a reasonable request/refuse to engage in reasonable discussion "as an authority" because of something you have decided someone did in a previous conversation (i.e., if Argyriou had been blocked and returned, that would not be sufficient reason to render any reasonable edit he made "ignorable," now or in the future, as you are well aware.) The fact that the whole YT issue is something in which you are very subjectively over-enagaged makes this much worse, in my opinion. This is the second time I have observed you to be rude and threatening to someone over YT, and I believe that you may be so ill-equipped to objectively assess any situations in which YT is involved that you should recuse yourself from acting as anadmin with regards to YT disagreements. I may file a report. Cindery 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

User:NE2 has revert-warred with established users on Barrington Hall page – [63] and has been blocked for disruption by revert-warring and breach of WP:3RR. The page has been protected for now. However, some users have been misrepresenting User:J.smith words and are saying that this page falls within the ambit of an exception. As far as I can see, the uploader of the work on YouTube has not provided any licensing information, and in case he is the creator of the clip, he has not free-licensed or allowed expressly for use on Wikipedia or other sites. Discussion at Talk:Barrington Hall and WT:EL. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 10:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wait, are you saying the link must be removed because its (presumptive) creator has not free-licensed it? If we are to delete every link to sites whose content is not free-licensed, do we also have to get rid of links to CNN, BBC, New York Times, etc.? Andrew Levine 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hold your horses right there, buddy! CNN, BBC, New York Times *hold* the rights to the content they host on their pages. Either they secure the contents (media files, pictures etc.) by the way of journalism or by providing the appropriate remuneration to the original holder of copyrights. Many of such news agencies have general tie-ups with other news agencies such as Reuters, Associated Press etc. In this way, we are properly accrediting them with their work, hence none of the copyrights are breached. The case is not the same yourself with "YouTube – Broadcast Yourself", any person with an internet connection has the ability to upload any kind of media, without seeking any kind of permission. Although, YouTube discourages uploading copyrighted videos of any kind. Have a look at YouTube's policy on contents here – [64]. I have unblocked User:NE2 because he assumed good faith and wanted to edit other articles. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 12:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Copyright tips from YouTube – [65]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 12:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• But we are talking about a situation where the copyright owner uploads the clip. You said, "in case he is the creator of the clip, he has not free-licensed or allowed expressly for use on Wikipedia or other sites". In other words, if we assume that YouTube user mahlenmahlen is telling the truth when he says he filmed the walls, and that its hosting on YouTube thus violates no copyright law, that somehow the fact that it's not free-licensed means we can't link to it. Andrew Levine 12:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The user Mahlenmahlen must mention on his YouTube page which shows the clip, or on his user page, if YouTube provides one; that he is either free-licensing it or releasing it in the creative-commons. Such assertions that he was the uploader of the file on YouTube cannot be under any terms of reasonability be accepted. The Wikimedia Commons developers and user are considering starting hosting media files such as videos. In case, that is implemented – Mahlenmahlen can upload that file onto the Wikimedia Commons server. Any default on the policies and the copyright laws would then be treated like we treat other kinds of plagiarism. HTH, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 12:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• seems like there's a lot of resistance from contributors to your policy. is there no way we can challenge what we view as overly conservative policies? why not assume good faith w/ the linkers and remove only the links that are proven to be copy vios? u are basically convicting based on the assumption of guilt rather than the assumption of innocence. moving away from the copy vio issues, if u're talking about reliability, all the information from the liquid and glowsticking articles can't be easily verified from published sources b/c they are, by nature, underground activities performed by a smallish group of ppl. the videos linked in those articles is about as concrete evidence as you're going to find as to their existance. all other evidence exists in the form of forum posts on various streetdance websites. why not just go ahead and remove those articles completely since contributors can't find a source that's reliable? the reasons given by User_talk:Spartaz for keeping the liquid videos while removing the glowsticking video is completely arbitrary. Wongba 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nick, there is no reason to believe that Mahlenmahlen is not as he claims the copyright owner of the film. If we followed your logic, we would have to delete nearly every user-made free-licensed photo in Wikipedia, since there is no way to prove that the user actually made the image instead of stealing it. Tell me how these two cases are different:

1. A wire story owned by the AP is hosted on the CNN website, per an agreement between the AP and CNN, and Wikipedia links to it;
2. A video owned by Mahlenmahlen is hosted on the YouTube website, per an agreement between Mahlenmahlen and YouTube, and Wikipedia links to it.

• So since we accept on faith, absent reasonable evidence to the contrary, MahlenMahlen's claim of authorship of the video (just as we accept on faith the claims of authorship on user-made Commons images) and since there is no difference between the two examples above, your proposal is inconsistent. Andrew Levine 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You are still asking for a standard in excess of what the law and Wikipedia policy requires. For links to external content, Wikipedia must not knowingly link to material which is in violation of copyright. To protect Wikipedia from the copyright lawyers, I'm happy with a policy which requires delinking to things which a reasonable person would infer are violations of copyright - major media outlets don't give away their rights, and anything from a major studio or tv network or major record label which appears on YouTube is likely to be copyvio, and any reasonable person would know that. However, there is a large class of "small-time" content producers who are willing to allow free distribution of their content, most of the time because the exposure to people who might give them paid work in the future is worth more than the (probably zero) income they could obtain from their productions marketed on their own. Such content appearing on YouTube is not something which a reasonable person would infer is automatically copyvio, and therefore does not violate the DCMA or Wikipedia policy, until someone reliably asserts that the linked material is copyvio.

In the Barrington case, there is the additional factor that material produced before 1989 is not copyright unless it was properly registered under U.S. law. The particular video is claimed to have been made in 1988, and there is no copyright notice, just a credit. So the video may not even be copyright. Argyriou (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - has anyone considered getting the YouTube uploader to upload the video to Internet Archive? That has verifcation and strict rules that limit copyright infringment, I believe). -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Urgent -- Check Today's FA Manila Metro Rail Transit System

Someone has posted an obscence photo on today's FA and its talk page, as mentioned before on other FA. KP Botany 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If includeonly didn't remove the template from image links, it would be a lot easier to find and fix these. Someone care to file a bug report? I'll vote it up. --NE2 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Still no technical way of preventing this except to protect all templates linked on FAs yet, then? – Chacor 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is - run a checkuser on the account and block the sockpuppets (which I have done). Image uploads don't work for newly registered accounts, so the best way to combat this is to get the accounts before they vandalize. Raul654 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One, that's not a technical solution, and two, that does nothing to stop sleeper socks. The template vandalism to the FA the other day was done by sleeper sock accounts old enough to upload images. So the answer Chacor, is no, not yet. pschemp | talk 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the infamous penis vandal that keeps continuing to add his obscenities around the wiki?? - and I assume, on rotating IPs.

He must be hard to block if he keeps finding new IP ranges to use. Perhaps people could comment out his image with: [[Image:Test.jpg|60px]]<!---[[Image:Penislarge.jpg|60px]]--> so they don't appear in the template. That way, we can at least stop him for now. --SunStar Net^talk 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to just fully protect all relevant templates for the duration of the featured article's presence on the main page? Does anyone have any data about how much legitimate template editing actually occurs then? JoshuaZ 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion I don't think anyone would mind... the question is finding an admin with the initiative to do all the protection/unprotection this would entail. --W.marsh 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I might oppose certain articles being on the main page if I knew I wouldn't be able to improve any of the templates they use while they are there. --NE2 21:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The featured articles review page has a listing of what article is going to be on the main page each day a couple of weeks in advance. If this is an area of interest for you, you can improve the templates for FA's a couple of days before they will be on the main page, which would not only be consistent with stopping the vandalism, but would make sure the most people saw them with the improvements you introduced. :) Newyorkbrad 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If I was an admin, I would probably temporarily protect the templates as [[edit:sysop=move:sysop]] for the duration of the FA, and then unprotect them after it was off the main page. Seems a good enough solution, and would probably stem this 'user' from doing his obscene vandalism. --SunStar Net^talk 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If a category was created and these templates placed into it, and the community agreed, I would work on it a bit in the mornings. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I come across as a little rude about this, but this has been going on for, I think, over a month, and is happening almost daily, and I've seen it must be 7 long drawn out discussions on WP:AN. This is reminding me of the group from Life of Brian where their friend is in a fight to the death, and they decide to set up a committee to investigate. Would someone just protect the lousy templates and run a check user? Most of the templates are the same for every article (e.g., transcludes on transclusions). -Patstuart^talk|edits 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your right, this requires immediate discussion, table a motion! (kidding) HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What was there today was beyond the average penis of the last few weeks. Hoping some kind admin will protect all the templates makes no sense: something has to be done. Sandy (Talk) 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I still don't 'get' what the problem is. Sometimes it sounds like people are complaining about offensive images getting onto the main page itself through an overlooked template... which would seem like it should be easy to prevent by just going through the templates listed when you click 'edit' and protecting each / unprotecting the next day. There can't be too many templates used in those little 'article of the day' blurbs. Other times it sounds like the offensive images are on the featured article itself... which just sounds like normal vandalism that we have always had and handled by reverting, blocking, and protecting the page for short periods if needed. Presumably there has to be more to it, but I've read three of these 'something must be done' threads now and still haven't seen anyone spell out exactly what the problem is. Like... citing the template that was vandalized? The username that did it? Also, why aren't people just reverting this stuff? If a vandal has access to DO it then every user on Wikipedia has access to UNdo it. Each time it seems like multiple people complain about seeing the image... why didn't the first person get rid of it so that the others wouldn't? In short... I don't 'get' it. --CBD 11:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • CBD, in the amount of time you spent writing this post you could have done the research yourself and found out exactly what is going wrong. But since you didn't do it, I'll do it for you. For two weeks now we've had some image vandalism on our featured articles. They place images inside of noincludes in templates used on the articles. This takes awhile to figure out and remove from the article. In the meanwhile, hundreds of people are seeing disgusting and vile images and turning off a good proportion of them from Wikipedia. This is a huge problem, and it isn't nearly your "run-of-the-mill" vandalism. --Cyde Weys 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiEN-l thread. – Chacor 11:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I guess I must type alot faster than you do Cyde... because I'd already spent considerably longer than it took to write that searching for details... as I'd have thought was clear in my original message. Thanks for the info and Chacor for the link. --CBD 12:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting: on today's vandalism (thread below), I mentioned specific templates and users. I guess you didn't read the entire page. Why didn't I do something about it? I did. I notified administrators that vandalism had broken through, and a template had been missed. Sandy (Talk) 13:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• After some searching I found this edit (see, a specific example) which apparently created the vandalism complained about above. This would not have appeared on the Main page and thus must be different than other complaints about vandalism there in another section below. The vandalism to this template was reverted, restored by another username, and reverted again within minutes before the template was protected. Seems like normal 'article of the day' vandal fighting to me except that we actually protected the template and left it that way... which we normally wouldn't do if the vandalism were on the page directly. This page used seven templates, five of which have been protected for a long time, one of which was vandalized, and one of which was (and still is) only semi-protected... but the vandal apparently overlooked. It took me all of a minute to check the protection status of those templates. If people really don't understand how to track vandalism in templates (which doesn't seem the case here as it WAS reverted quickly) then we could easily have protected the handful of templates used on this page. However, there is nothing preventing the same images being placed directly on the page and restored by multiple accounts in the same way. The only 'twist' to this seems to be that it may be a little more difficult to locate the vandalism for people who aren't very familiar with how templates work. If the problem is really as bad as people say (though in this case the offensive image was present for a grand total of 12 minutes and 11 seconds) then temporary protection as 'SOP' seems like an easy enough solution. --CBD 13:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen of this, it is vandalism of templates within templates, and sometimes something involving vandalism involving redirects pointing at templates (I won't go into details in case copycat vandals are reading this thread). Tracking down templates within templates is a bit more time-consuming, and as for the length of time: 12 minutes and 11 seconds is far too long. Huge numbers of people will view the page in that time. I would like to see all vandalism of main page articles reverted within a minute or less. As for specific examples, I have one involving templates on the talk page of the main page: [66], [67] , [68] (note the deceptive edit summaries), which is discussed here. Previous discussions on the main page vandalism (there are lots of these discussion) include this and this. Carcharoth 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

13 minutes? That's hundreds of pageviews, hundreds of people who's first exposure to Wikipedia might have been an extremely offensive page. I kind of like to think we should project a better image to newcomers. The mainpage FA is vandalized on average for 2+ hours of its time on the main page, not even counting template vandalism, which does take a lot longer to fix. --W.marsh 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to revert this vandalism. --NE2 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Geeze, "The username that did it? Also, why aren't people just reverting this stuff?" Like I wouldn't if I could have figured it out? It should be pretty obvious now that with vandal patrols and the like, the reason people aren't just reverting it, like most simply vandalism to the FA, which often gets RV in the same minute it is created, is that it's not simple vandalism. Over the course of this vandal, Wikipedia has probably exposed thousands of potential users to offensive pornography, and these users will warn their friends not to use Wikipedia, to keep their children off of Wikipedia, yet it's been going on for weeks. Wikipedia also needs to apologize on its Main Page for not taking this seriously from day one. KP Botany 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:ALM scientist

User:ALM scientist keeps vandalizing the Holiest sites in Islam article. This user deletes sourced material without any good reason time AND TIME AGAIN! Please help!!!!

16 Dec: [69] 18 Dec: [70] 18 Dec: [71] Chesdovi 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the user about it yet? I see no such attempt on either of your talk pages or the article talk pages, please look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1. A sufi poet Moinuddin Chishti as holiest site [72]
2. That castle in Germany Neuschwanstein Castle as Islam holiest spot [73]
3. Many funny like comments "Jewish soldiers at the Buraq Wall, the third holiest Islamic site in Jerusalem, itself the third holiest city in Islam, being on the third planet in the solar system"[74]
4. Another edit says "Less than 100 meters from the holiest site in Islam, opposite the Grand Mosque in Mecca, is a surprising culinary offering: a Kentucky Fried Chicken fast-food restaurant" [75]
5. Another edit says "Hindi couplets"/poetry as holiest site in Islam [76]. It also say a poet Amir Khusro as holiest site in Islam.
6. Pseudoperipteral as Islam holiest site [77]

All of the above were your additions and i left you the last warning on your talkpage and now you are here trolling and lying? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all the sites listed above, except one, are legitimate. I added this material and ALM just deletes what he doesn't like. He also led the campaign for the pages deletion, totally unacceptable! I will take HighInBC's advice, and if he offends another time I will ask that he be blocked. Chesdovi 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please follow HighInBC's advice and stop this edit warring. Also, please refrain from adding nonsense next time as you are an established editor. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It was my response the ALM's "trolling". At least Thestick found it humorous. Chesdovi 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm! Do you understand what we mean by WP:TROLL? ALM was reverting your above trolling in fact. So please stop that and be carefull of what you are editing next time. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He's got a 48 hour break now. I would gladly have made it longer but it's a first offense. Durova^Charge! 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

LSLM - Evading Block

User:LSLM was blocked for personal attacks [78]. Then User:70.156.143.221 makes similar arguments and claims to be User:LSLM while LSLM was blocked. I reported it [79]. An admin warned 70.156.143.221 [80]. Later, LSLM was blocked for violation of 3rr rule [81]. And User:65.11.163.243 has made similar arguments to LSLM while LSLM's block hasnt expired. [82]. Then, after the block has expired, LSLM has returned and signed 65.11.163.243 's comments. [83] [84]. I also whois'ed 70.156.143.221 and 65.11.163.243. They got same locations...Lukas19 15:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:65.12.123.110 which has same location with User:70.156.143.221 and User:65.11.163.243 has made this obvious vandalism. [85] LSLM did vandalize before and was warned and reported [86]. I should have added this to vandalism board but I think an admin should look to this user. He was blocked already two times before. And I reported him for personal attacks again [87] Lukas19 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note 2: Also note his RFI report [88]. Other suspected puppet ip addresses are listed there. Lukas19 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention to this guy. He is always making false accusations. Just follow him a little bit in the white people's page. I and others are tired of his conduct. Follow also the quantity of problems he has already had with many users. He should be banned from this site. Veritas et Severitas 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No admin looking into this? Lukas19 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

External links on Burlington, Vermont

On the Burlington, Vermont article, 75.69.65.217 believes I've treated them unfairly by twice removing an external link that they added, and the user went so far as to telephone me at home just now. Could another administrator or three please take a look and offer their opinion(s)?

Atlant 23:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-admin opinion here, but a lot of those links should be trimmed as per WP:EL. Personally, I would only keep "Official Site of the City of Burlington", the WikiVermont (though it is not loading), and the "Maps and aerial photos". -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How did they get your phone number? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not edit Wikipedia anonymously, and my user page has more than enough information to make it possible for anyone to quickly be in direct contact with me. But in the interest of openness of the decision-making process, discussions about Wikipedia content should be conducted right here on Wikipedia, in full view of everyone, especially if they are regarding (or verging on) those things I'm doing in my capacity as an administrator.

Atlant 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User Atlant has been informed that this link is NOT chatspam and is includable under WP:EL Section 4., "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

He has pointed out Section 10., "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." under "Links to Avoid". Since the link is none of these things, the rule does not apply. Since Atlant is aware of this, and has threatened me with a violation of [WP:NPA] for critizing his arbitrary decision, I have no other choice than to refer to this action as abuse and vandalism.

"Content disputes are never vandalism, and I'd suggest you not label them as such unless you want to risk running afoul of WP:NPA" -- Atlant

75.69.65.217 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What was the purpose of calling him at home, other than harrassment and confrontation? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for harassment. That kind of shit we do not need. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here where I don't belong, but this calling someone at home is so inappropriate, I would think a 6 month block would be the best course of action, seeing as it's a direct allocation non-static IP. That's my opinion, and sorry if I'm wrong. -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry gang, but I've got a whole range of IP's to play with. If user Atlant does not wish to be called, he should not list his number. This started as an attempt to sincerely improve the wiki. Since Jzg (aka Guy) told me "fuck process" on his talk page, then we'll play that way. So, Mr. 6 month block, go for it, we'll play this game all week. Or, we can go back to being gentlemen. Your Choice. It's a shame wiki Admins ruin it for everyone by playing God, removing and blocking without discussion or concencus.—66.252.244.140 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The decision to call him was yours and only yours, and the responsibility for it falls squarely on you. Whether he has listed it is immaterial. You grabbed an opportunity you should never have grabbed. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at WP:SNOW. There would unquestionably be consensus for blocking in these circumstances. You're only making it worse for yourself.... JChap2007 01:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the decision to call was mine and mine alone, I was civil, he was nasty and Zoe, what I wanted to to by calling him, was avoid this whole discussion. There was no harrassment, he was called once.66.252.244.140 01:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That one time was one time too many. This qualifies as wikistalking, no matter how civil your intentions were. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it harassment if the person in question makes their contact information available? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it takes someone else to search for that information and use it. It takes someone else to make the phone call. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is harassment if an editor, especially one that is having a dispute with the receiving end of the call, actually calls the number. -²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)-

... a number which is not listed on the user page (i.e., took an in depth search to find). -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy that. Thanks for the explainer. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So, it's ok to block my IP for disputing an admin, and ok for another admin to tell me he "is a rouge and fuck process" (that's a quote) but not okay for me to call a publically listed telephone and submit a concern privately and civilly? Nah. We aren't even dicussing the merits of the inclusion of the link anymore. Now, this is about the egos of the Admins. I think you'll find me to be most tenacious.66.252.245.98 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in our fine article on irony. JChap2007 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't the link be put on the spam blacklist? save us a lot of legwork. --Charlesknight 12:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure this incident rises to meet the criterion "widespread spamming by multiple users". Regardless, if folks think this is the right thing to do, I'll gladly propose that link for addition to the blacklist. -- Atlant 20:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Atlant is very interested in proposing these addresses for blacklist. His ego is on the line. This all began when I posted one line of text as a link to the Burlington, Vermont article that led to a Burlington news resource. Thus far, Atlant has made up stories about me, accused me of wikilawyering, harrassment and blown this waaay out of proportion. Yes, you have a problem child here alright, but it isn't me. Now, instead of banning me and all the other people who use my IP, could we just go back to discussing whether the link belongs on the article page? This is getting absurd. I can keep coming back no matter how many times I get banned, but I have no doubt the others who use the IP's would appriciate some civility and a resolution. I have not vandalized, used foul language nor disrupted any article on wiki. KR 66.252.245.106 22:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now even my responses here are being removed with a wrming not remove information. Well, I don't want my information here, it is mine, it is private. Next person who lists my personal IP's and posts them gets a call from my lawyer. I'm sick of meaningless "wiki process". This ends now. Am I clear? KR 66.252.245.106 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The above IP had been blocked per WP:NLT.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked several IPs that have been vandalizing the article, he just keeps coming back with more. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the range he uses is 66.252.240.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), at least with most of the IPs. We can probably block that and not have to deal with him for a day or so.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ban, Ban, Ban.....is that all you folks do? Try talking to me like a human. Oh, Zoe, quit lying to these people. There is no vandalism to the Burlington article, never was. Simply an addd and relevant link. KR 66.252.242.32 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole business of some editor being annoyed and diligent enough to dig up your telephone number to call you at home frankly scares me a lot - enough to consider changing my username and subsequently disappearing, frankly. There should be consequences for that action, severe enough to be a deterrent ... though it likely just shows how naive I am about the world, that I should expect being called at home by editors. (I have not been called - I do not want to be - and there are some BEANS, unfortunately) --70.110.135.24 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We cannot get your phone number through knowledge of your IP address. We only know your internet provider.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I am logged out, Ryulong. --70.110.135.24 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

From another user, I'm worried it would only inflame this user further if we did anything like call the ISP. Just WP:RBI; we don't want someone really stalking an admin of ours (i.e., dropping in on them). -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How interesting, KR! In the 22 minute phone conversation we just had (upon you calling me at home again), you didn't mention any of what you have recently said here on the Administrator's Noticeboard. But I see you're still busy trying to catch flies with vinegar, so I think I'll just stay clear of it for a while. But please, don't contact me again outside of the encyclopedia.

Atlant 00:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

---

IP addresses used by this user so far:

• 75.69.65.217 (Original)
• 66.252.242.150 (Evading block)
• 66.252.244.140 (Evading block)
• 66.252.244.150 (Evading block)
• 66.252.245.20 (Evading block)
• 66.252.245.98 (Evading block)
• 66.252.247.25 (Evading block)

Atlant 12:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg - Stephen Harper - Copyright conflict -- revert war

This is a photograph of the Prime Minister of Canada. It has been listed since December 13, 2006 and no admin has addressed it. During the time that it has been listed, I have had to engage in several page reverts to keep the image excluded until the copyright can be resolved. Please expedite this review or protect the image page so these conflicting editors cannot continue to remove the copyright notice. Alan.ca 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright has been established already. It is currently in the realm of crown copyright, and therefore rightfully ours to use. Permission was given from the copyright holder already. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission is not enough, it needs to be licensed freely per WP:FUC. This man is living and a free image could be reasonably created (FUC #1). Hbdragon88 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See commons:Category:Stephen Harper, and my comment here about this particular image. Jkelly 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The House of the Commons is a government organization with permissions held by the public. The problem is that Alan.ca has been perpetrating this edit war over an outdated page because of the basis Herman is supposedly the only copyright holder although I can't find my way to that page from the Parliament's site.

This how I got to Stephen Harper's biography where it clearly states "© House of Commons"

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "Members of Parliament (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

OR

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "The Canadian Ministry (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

Also there is an email from Stephen Harper's contact email approving of this distribution as well. But Alan.ca is going ahead with no confirmation that this is not acceptable when other people have confirmed that this is acceptable. ViriiK 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it couldn't be fair use. However, the PMO wrote that the image is their's and that it is freely-licensed, so it should still be usable unless someone has evidence that the Prime Minister of Canada is lying to us. --Arctic Gnome 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If this email is forwarded to the permissions list, it should clear any problems. – Chacor 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, it should be pointed out for any that are unaware that the Canadian brand of Crown Copyright is not valid to release images under that copyright for use on Wikipedia. See Template_talk:CrownCopyright. Proto::► 10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above, the fatuous revert war over tagging of the image, and the fact that the original website shows that the photographer has copyright anyway, I'm going to delete the image. There are so many free alternatives that warring over one with ambiguous copyright status makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Main page vandal out of control

Come on, this is just over the top - we NEED a new policy. Is someone working on it? Sandy (Talk) 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but what are you referring to? Cbrown1023 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Same thing as this higher up refers to, I'm guessing. – Chacor 01:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. We don't actually need a policy here, just some admins willing to do template protection. It seems most everyone agrees it is needed. pschemp | talk 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(after 2 edit conflicts) Where have you been for the last two weeks :-) The vandal attacking the templates and images associated with the main page featured article. The one that is there today is beyond description. Has no one yet found the source? All of the main page article templates are not protected. Is this the source of the problem? If so, it hasn't been protected yet. {{Harvard citation}} It was up for several minutes. Even I don't want to keep coming to the main page if I'm going to see that, and I'm not a newbie. This is going too far. I've seen what the main page template vandal has done for two weeks, this is going too far, no one should have to see that, and there should be a practice in place now of protecting EVERY template and image on the main page FA. Sandy (Talk) 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to click on and read the main page FA any more after this morning's encounter. When I first read about it, I started avoiding the articles, then I assumed it had been cleaned up. At this point, I must assume the vandal is doing exactly what he/she hopes to accomplish: turning users off of Wikipedia by the hundreds. I would have never come back if that was my first encounter. KP Botany 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Today's image was far beyond anything I'd seen up 'til now - I won't be working to help revert vandalism on the main page anymore, because a global policy needs to be put in place. Sandy (Talk) 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know; it was just disgusting and I have deleted it. Just disgusting. Anyway, we just need to be more certain that we protect templates on articles linked from the Main Page. However, there are other articles besides Today's Featured Article linked from the Main Page, and so this could get quite difficult (not that difficult is a barrier to doing what's necessary).-- tariqabjotu 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What was it? o__O --Masamage 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For admins doing the necessary protections, note {{mprotected2}} and Category:Protected pages associated with Main Page articles. -- tariqabjotu 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tariqabjotu - the kind, tireless protector of templates, but something more global needs to be done. I hope that was the one. -Sandy (Talk) 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be easier to subst: all templates on FAs before they get on the main page, and then re-transclude them after that? – Chacor 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add these images to the image blacklist? pschemp | talk 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I might point out that this has also been discussed here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and, finally, here. Just wanna point out that we need to do something and not just talk about it. Although I think I might have missed some. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's been discussed just about every day since Dec 5 main page, Down syndrome. And yet, today, the most disgusting yet was up for at least several minutes that I saw. Sandy (Talk) 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from the template history, it looks like it was up for seven minutes. Sandy (Talk) 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Pat, and others, please... give us some credit here. Everyone has been trying their best to prevent this stuff from happening. No one notices when we prevent a vandal from introducing this type of vandalism to a page, but when it begins to happen, suddenly it's why aren't you all doing anything? Things have been done, but no one's perfect; things sometimes get overlooked. Note how several templates were protected by Pilotguy (talk · contribs) just prior to the 00:00 (UTC) switch. I double-checked later on to ensure all templates were protected. However, the common ones such as the ones vandalized today were overlooked by both me and him. But, no... that's not doing something; we're just sitting around letting people add shock images to pages because we find it funny. Seriously, discussing (and implementing) new ideas for trying to prevent this is in fact a worthwhile exercise. However, the stop talking and start doing something attitude with no indication as to what that do something is contributes nothing to the discussion and serves only as a slap in the face for all the people who are doing their best (which comes down to just about all of us). -- tariqabjotu 09:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Stupid question - why are new/unregistered users allowed to edit templates at all? I understand why they're allowed to edit articles, but templates? | Mr. Darcy talk 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not always new/unregistered users. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Many have been sleeper socks with accounts old enough to skirt restrictions. pschemp | talk 02:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto what Sandy said above. I practically choked on my tea when I loaded up the FA this morning. This issue needs to be resolved before it escalates into even more ... unpleasant things like goatse or tubgirl. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've posted to the mailing list about this, asking for suggestions. Maybe some of those who read the list but don't use ANI will throw in helpful comments. – Chacor 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really a whole lot we can do beyond being more careful. If we need to put all the articles associated with the Main Page on lockdown completely, the terrorists have won. -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(many edit conflicts) Is there a list out there of the next FAs to be on the main page, in sequence? Grandmasterka 02:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2006. – Chacor 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Only TOFAs up to December 24 have been chosen? Is Raul on vacation? -- tariqabjotu 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he's around - he usually runs that tight. Sandy (Talk) 02:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest a new policy- any sufficiently drastic mainpage vandalism should result in automatic checkusering of whoever does it and notes should be sent to the ISPs. Let's make this cost the vandals some time and effort. JoshuaZ 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think protecting rather than substituting is the way to go here because {{mprotected2}} adds a category which lists all the affected templates and is helpful when its time to unprotect. Subst'ing doesn't create any central log and is more likely to get forgotten. While its nice to ask the mailing list for info, I think this is a serious enough problem that we need to start hashing out a solution now. pschemp | talk 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

can anyone protect Template:DYKbox and Template:ITNbox? There's also some others I'm not sure about: Template:Tl lists a bunch of templates transcluded onto it, but has almost no code (I'm very confused). And yes, PLEASE contact said ISP's. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See {{For}} - has THASF (talk · contribs) been taken care of? Sandy (Talk) 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

21:46, December 18, 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs) blocked "THASF (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism only) - Pschemp got him. :) Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the image list to blacklist: [89] Images not work-safe; explicit. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Sandy (Talk) 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

After an admin has taken note of these images to blacklist, please delete my post above. Sandy (Talk) 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All this talk brings up two good points: templates should be more strictly semi-protected, and semi-protection should be edit-based not time-based. No one with less than 50 edits should be able to edit semi-protected articles. After all, even our semi-protection policy is fairly strict, so I don't see one negative to making it edit-based (or both). -- Renesis (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't mention how due to WP:BEANS, but it should be simple enough for vandals to get around a 50 edit semi-protection restriction. In fact, getting around it would probably be even faster than getting around the time-based semi-protection. Perhaps a protection mode could be made that would not only protect the article, but present a version of the article with templates included as they were at the time of protection to the reader. This way we wouldn't have to worry about forgetting one little template transcluded by another which is referred to be a redirect on an FA. --Philosophus ^T 07:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"High risk" templates are fully protected. I think the requirements for a template being "high risk" need to be broadened. If it's used on the main page, it's high risk. If it's used on hundreds of pages, it's high risk. If it's been penis vandalised, or very similar in use and function to a template that has, it's high risk. WP:EPP is never that busy, and I'm sure a few more admins could watch it if the requests started to pile up. It's better than retroactively chasing this guy. Proto::► 10:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Go bug the WMF-paid devs. Where the hell are non-vandalized versions? That's the real solution to this problem. They were announced at Wikimania, but I really haven't seen any progress made on them since. --Cyde Weys 11:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another developer thingy we should have to make vandalism of this type easier to spot and to revert is Special:Recentchangestranscluded. Then we could quickly WP:RBI the vandal, checkuser and block his proxies, and hope he goes away. Kusma (討論) 12:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming in late to the conversation and there's a lot of it scattered around so forgive me if any of these have already been suggested:

1. A bot that produced a list of the the templates transcluded into the main page, the templates transcluded into those templates, etc., etc. would be a good idea. It seems that most of the problem now comes from humans trying to track down a heirachy of transclusions, something a bot could do faster and better. I'm not talking about a bot with admin rights, just something to produce a list that some dedicated admins can go round and protect.
2. Per Renesis - although it would be easy to evade a protection based on x number of edits, combining it with the time limit would increase the effort required to create a vandalism account. If as a vandal, I have to do 150 mainspace edits to get three vandal accounts for tomorrow, I'm at least going to have to spend some time thinking (and I might hit puberty in the meantime).
3. Create a fully subst'ed version of the current main page as soon as it gos up (or before), save it and then revert it. That gives us a safe copy to revert to while we track down any vandalised templates, rather than leaving the main page in a state until we can find out which template of a template of a template we missed. Yomangani^talk 12:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a bot for the first item above. Go to the Main page. Click edit. Scroll down. A list of all transcluded pages is displayed. It doesn't break it into a tree structure, but it lists everything which goes into making the page. Cyde above claimed that the problem was on the featured articles, but you are now back to saying the Main page... if it is the latter then it would seem simplest to check the particular section the vandalism is in. If there is a penis in the 'picture of the day' you go to that page, click edit, and check the handful of transclusions which are listed. --CBD 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you see something I don't, that only shows one level of transclusions, which means protecting sublevels involves clicking on the link of each template, hitting edit, clicking on the link of each template, hitting edit, clicking on ... until you reach the end of the tree. Repeat until all templates are protected and hope you haven't missed any (you can always check by repeating the process). Wait 24 hours, unprotect all the templates that don't feature on the new mainpage items...hmmm...probably best to get a list of all those on yesterday's list and then compare them one by one with today's, excluding those that were already protected beforehand. Doesn't look that simple to me, and the fact that templates have been missed every day would suggest it isn't. Yomangani^talk 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cite an example of a 'sub template' which is carried up to the Main page, but not listed when you click 'edit' there. I cannot find any. My recollection is that the list goes down several levels (to the point that you will rarely encounter transclusion so deep as to not be displayed). So far as I know the 15 transclusions listed are the ONLY ones used... and of those only four change on a daily basis and thus might introduce new sub-templates. Nor have I been able to locate any actual examples of vandalism to templates appearing on the Main page. Most of the complaints have centered around the 'article of the day', but I checked that and for the past week it has introduced no new sub-templates. Thus I'm not sure if there really is a 'vandalism on the main page' problem. There IS an issue with vandalism on the article of the day itself... but not that I can see on the blurb for such which is displayed on the main page. HAS vandalism been appearing on the Main page? Specifically where and when? --CBD 13:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I shall eat humble pie (although if the recursion of template listing is limited to x levels it is perhaps more of a hinderance than a help, as you still need to check through all the links to make sure there is nothing transcluded beyond x levels). I still think the minimum mainspace edits coupled with the time limit would be a good idea though - the time limit only deters the spur of the moment vandal,whereas a minimum mainspace edit count would at least involve more effort on their part. You'd have to be a very sad individual to run up 50 edits a day just so you could put a nasty image on an article for a few minutes. Yomangani^talk 15:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Could do both... three days AND 50 edits. --CBD 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Running up 50 edits by using a bot or AWB-type system would be trivial. With the current setup, it would be simple to do this in a way which would be completely undetectable as a bot. I could without too much difficulty write a proof of concept which would be able to register an account, make over 50 edits, and then automatically find unprotected important templates, upload images, and add them. This system could be embedded in a worm to create a botnet which would make it impossible to stop by IP-blocking. If all FA-transcluded templates were fully-protected, then the vandalism could be done to templates on other main-page-linked templates, or to articles linked to from main-page-linked articles. I think that WP:BEANS has a tendency to make people overly complacent about these issues. Of course, I might be overestimating the abilities and resources of the vandals. A 50-edit restriction would probably deter human-run attacks. --Philosophus ^T 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Per a request above Template:DYKbox has been protected. Why? This is a box which displays a list of shortcuts to 'did you know' working pages. Obviously, that does not appear anywhere on the Main page. Presumably people are thinking that because this box appears on Template:DYK and THAT appears on the Main page that both must be protected... but that isn't the way it works. 'DYKbox' is displayed within 'noinclude' tags on DYK... which means that when DYK is displayed on the Main page the DYKbox is not 'sent along'. Ergo, Template:DYK needs to be protected to prevent it being used to vandalize the Main page, but Template:DYKbox does not. People need to understand how templates work, identify the actual problem (which I'm not even sure exists as nobody has cited a specific diff/example), and address that directly. --CBD 13:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting again. I reported two specific templates involved in today's vandalism, and gave a site showing the images inserted. If this isn't helpful, I should probably stop trying to contribute - but since today's vandalism was up for seven minutes unnoticed (click the link above if you want to see how vile it was), it certainly seemed to be worth raising the issue where admins would take action. Sandy (Talk) 13:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I looked at the 'harvard citation' and 'for' links you cited and can see that they were vandalized... but not that they were transcluded onto the main page. What are we trying to do here? Keep offensive images off the Main page? If so then protecting 'DYKbox', 'harvard citation', and 'for' does nothing to accomplish that. Thus, I am getting the sense that there really isn't a problem with the main page itself and we should really be talking about vandalism to the 'article of the day'. Correct? If so, that is an age old problem that could only be completely prevented by protecting the article itself and all content transcluded onto it. Which is against the longstanding tradition of that article being editable to draw in new users. As some people have more trouble locating vandalism in templates and the new users we are trying to draw aren't going to know about/understand templates it might be reasonable to protect all templates used on the article... but that isn't going to prevent offensive images being added. They can always do it directly on the page... or on a completely different template which they then add to the page. We'd have to lock down everything related to that page for the day (either by protection or 'stable versions' when those are implemented) to completely prevent this. --CBD 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think you are right that we are talking about the article of the day, not the main page itself. It is an old problem, and yes, they can always add it directly to the page, but when done directly, it's likely that will be reverted in a matter of seconds. In the past few weeks, the template vandalism has often lasted 5 minutes or more, causes many more users to attempt to contact Wikipedia about it, and turns away from Wikipedia however many other users that we don't even know about. Vandalism that lasts a matter of 10 times (or more) longer than typical article-of-the-day vandalism is indeed a problem we need to fix now. -- Renesis (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, what we are talking about is articles linked to from the main page, CBD, most often the main page FA. While it's easy to say "just revert it!", but it's obviously not that simple to anyone who actually works on the main page FAs. I know from experience it takes 4-10 minutes to actually find the vandalized template and revert the vandalism... since they do it in such a way that you have to look at each template's code. Discussion of protecting those templates in advance is ongoing. --W.marsh 18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Some tips for tracking and reverting vandalism to templates more quickly:

1. Get the smallest applicable list of transcluded pages you can. If the vandalism is in a particular section of the page then edit just that section... below the edit window there will be a list of items transcluded for that section only. In most cases this will be only one or two. Note that you can also click on those links to go to the template... I use the popups script, popup the history from those links, get a preview of suspect edits in that history, and go from there... can usually find the problem in just a few seconds without ever leaving the original page (article of the day in this case).
2. Familiarize yourself with the permanently protected 'high risk' templates. In most cases these cover all but a very few of the templates transcluded onto a page. If you exclude those it's alot easier.
3. Look (or search) for '{{' to find the template which is located at the exact point in the text where the vandalism is appearing. That's the vandalized template. Sometimes difficult with infoboxes and the like if they are 'stacked' atop each other, but you can usually get in the ballpark.
4. Don't look at the template code - look at its page history. If there are no edits to the template that day then you have the wrong one. If there ARE edits you can quickly get diffs and see what was added... if it is an image inside 'includeonly' tags then that's likely it.

• • Obviously this would still take longer than just looking at the history and reverting back to a clean version, but it can still be done very quickly. --CBD 20:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to revert this vandalism. --NE2 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not create a static version of the main page every day(nothing transluced, all raw wikicode)? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think CBD is right though. I haven't seen any vandalism on the main page itself, and I use that pretty much constantly throughout the day. The vandalism is occurring on the featured article. It is a static version of the featured article you are after, I suspect, but that would negate the "let anyone edit" thing. I think we just need more people watching the featured article and its templates. Carcharoth 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think HighInBC means a page that just uses no templates, i.e. everything is substituted in (subst:). It could be unprotected, and the templates could be too, but sneaky template vandalism would be impossible, unless someone added the template they vandalized, then it would be easilly reverted. Coincidentally I had just proposed something like this. --W.marsh 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively creating a static version, saving it and then reverting back to the dynamic version would allow anybody to edit but give a "safe" version to roll back to if any sneaky vandalism did occur. You could then hunt down the offending tranclusion without having it on the page while you did so. You wouldn't then need to reconvert the static page back to a dynamic page the next day (which you would have to do with a purely static version unless no useful edits were made during the day it was featured). Yomangani^talk 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess, this just all seems like a tremendous ammount of work to add for admins just so we can get the 5-10 beneficial edits from IPs on the main page FA each day... which only ammount to 10-11% of edits by IP editors (the others are all vandalism). --W.marsh 19:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the sentiment, but again, it's not IP vandals - now it's sleeper accounts. Sandy (Talk) 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy (and anyone else who cares). I know you've contributed at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection, but we need more respected people in one place to echo we need change. There's no more "waiting for data" to be done (not to mention that various evidence that might help make decisions, such as server logs/user browsing patterns, will never be available); Wikipedia's reputation continues to be at stake, and too many people who love Wikipedia take dogmatic positions that actually hurt the project. I keep telling myself to leave the issue alone—"most people don't care"—but I can't. Something must change regarding TFA editability. It's not "giving into vandals". It's a business decision to address a fact of life for a high-traffic web site and article. (Does one not buy home insurance because it's "giving into fires"?) –Outriggr § 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Kengir uprising, Main page Dec 20

It doesn't look like all the templates and images are protected; am I missing something? Sandy (Talk) 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Which ones are not protected? -- tariqabjotu 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

About images... is there really an advantage to protecting images? Vandals could just as easily upload their own and add it to the article. -- tariqabjotu 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

{{mprotected2}} update

For those admins tackling this issue, they may want to note that {{mprotected2}} has been updated to allow the name of the article with which the template is associated to be added as a parameter (i.e. {{mprotected2|name of associated article}}). That would make it easier to find out the reason for the template's protection and when it is safe for the template to be unprotected. -- tariqabjotu 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Selena Main page Dec 21

I was just checking the category (Protected pages associated with Main Page articles) to see if all templates had been protected for today, and found that not all are listed in the category. I can't add the category on protected templates, as I'm not an admin - I'll begin adding editprotected comments, unless someone gets to them first. Sandy (Talk) 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Need answers

OK. I just clicked random page, up came Dogfights. At the top of the article was a large, practically full screen picture of a guy from the waist down, lying in a bath naked, doing something very unpleasant to look at. I refreshed, checked the code, the history but there has never been an image on the page. Clicking on the image showed a long list of pages the file apparently links to (including Tianamen Square, Ada and Archaeology) but none of them showed the picture. I went back to Dogfights, refreshed and it was gone. The Dogfights page hasn't been edited since the 17th, the day it was created, and isn't showing any deleted edits. I'm trying to track down the filename of the pic, it was a string of about 8 random characters. But seriously, WTF? It was there but it never existed. Deizio talk 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha. I read the above topic but it made no specific reference to what the problem was before I posted. Yikes. Deizio talk 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The image was deleted while you were trying to track it down; hence, the magic trick. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Silly me - I just realized this means that image was on every page, for seven minutes, that uses the Harvard citation template, which should be quite a few articles. Truly over the top. Sandy (Talk) 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap. Deizio talk 02:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The only templates on Dogfights are {{for|close-range aerial combat|Dogfight}} and {{US-tv-prog-stub}}. Deizio talk 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it was {{For}}. Sandy (Talk) 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, diff [90]. Google [91] Deizio talk 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see 3QTFUN-5, I saw 3QTFUN-4 , which was a double whammy. Sandy (Talk) 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When protecting high-risk templates, such as {{Harvard citation}}, don't forget to protect redirects that are commonly used (like {{harv}} for that one). -- Renesis (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to revert this vandalism. --NE2 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Cplot-related issue

Given the various circumstances known to readers of this board, this edit to User:MONGO's talkpage struck me as a highly inappropriate way to raise the issue presented. The edit summary, though conceivably written in good faith, struck me as being taunting in nature and intent. Should an administrator respond and suggest that the issue be pursued, if at all, by other means? Newyorkbrad 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Zoe, Tom Harrison and I have all left messages. Thatcher131 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good, thanks. Newyorkbrad 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we send this one to checkuser? MER-C 05:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• CyclePat is a member of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, so he is merely acting on behalf of Cplot.--MONGO 05:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Pat certainly picks them! I might have a quiet word. He's definitely not a sock, though, I've known him for ages. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes! I am a member of AMA. Thank you and I appologize if my comment on Mongo's talk page set off bells. Cplot would like an RfC for his "unjust" block. To pass the RfC he needs a second nomination and would like to be unblocked so he may second the nomination and voice his opinion on this subject. However, because he has avoided a block by using another account (far away from the trouble), I would suggest (if possible) that access be granted but for ONLY his user page and the RfC. (Remaining status quo, or not allowing for an RfC because there may not be enough votes, because cplot could voice his vote, would not really be fair for cplot.) (Furthermore, comments on Cplot et All. could be gathered in one venue and would probably help the situation!) --CyclePat 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cplot, with all his socks, is a noxious and disruptive troll. I blocked him, and I strongly oppose unblocking him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tom, we appreciate this concern. But, we still believe an RfC would be justified seeing as we both see that there may have been an unjustified "block" from the begining. (I think this could be discussed during the RfC if someone was to vouche to second it) --CyclePat 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:80.195.226.94

I have blocked 80.195.226.94 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Rachel Weisz, but looking through his/her edits, it's clear that this account is on a rampage to make sure that no Jew could possibly be listed as English, as if there is some stigma with doing so. Very borderline anti-Semitic. After the 24 hours, this account bears watching. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having looked further into this user's edits, the term "borderline" does not need to be applied to his anti-Semitism. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

One look at their contributions, and its a dungload of anti-semitism. I would have preferred a longer block. Good job. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 06:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Racist username?

Hi, could someone please have a look at User:Nignogz? Not only are his edits racist, but I believe his name is as well, please see this for further clarification on the name. IronDuke 03:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur, will the first admin to see this please block immediately. Generally these reports go to WP:AIV but this one shouldn't wait. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Handled. Deizio talk 03:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy work, Deizio. IronDuke 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

Sathya Sai Baba, which already had an ArbCom remedy, appears to have reignited, this time between SSS108 and Ekantik. Discussion has spilled over trom the article discussion page onto my talk. Accusation of sockpuppetry abound. I'm hoping that someone with either some background knowledge in the ArbCom case, or a heck of a lot of time, can untangle the mess. Thanks, BanyanTree 07:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected for now. I can investigate per the arbitration case tonight after work. There is also a pending complaint at WP:AE if anyone else wants to wade in before I'm free. Thatcher131 12:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The root cause of the pending complaint at WP:AE was a request for clarification that I submitted months ago that was ignored by the arbcom. I re-submitted it. Andries 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded extensively here, and placed the article on 1RR parole. Any editor who makes more than one content reversion per day (excepting obvious vandalism) may be blocked for up to 24 hours per offense. It seems like the best way to stop the edit war while allowing work on the article (which is a mess) to continue. Thatcher131 05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris vandals

In the last two days, I've seen a number of vandals, mostly IP addresses, working on a Chuck Norris theme, e.g. Chuck Norris and the Kennedy assassination. Here are a few I logged -- 69.92.64.100 (talk · contribs) -- 67.42.163.59 (talk · contribs) -- 168.103.129.39 (talk · contribs) -- Theamigo (talk · contribs) - the IP's don't seem to fit a pattern, so maybe it's just co-incidence and not a new trend. I slightly wondered if Stephen Colbert was up to something --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 08:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whois on the ips says they're all from Idaho, so they do fit a pattern. It's probably some random kid who's a year and a half late on the Chuck Norris facts fad. I blocked the username as a vandal only account, not really much else to do here. - Bobet 12:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Titanicprincess e-mail

I have received the following e-mail from Titanicprincess (talk · contribs), a CheckUser confirmed sock of Bobabobabo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I've removed the e-mail addresses for privacy reasons.

from Titanicprincess <address removed>

to Aecis <address removed>
date Dec 18, 2006 11:29 PM
subject Wikipedia e-mail
mailed-by wikimedia.org

May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38. It is a school IP and it is shared by multiple users. Its a home school. Me and my seven brothers and sisters are home schooled, the rchasemore@alumnidirector.com email is my uncle, he very smart with computers!!! We are supposed to use Wikipedia and the internet for educational purposes.


We just want to start over and start a new leaf!! On the weekends we edit Wikipedia and surf the internet. That Bobabiba character is my older sister, I told my mom that she is causing trouble on the internet durning school time (8:30-5:00), my mom "banned" her from using the internet.



May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38.

Thank you,


and happy Holidays,

God Bless

Since I was not involved in the discussion about Bobabobabo, I'm deferring this to the Admins' Noticeboard. What should be done? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. Besides the sockpuppetry, this is sufficient reason for a block. Kusma (討論) 12:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the status-quo. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See the similar section on AN. Do not unblock. :) Syrthiss 12:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this is another hoax email that's going round. I'd assume good faith usually, but there's something about this one... I can't quite put my finger on it! --SunStar Net^talk 12:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the image of the decent christian homeschooled girl in the above e-mail incompatible with calling someone a "GOD DAMN" child. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me, unblock it if you feel so inclined and watch the user but it seems probable to me. I strongly suggest unblock. Last time I spoke out on an issue like this though I got blocked as a sockpuppet of the user I was supporting. So I will take the risk. Unblock I think and don't make links to attitudes and school people can act in different ways. -- TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy Currently:--151.204.56.2 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:72.177.68.38 for a gathering (pride? skulk? exaltation? plague?) of admins to whom Titanicprincess has emailed appeals. - BanyanTree 14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

An admonishment of admins? ;) Syrthiss 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the term for a gathering of admins was 'cabal'. -- Donald Albury 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were known as a scourge or a kaleidoscope. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The term you are looking for is "bucket" as in "mop-and-�". HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, I'm not an admin, but may I put my suggestion forward on how to deal with this user? I don't know if this would work or not, but it might be possible:

1. Request a checkuser on our ... rather unconvincing ... friend,
2. Do a WHOIS on her IP,
3. Report her for network abuse.

Any ideas? Cheers, Yuser31415 (Review me!) 19:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history here, it looks like a Checkuser was already done and beyond that the request came from an IP, so I'm not sure what that would accomplish. The IP resolves to Roadrunner ISP and it's been my experience they are not exactly helpful when it comes to abuse investigations...--Isotope23 19:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if they're not going to be helpful, we can just ban that ISP from Wikipedia. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 20:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP is already indef blocked...that is why this person is emailing admins.--Isotope23 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but I mean the ISP (Roadrunner ISP) instead of IP. That is probably a rather drastic step, however. There's no harm in making an abuse report however, in the meantime (or is there)? Yuser31415 (Review me!) 20:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes... that is a hugely drastic step. Roadrunner is a big, big, ISP and that would effect a whole lot of people not involved with this. If someone wants to make an abuse report on this particular IP they are welcome to... just don't expect much from Roadrunner...--Isotope23 21:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Content copied from User talk:Schneelocke

Block of 72.177.68.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hello Schneelocke. I have received a few emails from a person who claims to be using this IP address. It has been blocked indefinitely and perhaps rightly so. However, the girl seems to be pleading not to block the IP indefinitely as she uses Wikipedia for school-projects and other assignments. In case you agree, can we unblock the IP for a temporary period, giving her time to register a username and then blocking it with an anon-access block preventing further account creation? That way, she can edit using the account, while her sister (who she claims has been trolling) cannot. Can we work this out, please? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was about to leave a message about this myself. I'm not sure if you're aware, but we never block IP's indefinitely especially if they're dynamic, unless in exceptional circumstances. Thanks, -- FireFox (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2006

I do not think that this IP is dynamic. See the block log. However, the edits of Titanicprincess were not disruptive. In case the administrator agrees, I can create an account for her and then send her the password. The IP can be blocked indefinitely with an anon-access block w/ preventing account creation. HTH — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Although, this was disruptive – [92]. Still, let us try giving her a uh... last chance for that matter. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For the hopefully last time...

<large>DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. DO NOT UNBLOCK THIS IP. JUST DON'T. ANYONE WHO THINKS TO UNBLOCK THE IP: JUST DON'T. IF YOU REALLY REALLY FEEL LIKE UNBLOCKING THE IP, CHECK WITH DMMCDEVIT AND THEN DON'T.</large> Syrthiss 15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, okay. If you insist. But, I really don't see any problem in sending a password to a registered account, which can be blocked the very instant it is abused. They would not be able to use the IP again for registering new usernames or editing anonymously for that matter. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 15:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The e-mail was obviously a shopping expedition. If the block weren't already permanent I would have extended it. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to edit to do school asignments, only read. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. This one has been lying, conniving, and harassing our users and admins for months. DO NOT UNBLOCK. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate threads on this at WP:AN. Bobabobabo's use of sockpuppets is the reason for her ban. I asked that Raul654 run a checkuser on an IP that was known to be this user, and Titanicprincess was proven to be this user through a study of her contributions and uploads. I requested that he block her, and I went about tagging her creations per G5. The original blocks on the IP that she requests unblocking were blocks for disruption, and then when that IP was checked, upwards of 70 accounts of all the same edits were found. We have determined that this is Bobabobabo's home IP address, and every other address that she has been using afterwards are open proxies. For any information relating to Bobabobabo or this IP can be seen at User:Interrobamf/Bobabobabo.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bobabo has basically never done anything except create problems, and there's absolutely no reason to believe anything she says considering her past history. Ryulong could tell you more about it, but I just want to throw in my two cents and say her IP should not be unblocked, ever. It's not like it stops her from editing for very long, anyway. Danny Lilithborne 23:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Danny. She does help us out, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional persons who have received email from Titanicprincess

• Received 19 December (a yahoo email address) and have blocked the sender via my email client. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Several emails over a period. Told politely no action possible or desirable. --Guinnog 04:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy

OK I am really upset now after having my first account suspended for suspect reasons as discussed above under User:Starblindy I conceded that though the reasons were not all valid and my reputation had take a severe attack, I would change my name and continue. Now another admin Zoe feels the need to throw his weight around. Lets go through inappropriate usernames section of Username.

1) Names that can be confused with other contributors - look if anyone thinks that a signiture TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy is the same as Andrew Lenahan Starblind has got problems, I see no way a below average user could get confused.

2) Wikipedia Terms - There are none to my knowledge

3) Well-known persons name - Know one to my knowledge has a real name "The Wikipedian Formally Known As Starblindy" If so I would like to meet them or at least read about them.

4) Random Sequence of Numbers/Letters - This random sequence is called english

5) Extreamly Lengthy Usernames - I stress extreamly while it is on the lengthy side I don't think it is extreamly lengthy, plus it is a weak reason and not the one given.

6) Inflammatory Usernames - I don't think so

7) Harassing Usernames - I don't think I have offended anyone

8) With Non-Latin Charaters - No Problem there

9) Closly resemble Vandels Usernames - No problem to my knowledge

10) Usernames that promote a website or company - No problem to my knowledge

11) Email Addresses - No problem

12) Trademarked names - No problem to my knowledge

Be a hero unblock TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblind

PS: Don't say that my lack of edits shows I am a vandel as my past account that was blocked had 20 large useful edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:151.204.56.2 (talk • contribs)

I had defended your case before at first when you were editing under Starblindy username but i am inclined to inform you that User:TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy is not an appropriate username as well (refer to WP:USERNAME). We already have another user/admin User:Starblind. So please create another username following the policy above and start editing. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I seem a bit angry but I have done this so many times. Now look here no one is getting confused between me and starblind I don't see any part of WP:USERNAME that indicates that this username is inappropriate. This is the last straw I swear I will take action otherwise. I am a constructive user and I shouldn't have to go through this. I have been victimised as if I am a vandel with the intent to bring down the entire wikipedia. If I don't get unblocked this time I will act the way I am treated. There is nothing wrong with that username and there is nothing wrong with me. I am sick and tired of trying to mend wikipedia into a useable resource while also being attacked by the so called "administrators" who were voted in from what I see to try and make sure that this project stays were it is now, a place for them to flex their muscle. I started off as a good user with strong belief that I would have a good reputation and that no harm would come to me. But I see that no matter how good a user you are you get abused and attacked continually in a relentless effort to stifle the popularity of wikipedia in order to maintain thier "club". The upsetting thing is that this wasn't the "dream" of wikipedia or any wiki project. But users have come in from other backgrounds and created a "boys club" were they can get off on their own "power". It all is sickening. Unblock me, for the good of wikipedia and those who read this, understand, it can happen to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:151.204.56.2 (talk • contribs)

You don't see anything wrong w/ your username but administrators see something wrong w/ it and it's been explained to you many times. Why can't you choose a brand new username among the trillions one can get? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with my colleagues. While a million monkeys at a million typewriters might someday type out 'starblind', there is no valid reason I can discern for permitting you to continue with any username that has any obvious mix of 'starblind'. I managed to register a username 1.5 years ago that is mostly random letters that miraculously has no similarity to 'starblind'. If you register a new username with the above consideration and make good edits I can guarantee that nobody will bother you. Syrthiss 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say essentially what Syrthiss already said. Your new username at least has the appearance of trying to make a point; which probably isn't going to go over very well. If I could offer any advice it would be to create a new user with a completely different username and go back to editing articles. Like Syrthiss said, it is virtually guaranteed nobody will bother you if you do that.--Isotope23 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is "do what I say or I start trolling?" is that it? or whatever can you mean by I swear I will take action otherwise and "If I don't get unblocked this time I will act the way I am treated." ? --Charlesknight 15:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Gee Charlesknight!! I thought I was been treated well. I mean getting blocked because of you username and loosing all your reputation, that's good, right? I meant that I would act like I have been treated. Considering how little trouble I have had, I guess that means that I would start writing long complicated useful articles again, right?? Here is one question did it fool any of you for a second my name?? Did anyone look at it and say that is Starblind well I better go off and give this guy another barnstar for being the greatest administrator that ever lived? Don't you think people are smarter than that? Give them some credit they have turned on their computer! My point is are as follow so there is no mistake.

1) There is nothing in the protocol that says I can't have anothers username in my username as long as it isn't something like thatstarblidisafuckingidiot, that would be inappropriate. As long as it dosn't confuse people and I am sure that it dosen't.

2) This has stopped me making various edits to wikipedia get this into your head. I am a constructive user you are not saving wikipedia by relentlessly nitpicking about my username. It dosen't disrupt wikipedia, stop wikipedia or upset other wikipedians.

BTW if you don't like my attitude tough luck it was created in reaction to these events that everyone is guilty of as a result of letting them continue. I don't know which is worse, Nazi Germany or Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:151.204.56.2 (talk • contribs)

Godwin wins again. Syrthiss 16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Look my friend. We are here to help people and if you are not willing to cooperate than obviously we can do nothing. 'Till now you haven't agreed to change your username. You talk about reputation as if you were using your real name here and that would harm your electoral campaign! Just pick up any of the trillion usernames you can get and welcome. Further stubborness woudl not help this case. At the opposite, it would make it worse. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you're more interested in arguing with administrators than in actually improving the encyclopedia (which you can do as an anon), I don't think anyone will be particularly inclined to do what you want. Just register a new name that in absolutely no way, shape, or form resembles another existing editor's username, and be on your merry. Its not difficult at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You could always promise to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man in order to help plead your case some more. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when I saw this user's new username, I thought of this essay, and several other WP-humour articles. Seems to me that TWAKFS was employing the same type of humour in selecting his new username. WP:POINT works both ways. Ah well. Risker 20:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:RobotF and User:RobotQ

These two users recently launched quite a big move campaign without any discussions or any provided reasons, please see contributions of RobotF (talk • contribs) and RobotQ (talk • contribs). Please closely examine, these users names are not very differ from each other, second the newest "contributions" of 19d. of both users are targeting specific area, even more - these moves were made by rotation – when RobotF stopped his moving campaign at 11:34, RobotQ started his at 11:40. Please advice, do we need to proceed with check user procedures, because it is likely that these accounts are managed by one particular person. Really needing an advice from experienced contributors. Thanks. M.K. 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't they be immediately blocked under WP:USERNAME? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Multiple undiscussed page moves and misleading usernames, very fishy behaviour indeed. Both blocked. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response. But maybe we should also try to identify is it the same person. Because now he/she or they can create new account and misconduct again. So is it worth to place a query for check user? M.K. 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Checkuser can't be used for stuff like this. The accounts are blocked now. If more pop up, we can block them. We don't need Checkuser. --Deskbanana 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty obvious M.K. Similar usernames or robotnames (laughing). Similar articles being moved (Russia/Lithuania). What else? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And similar timing too M.K. 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock will take care of the person's IP, and that is all checkuser would do for us. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand it was only block to an account. You suggesting that IP was blocked as well? M.K. 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins have the option Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from when blocking an account. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I like bolded text. M.K. 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sandcat

See Special:Contributions/Sandcat. They have about 50+ images (of about 150 total edits), all which appear not to be used anywhere on Wikipedia, or possible to use on Wikipedia. They have 5 edits to article namespace (I'm not counting sandboxes). Worse, these images appear to be used as part of a website, as there is a 404 image and a "news" image and other such items. Lastly, this seems to clearly be a child/teenager so handling this with kid gloves should be mandatory. I don't really want to clog up IFD listing all these, nor spend the time listing 50 images, which is why I'm here. I'd like someone to leave a note saying this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. They could also suggest taking a graphic design or computer graphics class. I say that not because of the poor quality, but because she (guessing) appears to have an interesting in computer art and it would be encouraging. I'm worried I cannot write a polite or neutral enough message. Lastly, I would want all of the images deleted per WP:NOT a free file host. If I do need to list all these I will. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 14:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm on it. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• OK, done. Anyone who's feeling warm and fluffy can go along and have a quiet chat with the user. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

USer:12.26.6.2

This IP has been blocked before (it's from a school, apparently). I've just been reverting his/her vandalism on the Henry VIII page. Having been through a random selection of edits from this IP over the last month, they all appear to be vandalism. Could an admin deal? Thanks, Hackloon 18:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

schoolblocked for 6 months. Syrthiss 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious incident with a ghost block

User:72.166.123.170 was apparently blocked, but the block is neither listed on the admin's contribution's page, nor seems to have stopped the user from editing. A block template is on the user's talk page User talk:72.166.123.170 but there is no record of it being placed there in the contributions page of the Admin who signed it. TimVickers 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for one week on November 15th. Is there another, more recent block that you are talking about? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm just reading November and thinking December. Thank you for solving that "mystery" :) TimVickers 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Random libel in vandalism

These edits probably ought to be deleted. --Masamage 20:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They're fictional characters. I'm not sure you can be libellous towards fictional characters. --Deskbanana 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not really libel anyway, it's just vandalism. --W.marsh 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian Prime Minister is a fictional character? What about the football player, the doctor, and the novelist? :P I'm inexperienced, so if you don't think it's libel, that's okay. There's definitely a real person in there, though. --Masamage 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like s/he was definitely talking about the Prime Minister. --Masamage 20:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The comments aren't "libel" because they don't make a specific factual claim, but we certainly don't need them around. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

'Kay. I guess that makes sense, doesn't it? If simple name-calling was illegal, the world would be a scarily different place. o_o --Masamage 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Frenchpoliceman and friends

I have run across several users who are clearly not here to contribute to and help Wikipedia, but only to leave each other messages. Some also have excessive user pages, with extensive fair use violations.

• User:Frenchpoliceman
• User:Viva La France
• User:Mr. Wikipedia 019
• User:PETA Member
• User:Ockenbock
• User:Big Boned

These may be sockpuppets, a group of kids, or something. Per, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_or_social_networking_site and for disruption, I suggest these be blocked. But, would like if others agree with this, or if there is some other course of action we should take instead. --Aude (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think you might've missed one, User:Leben4life. I removed all the fair use images I found, (although there may be some that I missed, especially on User:Viva La France) and left them (him?) notes on their (his?) talk pages. Based on their contributions, I'd say most, if not all, are the same person. Seeing as at least two of the accounts have been used for vandalism, I think blocking all but one would be a good idea, with that one given a reminder about what the purpose of Wikipedia is. (Note: I'm not an admin.) Also, for the record, User:Mr. Wikipedia 019 claimed to be an admin yesterday. Picaroon 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What native French speaker would say "Viva La France" instead of "Vive"? Andrew Levine 11:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca Loos

The bot, VoABot II, has made some bad edits to the article for Rebecca Loos. It has been removing the official site of Loos to put in the site for a portable toilet company. Could some admin please check on the bot and its edits? Dismas|^(talk) 22:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a very wrong edit ([93]). Bot blocked and I'll tell its daddy. Proto::► 22:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Simple enough to explain. edit adds many external links, anti-vandalism bot reverts. Not too hard to see why. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User Fourdee continous harassment

See the white people's article. User Fourdee is trying to own the article anbd deleting other people's contributions. I do not have anyting else to add about his extreme POV pushing along wiht some other users and the reiterate attempt to silence other contributions.. Veritas et Severitas 23:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are removing material that is apparently cited. Unless you know for sure that this source doesn't verify this sentence, I don't see anything wrong with Fourdee (talk · contribs) reverting your edits without you leaving an edit summary as why the removal. Followed the history of the page wrong. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are adding information to a sentence that already has a citation. This could lead others to believe that this information can be found in that source ("Dealing with Diversity"). If this information does not come from that source, it should be in a seperate section. Based on this edit summary that says "eiditng perfectly valid information shared my common knowlegde", though, common knowledge is not a reason for inclusion. WP:V states clearly that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. That is especially true when adding possiblly controversial edits; it would be viewed as WP:POV. Unless you can provide a reliable source for this statement, it shouldn't be included. It seems that Fourdee tried to convey this as well at User talk:LSLM#Please in a very civil manner. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart

She just slapped a suspected sock sign [94] on Tom Blackstone who I happen to know has a completely different ISP from Canuckster. 64.229.184.82 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that because you use those different accounts from different locations? ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag says, it is "suspected that this user may be a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Ottawaman" which is exactly what that account is. I don't care if you're making the edits yourself or asking your friends to do it on your behalf, the tag is correct. Now stop playing games. Sarah Ewart 00:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We need a tag for suspicious and pathologically fixated[95] contributors who smear others based on no evidence at all. 70.48.205.166 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does in fact have such a tag. it's on the users mentioned below. SirFozzie 01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Should you be the first recipient of said tag? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like another account just popped in and added a link to Sarah's page. User:Lepag's only edit is to this page. SirFozzie 01:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence...

• [96] "User:TomBlackstonez"
• [97] "User:Gomapleleafsgo"
• [98] "User:Canuckster"
• [99] "User:Canuckster

Compare the edits. It should be obvious to anyone. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Community Ban on Canuckster/Ottawaman?

Do we have a community ban on Canuckster/Ottawaman yet? There seems to be a sort of consensus, but no true community ban has taken place. I strongly support said motion. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's already been done, but if not, I support a community ban. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is going on presently, support strongly. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 01:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support; I lately see no focus in contributing to the encyclopedia constructively. Just attacking Sarah as much as he can.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support --Guinnog 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone storing these IP's to check for Open Proxies, etcetera? This seems like a concerted effort here. (especially since the IP is section blanking, etcetera) SirFozzie 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman for the ever-expanding list. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support with a view of contacting the user's ISP. Going too far. – Chacor 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked another one of his sockpuppets, so I agree with a community ban and contacting the user's ISP. --Coredesat 05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Make that two socks. --Coredesat 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This proposed ban now applies to the main account, Neutralizer. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd Support a community ban as well. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - will make a great banned user. Khoikhoi 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 Note: The below is quoted from above ANI section (#User:Canuckster) regarding the same user(s) in relation to a community ban:-

For the sake of continuity, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rangeblocks in place

Essjay (talk · contribs) placed five rangeblocks, set for anon. only, account creation blocked, and expiring 02:00, December 27, 2006. There's a couple of accounts that were registered in the /16 prior to the blocks, and they are listed on the SSP page. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 02:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The fun continues: Neutralizer

Thought it couldn't get any better? Well, Neutralizer is the sockmaster in all this, per his latest contribution to Essjay's talk page (the blocker of the range, see above). For those who don't know, this guy was banned at Wikinews, and this merely confirmed Sarah and my suspicions about this guy. I strongly urge that people follow the lead of Wikinews two third-level sections above and ban this guy. He's getting an abuse report for good measure sent to his ISP, as well. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm ready to start an abuse report if anyone agrees... --SunStar Net^talk 12:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• My support of the community ban extends to the puppet-master. Whats the mop for if not to clean up dirt? File the abuse report to his ISP and inform them of the range-block. That will get thier attention. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So who are we to apply the {{banned user}} template to? Canuckster, Ottawaman, or Neutralizer? Or any combination of the three? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I added an entry on WP:BU under Neutralizer. Fix it up as necessary, as I don't know the whole story. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

More fun

Canuckster (that's what the e-mail says) has sent me three e-mails first requesting that Sarah not go through with the ISP report because "the report would hurt other innocent people more than me and that I don't think this restriction on filing a report applies to me." Additionally, "[He] could lose [his] job if [we] go ahead with the ISP report. [He is] really sorry and [he] feel[s] really depressed. Please just wait awhile and [we]'ll see that [he] won't be back; [we] can always file the report if [he] do[es] break this promise." He then cites this diff. Just to assume a little good faith here, and be nice.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I received the same. Frankly, I had to control myself from laughing and typing out a retort bofore I simply asked him to desist from spamming me. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been getting them, too. The last one said, "the reason I know I'm not a really bad guy is because I have a sponsor child (World Vision) in Haiti." LOL Sarah Ewart 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Funnest yet

I myself have gotten 5 emails from this user, claiming Sarah's manipulations, that he "couldn't sleep last night" because "An ISP report could cause problems for innocent people", and "I could lose my job if you go ahead with the ISP report." But here's the catch: User:Leaf06 (who is still claiming to be different from the other users) and User:Canuckster both sent messages within 9 hours and, coincidentally, have the same email address (surprise!). It appears that the range block is holding out quite well. -Patstuart^talk|edits 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Only 5? Lucky you...I'm well past double-digits. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Scooter036

User talk:Scooter036 needs lots of help. Mentoring or blocking. He first came to my attention with his copyvio on Influenza. I checked his contributions and he seems to want to help but all his edits are poor and unsourced or copyvios. WAS 4.250 00:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Potentially libellous comments on Talk:University of Bedfordshire by User:Alfred Vella

Just making a report here that administrators may wish to moderate some of the comments made on the talk page for the article University of Bedfordshire by Alfred Vella, a user who clearly has an axe to grind against his former employer. In the past he has made very POV edits to the article (eg. [101]), though he stopped that some time ago. However, the talk page continues to be filled with unsubstantiated rumours of "dishonest behaviour" by some of the university's staff; comments like, "The lives of many thousands of those who entrusted their education in the University have had their futures blighted," and risque remarks such as "Why do you not ask Ebdon what happened to the Head of technical services in 2000?" I would consider that some of these allegations could risk exposing Wikipedia to libel action.

I have warned the user that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not his soapbox on numerous occasions, and tried to reason with him, but he seems unwilling to listen and I am now sufficiently exasperated with the debate to withdraw myself. DWaterson 00:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Malherbp

Yet another kid using Wikipedia as a free file host. 30 Images, and only images as user's contributions. See Special:Contributions/Malherbp Is there another way I could take care of this, aside from nominating all the images under CSD (which there really isn't a criteria for) or IFD them all or bring it here or apply for admin and delete them myself (which seems the lengthy of the solutions)? Or is just posting this here probably the best method? Thank you. --MECU≈talk 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. He's put them (all?) on Broughton xc. --MECU≈talk 02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrators ignore actions by User:Tajik again and again

Administrator:InShanee accused me of simply "throwing accusations around,"[102] but frankly, I might as well not bother, because it is well established on Wikipedia that any time anyone accuses User:Tajik of something they are ignored by administrators. Here, for example, E104421 accuses Tajik of something, provides diffs and evidence, but another user who is a friend of Tajik's jumps in, just like they did against me, and accuses E104421 of stalking Tajik, with no diffs, no support, nothing, just throwing accusations around.[103] Tajik simply throws around accusations of stalking, in fact, he is, like a classic stalker, using his accusations as an effective stalking weapon, and administrators ignore it. As I said, when I provided diffs, when I supported my accusations, just like E104421 is providing, I was ignored by administrators, in favor of baseless unsupported accusations against me, as is currently happening on WP:PAIN--accusations against Tajik are simply ignored by administrators, even after a proclamation of going rogue on Tajik, his incivility is completely ignored. Bias--pure and simply bias, Tajik's computer sophisticated and a longer term user, therefore he must be right and protected in everything. Again and again. I use Wikipedia dispute resolution techniques, and Tajik blasts me for them, and uses them against me, and administrators allow it, I support my accusations, Tajik throws around stalking charges with no supporting evidence, and administrators support him. It's nice to see that I'm not the only editor that administrator Tajik bias impacts so severely. KP Botany 00:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the examples on WP:PAIN are clearly not examples of personal attacks. However, the third link, among others, could be construed as an attack, and, as user:Tajik had just come off a lengthy block for incivility/personal attacks, I cannot imagine what he was thinking. He appears to be a very good contributor, but enough is enough. I'm not sure how many people need to complain about the incivility/attacks before it becomes a serious issue, but I think three is enough, and have blocked for 48 hours. I'm also cross-posting this to WP:PAIN where this is also being discussed. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone please block KP Botany for comments like "in fact, he is, like a classic stalker, using his accusations as an effective stalking weapon". I've had enough of her nonsense. Khoikhoi 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments alone are not a reason to block someone. -Will Beback • † • 01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that why Tajik was blocked? Khoikhoi 01:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree a statement comparing a user to a "classic stalker" could be offensive. However, this user does not appear to have even received a warning, judging from the history of the user's talk page. I could be missing something. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible, but I think he needs to be warned for that if nothing else, and someone new should keep an eye on him. He's hardly kept a cool head lately. --InShaneee 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) KP Botany 04:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked KP for 24 hours (to start). The lion's share of his recent contributions have all been anti-Khoikhoi rants. --InShaneee 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

He's just sent me a gigantic anti-wiki rant via email. I have a feeling this is the beginning of a trend. --InShaneee 05:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...And another. --InShaneee 05:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been in contact with KP Botany. KP feels very slighted and, looking at the evidence, I'm inclined to agree. KP has provided diffs for what s/he considers bad behavior, and has been met with apathy and silence. InShaneee's block of KP, I have to say, was incredibly inappropriate; InShaneee also apparently has a history of writing of contrary opinions as rants[104] (the email I got from KP claims that InShaneee's portrayals of the emails sent is false), so I'm inclined to believe KP's innocence in this. KP's statement above [105] was removed as a personal attack, but upon review, I think that's a bit of a stretch, given the fact that this is a dispute about the editor in particular.

All in all, there's some pretty shitty behavior about, and I'd like to see some actual dialogue, rather than just "I don't like what your saying you go bye now" kind of actions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say I partly agree with EVula here. KP Botany was upset and, yes, giving vent through somewhat long-winded and repetitive posts - call them rants if you must - but I don't think they seriously crossed the line into personal attacks, in a way that would have made a block necessary. There could have been far better ways of dealing with his complaints. Incidentally, I wouldn't have blocked Tajik either, this time, because he had actually been making a start at behaving better recently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote some of the things that KP Botany said:

• "Khoikhoi is abusing his status as an admininstrator, not only to push his POV on articles, to edit war with other editors, but to protect Tajik from the consequences of his own actions."

• "Administrator Khoikhoi abused and continues to abuse administrative privileges to promote his personal POV on Wikipedia via edit wars--something that this administrator has been blocked for plenty of times, and never gave up, and now abuses his authority as an administrator to maintain and support his POV on articles, and his blind allegiences to certain editors, namely Tajik."

• "It is outrageous, but not surprising, given as much leeway as Khoikhoi has been given to continue edit wars under the quise of an administrator, and as much as he continues to provide Tajik with leeway to do as he wants, that anyone seeking to get others to look fairly at what is going on with Tajik, would be attacked by Khoikhoi. However, it is outrageous, and it is doing a lot of harm and wasting time at Wikipedia."

• "Khoikhoi should admit his bias and stand back from issues concerning me, issues concerning Tajik, and issues concerning anyone he has displayed personal bias towards or against--it is simply not fair to editors to have to come up against administrators who abuse their administrative status to support someone they are biased towards--it creates a hostile atmosphere, not just for that particular victim, but potentially for all others who realize their complaints will be unheeded also, and they will just wind up being attacked now by an administrator (Khoikhoi), in addition to an editor."

• "Khoikhoi is biased and attacks editors whom he disagrees with, and supports Tajik no matter what he does, contributing to a hostile attitude towards other editors on Wikipedia."

I am sick and tired of this user attacking me like this. There were more than just complaints, and something seriously needed to be done. Khoikhoi 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If he has an issue with another user, he has to go through the proper dispute resolution channels like everyone else. If he keeps trying to smear Khoi to anyone that will listen, I will block him again. And EVula, while I do appreciate your assuming good faith on my part, just know that I'd be more than happy to post the text of the emails. --InShaneee 00:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

More User:Bobabobabo?

I recently received this e-mail from a "LordPrincess," asking me to unblock an IP address. The sender states that his/her older sister is "that Bobabiba (sic) character" and that (s)he needs the IP unblocked as she and her siblings are "home schooled." What do I do with this, if I am to do anything with this? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

LordPrincess is a confirmed sockpuppet per contribs and checkuser. See User:Interrobamf/Bobabobabo, User:Bobabobabo, and User talk:72.177.68.38. Ignore any requests to unblock their IP. I did a good amount of work to make that blatantly obvious at the IP's user talk.--Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Magnetic767 (talk · contribs), who immediately after registering registered the accounts Yodawoman (talk · contribs) and Jediwarrior (talk · contribs)? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 01:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just got an email too. I've copied and pasted it below.

I AM TELLING THE TRUTH...... I AM A CHRISTIAN........ I FOLLOW THE TEN COMMANDMENTS..... I AM 14 YEARS OLD. PLEASE UNBLOCK ME..

Administrative note: This person has been sending e-mails to numerous people asking to be unblocked under various false pretenses.

Do not believe these e-mails. She is not editing from a school, and she could continue to try to be disruptive.

THESE ARE NOT TRUE!!!!!! PLEASE I'M SO UPSET....... I CRIED IN THE BATHROOM...... I NOT DISRUPTIVE.

tHANK YOU,

GOD BLESS, AND MERRY CHRISTMAS

PEOPLE ARE MAKING FUN OF ME, BEING RUDE, BEING UN FAIR, AND POSTING NOTICES THAT MAKE ME LOOK LIKE WHEELY ON WHEELS CHARACTER.. I AM A 14 YEAR OLD.. PLEASE GO EASY ON ME..... I DON'T LIKE THIS... MY PARENTS ARE DISAPPOINTED IN ME, THE ARE GROUNDING ME FOR TWO MONTHS, I GOT SPANKED WITH A BELT WHEN THEY GOT HOME TONIGHT. PLEASE ITS ALMOST CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!!! MY SISTER; GRACE (BOBABOBABO) WANTS TO START OVER.. WHY CAN'T SHE, NO WHY CAN'T WE.... PLEASE May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38. It is a school IP and it is shared by multiple users. Its a home school. Me and my seven brothers and sisters are home schooled, the rchasemore@alumnidirector.com email is my uncle, he very smart with computers!!! We are supposed to use Wikipedia and the internet for educational purposes.

We just want to start over and start a new leaf!! On the weekends we edit Wikipedia and surf the internet. That Bobabiba character is my older sister, I told my mom that she is causing trouble on the internet durning school time (8:30-5:00), my mom "banned" her from using the internet. May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38. I noticed that user: JzG an admin wrote a rude and disrespectful message on my talk page.

See multiple threads on admin noticeboards and talk to Dmcdevit. Bobabobobo, what part of "fuck off" are you having trouble understanding? You are not welcome here. Not at all, not in the least, not even slightly. Go away, please. Guy ( Help!) 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that my IP has not vandalized.

==PRIVATE==

O.k. that Bobabobabab is my sister Grace, she was a "good" editor. She loves anime, Yu-Gi-OH and Pokemon. So she was trying to improve the Pokemon episode lists by uploading alot of fair use Pokemon images, she also was creating seperate episode pages, but the conflict started when A Man in Black opposed the images via discussion on the Pok¨¦mon Collaborative Project and change the template which included the images, so Grace created sock puppets to keep the images on the template, which User: Ryulong got involved.

Which Grace and Ryulong became enemies:

Subject

Re: Wikipedia e-mail

Sent Date 11-15-2006 11:03:02 PM

From

Ryulong <ryulong67@gmail.com> add to black list add to white list add to Address Book

To

"Aywana Tokiwana" < aywanajp@lycos.com>

Listen. I don't care if you are 13, or whatever. Stop vandalizing my page at the Japanese Wikipedia. It's your own fucking fault for impersonating me TWICE and I got my user name changed to the one that I should have had in the first place. Go edit Bulbapedia. I couldn't care less what you do over there. If you want, bring up your ban to the ArbCom at the English Wikipedia, but then all you can edit is your case. Just LEAVE ME ALONE YOU GOD DAMN CHILD.

• 15:04, 3 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Image:ScreenshotPokemonEpi63.JPG (top)
• 13:18, 3 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:43, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:38, 2 October 2006 ( hist) (diff) Fear Factor Phony
• 00:37, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
• 00:37, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:37, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Wikipedia talk:Pok¨¦mon Collaborative Project/Archive 7 ( ¡úPok¨¦num template.)
• 00:36, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) User talk:A Man In Black ( ¡úEPISODE IMAGES fair use rationale )
• 00:34, 2 October 2006 ( hist) (diff) Fear Factor Phony (RV every episode list has seperte pages for the episode look at the Simpsons, Prison Break, etc)
• 00:33, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes (RV every episode list has seperte pages for the episode look at the Simpsons, Prison Break, etc)
• 00:32, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel! (RV every episode list has seperte pages for the episode look at the Simpsons, Prison Break, etc)
• 00:31, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:30, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:29, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
• 00:28, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:27, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:26, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:23, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:23, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
• 00:18, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
• 00:12, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Template:Yugiohepisode (RV)
• 00:11, 2 October 2006 ( hist) (diff ) User talk:A Man In Black ( ¡úEPISODE IMAGES fair use rationale)
• 12:10, 29 September 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon episodes (http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/anime/pokemon_bb/)
• 12:08, 29 September 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon Advanced Generation episodes (RV; back with images)
• 12:06, 29 September 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Diamond and Pearl episodes
• 11:53, 29 September 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon Original Series episodes (RV)
• 11:49, 29 September 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 03:12, 29 September 2006 ( hist) (diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Diamond and Pearl episodes

I hope this will give a "Whats going on".

PLEASE UNBLOCK!!!!!!!!!!! THOSE ADMINS ARE BEING BUTTS! I AM A CHILD YOU ARE NOT GOING WITH THE "GO EASY ON KIDS"

JoJan <secret557@gmail.com> wrote:

Don't expect me to unblock this account. It has a very bad history. In Wikipedias in other languages this account would have been permanently blocked.

See also the discussion at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:72.177.68.38

JoJan administrator Wikipedia

2006/12/18, Titanicprincess <jjohnson97@yahoo.com>:

May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38. It is a school IP and it is shared by multiple users

Its a home school. Me and my seven brothers and sisters are home schooled, the rchasemore@alumnidirector.com email is my uncle, he very smart with computers!!! We are supposed to use Wikipedia and the internet for educational purposes.

We just want to start over and start a new leaf!! On the weekends we edit Wikipedia and surf the internet.

Quite amusing, if you ask me. --Rory096 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me as something I would write when I was 11, and had siblings getting into things. Nonetheless, this user doesn't need to edit the encyclopedia in order to use it. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I got the same email. I will note that the jjohnson email address has been named titanicprincess, Jessica Johnson, and MrBungle79 in the emails I've received. It's absolutley ridiculous.--WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, a Christian with a history of edits like [106] and that has been given an enormous amount of second chances after lying before. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Home schooled, huh? Originally, it was their real school and Bobabobobo was editing Wikipedia all by herself while she waited for her mother to pick her up, and it was her teacher saying that she needed to be unblocked so that Wikipedia could serve as her babysitter. The Princess needs to get her stories straight. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I could understand a second chance (or should I say, 5th chance, maybe), but the lying would have to stop. If someone can't be trusted to tell us the truth, can we trust them to edit Wikipedia?-Patstuart^talk|edits 03:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's at least the actual text of my e-mail to her ^_^ as opposed to stuff like was linked to before.--Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The e-mail I just got came from "Titanicprincess" and was pretty similar, except it contained "PLEASE UNBLOCK!!!!!!!!!!! THOSE ADMINS ARE BEING BUTTS! I AM A CHILD YOU ARE NOT GOING WITH THE "GO EASY ON KIDS"" Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

His/her messages have some funny trollish tinge to them I can't quite place. Don't give in, and don't unblock. I have seen these kind of people before, and they're usually trolls. "Blocks are preventative, not punitive." In his/her current state, assuming it is true, unblocking would not be a good idea, whether he/she is a troll or not. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, this has gotten to the point where we need to invoke WP:DENY and just move on. -Patstuart^talk|edits 04:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 06:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I got that too, look under the list of contribs. He's just spamming the same message to everyone. --Rory096 05:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to WP:DENY, but we need to continue to collect information about this user as she is causing problems across Wikimedia projects (uploaded screenshots to the commons) and other wikis (Bulbapedia and their German affiliate). That and the Iloveminun ArbCom somewhat allows the information we've collected so far (that and protecting the talk page of every single known sock so far has proved fruitful in stopping her fun for the night).--Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What's with the "go easy on kids" thing? Do we have any such rule, or one that could be misconstrued? --Masamage 07:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. He's just trying to play to our consciences. It's the same as the "I'm a Christian" thing. --Rory096 09:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At least she wished me a Happy Hannukah, later asking that I should not be such a butt because it is the holidays. Regardless, I need to find the admin mailing list so everyone can blacklist her email addresses that she's used so far: jjohnson97@yahoo.com, apricetx@lycos.com, aywanajp@lycos.com, and lordprincessqueen@lycos.com.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Must be an interesting home school, what with having it's own 'tech guy' (complete text of e-mail follows): "You can email - hjenssen@alumnidirector.com about the IP , he's the school's tech guy." -- Donald Albury 12:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't use WP:DENY here, as this user has gone beyond trolling/vandalism to a new extreme - impersonation/claiming to be someone they are not etc. We need to get information on this user's IPs/accounts if a WP:ABUSE report is needed. --SunStar Net^talk 11:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF, but I smell a Troll and I think Yuser's instincts are dead on here. As someone else pointed out above, even if they are telling the truth, then don't need to be unblocked to read Wikipedia...--Isotope23 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

C:CSD Backlog

Currently over 250 candidates in the category. Nuke 'em~ ~crazytales·t·c 01:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation of Jimbo Wales

I would like to report Lil Jon333 (talk · contribs · count) for impersonating Jimbo Wales here. This comment is a violation of WP:U and should be taken seriously. This guy almost gave me a heart attack when I read the comment!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting seventh edit, I must say...a nice third edit, as well...and fifth...and sixth. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And blocked indef. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lovely. I think I am more offended by his bad grammar than his bad faith. :-) --Jimbo Wales 19:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting career this person had on Wikipedia. Seven edits, of which three were insertions of the f-word, one was a reversion of vandalism -- to the article Ho, as he was no doubt concerned that we all be able to distinguish between the late Vietnamese leader and the street term for "whore" -- and one was the grammatically-challenged impersonation of Jimbo. There were two having to do with photos which do not appear to have been particularly disruptive, but I do not know about any copyright implications. We will miss you, Lil Jon333. 6SJ7 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User left his password on another user's page

I'm not sure what this mess is -- User:Cloony Da Baloony, User:Mr. Wikipedia 019 & User:BBQ Teddy Bear are clearly troll(s) (Mr Wikipedia is the worst.) I believe new users User:Ockenbock & User:Frenchpoliceman are the victims here (see talk pages), but its difficult to tell, since Ockenbock has clearly done some vandalizing. User:Cloony Da Baloony has posted his password [107]. My instinct is an indef block for that, but I wanted to check before I wade in and start taking names as it's my first 24 hours with the tools. Cheers. Dina 02:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That password is false. I think the warning you put on the page is sufficient. --HappyCamper 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just been reading this junk for an half an hour. It's a bunch/couple of students, probably from the same IP (a school in Boulder Colorado) all screwing around. There's a lot of accounts, but so far they seem to mostly edit each other's userpages. (the "victims" I listed above seem far from innocent after a deeper dig into their contribs.) I'll keep an eye on it, thanks for checking the password. Dina 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

See also the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Frenchpoliceman and friends section above. I assumed that they were all sockpuppets, seeing as they (a), logged on and logged off within minutes of eachother, (b), edit eachothers userpages as if they were their own, (c), like the same videogames, (d), all edit from one small IP range. But schoolkids would also make sense. Picaroon 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh. Sometimes I think blocking schools would be the easy way out... but in the end, we have to assume good faith - some of them will eventually become good wikipedians.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE to comment here... I get quite annoyed when "the boys" go on and vandalize at my school, and then I can't fix a typo when I see one. Etc. etc. etc. ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User evading block

Blocked user and sockpuppeter LorenzoPerosi1898 (talk · contribs) seems to have returned as Don Porse76 Glen its me (talk · contribs) with edits at Don Lorenzo Perosi. The name is both derived from his former name and the admin that he has dealt with and been blocked by in the past, Glen S (talk · contribs). I have been reverting edits by confirmed and suspected sock puppets due to WP:POV-pushing such as this most recent edit. Also, there may be sock puppets of this user being used at Talk:Don Lorenzo Perosi#Questions about this article in order for this person to strengthen their edits (such as the edit summary above suggests with "Read the talk page discussion!"). Case in point, UneJolieMelodieViennoise (talk · contribs) was created within minutes of InManusTuas (talk · contribs) and agrees with the first user and FriendOfCatholicMusic (talk · contribs), who was also created just hours before. Would an admin please take a look at this and assess about the possibility of idenfite ban evasion going on here? Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another seems to have popped up; Glen wess (talk · contribs). Reverts with summary "edits by a mad man." -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Moeron, looks like an indefinite ban evasion going on. Madder 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more:

• Gleneessw (talk · contribs)
• Glen dfeww (talk · contribs)

-- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked most of those and blocked one IP that may be related from the page history. Sasquatch t|c 06:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV

• Made of people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is the banned User:Mactabbed. See Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mactabbed as well as User_talk:Pschemp#New_User:Mactabbed_sock.3DUser:Made_of_people (I fully expect this addition to be reverted per this user's past behavior). (→Netscott) 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also read Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/December_2006/Made_of_people before taking any action. Made of people 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Made of people admits to being sockpuppet of this banned user. (→Netscott) 02:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Does he recant his past actions? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point this user has been independently permabanned under both the name User:Mactabbed as well as User:Maior. This user is bad news and these previous bannings need enforcement. (→Netscott) 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. However, it is my inclination to apply WP:AGF on this instance and see if he will edit constructively. Unless such a venture is impossible or carries the implication of opposition strong enough to dissuade me, I will do such. This course of action, of course, does not disallow me, you, or anyone to block this user if he falls back into his past actions. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has been blocked by User:Drini, User:Mackensen, User:Pschemp, User:Yamla, etc. etc. This shows the time for AGFing is long since over. (→Netscott) 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Those blocks were all for being a sock puppet, and not for the original vandalizing offense. Made of people 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Drini banned this user originally then User:Yamla repeatedly blocked this user for fair use violations then based upon continued fair use violation User:Pschemp blocked this user for an extended period of time and then when the sockpuppet nature of the user became apparent (when he again socked during her fair use block of him) she permabanned him. This user is bad news and User:Drini's original permaban should be enforced. (→Netscott) 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is an obvious sock of a banned user being used to evade a block. The original did a bit more than fair use violation. He inserted racial slurs and other unpleasantries. Blocked indef. pschemp | talk 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the user promises up and down to reform himself and crosses his heart in a pledge to not mess around anymore, I don't see the problem with unblocking. Kids grow up. The whole point of the multiple warning system we have is to give a user a second chance. -Patstuart^talk|edits 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this user has repeatedly sucked up valuable administrator time in a very disruptive fashion. The time for second chances is long since over. (→Netscott) 03:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you are unwilling to let others give this user a second chance. No one is asking that you have to deal with him. I advocate an unblock of this user, with a concession: that this user be indefinitely blocked, if not banned, if he further engages in the disruptive acts that he has recanted. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, it would be more like a fourth or fifth chance. If you can't see why I'm unwilling to unblock someone who calls people niggers with only a vague promise of reform, you might want to think long and hard about your advocacy of this user. I'd like to see an apology from him for putting the word nigger in articles first though. You can then unblock him if you are willing to babysit, however the first time I see him put the word nigger in an article again, the very little good faith I have will be gone forever. pschemp | talk 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I probably had the first set of run-ins with Mactabbed due to his edits on the Courtney Cummz and Alexis Malone articles. There he kept replacing known free-use pictures with fair use ones that he uploaded, saying that his choices were better, even after it was pointed out to him that Wikipedia inherently prefers free-use over fair, and he also added those fair-use pics to his own user talk page, even after it was pointed out that fair use does not extend to the talk pages. As a result, I am absolutely no fan of Mactabbed.

Now having said that, I will grudgingly admit that he has made some constructive edits, specifically on a few articles related to classic mainstream films. IF Mactabbed is saying he'll behave, IF Mactabbed voluntarily limits his edits to only film-related articles where he has shown (at least until his bonafides are firmly reestablished) and IF Physicq210 is willing to act as guarantor for Mactabbed's conduct, then I will hold my objections to Mactabbed being unblocked. IF he is unblocked, he should have one and only one last chance to get back into the collective good graces of people. If he screws that chance up, my personal opinion is that Mactabbed should be so thoroughly locked out of editing Wikipedia that not even Jimbo Wales can restore Mactabbed's editing privileges. And by one, I mean Mactabbed should not even get the luxury of getting warned that his actions are wrong - if he screws up at all and in the least, he's blocked then and there. Tabercil 06:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone any idea how much of a pain this guy was? I had to put up with numerous personal attacks from him, and when he wasn't personally attacking me he was using Wikipedia as a chat service to talk to his friends. As soon as I blocked him he made another sock in clear violation of policy, and considering how many socks were blocked, he knew full well his behaviour was unacceptable. Unblock? No way. Unban? No way. --Deskbanana 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep him blocked, he had enough chances and responded with further abuse and sockpuppetry every time. If he really wanted to come back and contribute, he could make a new account anyway. Proto::► 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• shrug* I was asked to give my feedback. Unblock him if you people want, he's likely to get indefblocked very soon afterwards. -- Drini 15:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A sockpuppet/meatpuppeting case that does not seem to qualify as checkuser...

Not sure how to handle this, but it seems to clearly be not right; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine

In fact, in addition to what seem to be the addresses clustered in Bryan's home town of Palatine, we also have a large number of folks the recruited trying to prevent established wikipedia editors from achieving consensus on the Free Republic articles. I wish somebody would at least look at this. --BenBurch 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Probable WP:POINT account

With all of the nonsense going about with Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg, I found Herman Chung (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (the name of the person possibly holding the copyright on the photo) making a personal attack against Alan.ca for his fervor in finding the true copyright holder.

I have reason to believe that Herman Chung is a sockpuppet of ViriiK (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), the main person in the dispute right now who is not Alan.ca (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and who is making a big deal about it (Arctic Gnome and Colin Keighter aren't doing much else about it). Since this doesn't really fit under WP:RFCU, I am requesting it done here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Block to force the account to give a reasonable explanation regarding their concerns. There is no reason to introduce or prolong this sockpuppet ambiguity in the dispute. Just be professional; if the account is legitimate, it should be reciprocated. The explanation regarding that image should be transparent, and not long drawn. --HappyCamper 04:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Obvious enough for WP:AIV. Immediately block. Hopefully, then, the autoblock will take effect long enough to hurt the sockpuppeteer. Or should can we do WP:RFCU? -Patstuart^talk|edits 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

RFCU essentailly tells me to go here for WP:POINT socks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Disruption of wikipedia and obviously not going to be productive. Sasquatch t|c 06:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If he is not the same person, block, I am sure we have a policy that you should not use names of living people if you are not that person...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact-vandal - multiple new accounts

The following accounts were blocked by User:Luna Santin as potentially related fact-changing vandals:

• Dhxaluzabm77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WiqkiMan53sw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dpebsmithaf1984 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

...and this surfaced after Luna logged out...

• Cincyjim1ocb (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (fact-vandal that I warned but have not blocked)

The potential association was reported by User:Choess at WP:AIV. If Luna IP-blocked, it looks like that did not stop creation of the latest (Cincyjim1ocb) account. Recommendations? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I blocked and then immediatly unblocked this last account. The MO differs in the misleading edit summaries (it left no summary), and the account was created quite a bit after the others.--Kchase T 05:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll keep in mind MO-indicators like edit summary style for future reference. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. You're right about the MO, and furthermore, the game, while played in January 1982, was part of the 1981-82 season. It was probably a good-faith edit. I shall apologize on his talk page at once. Choess 08:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thank you for following-up, Choess ... I'll drop by the Talk page and see if I should say something as well. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica advertising

What is the rule/policy on ED? User:Phil Samurai added mention of Encyclopedia Dramatica content to Æ and Ed and uploaded several copies of their logo. I have tagged the images for speedy and reverted the additions. But I would like to know what the policy is. Is ED content completely forbidden and anyone adding it should be reported to AIV immediately? Assume good faith and warn the user, informing him that such content is inappropriate? --BigDT 06:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the ArbCom rulling in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, particularly Links to ED, any and all references to ED are to be removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should rephrase the question ... I know that links are to be removed ... but is adding a reference to it a "don't mess around - go straight to AIV" offense or is it a "warn the user with test2, 3, 4" offense? BigDT 06:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on prior contribs of that user, I'd say. If it's a single-purpose account or a serial ED troll, bring it to the admins' attention, otherwise a politely worded note should be sufficient. In this case Phil Samurai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made no contributions whatsoever before adding these two, and uploading the ED logo a couple of times, so it's an unambiguous trolling account (I blocked it with what I hope is an appropriately creative block notice on Talk). Guy (Help!) 12:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL... where's the WP:AGF ;;) ? Duja► 12:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

*golf claps* - Tony Fox (arf!) 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Its always a good day when you can reference the heat death of the universe. Syrthiss 15:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it." does not say that "and and all references to ED are to be removed" as Ryulong states. I don't care about this editors behavior nor am I stating an opinion on the appropriateness of a reference to ED on a dab page; but please don't go overboard on a mis-interpretation of the ArbCom ruling. A reference to ED, without a link, seems to be acceptable. SchmuckyTheCat 16:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Like I said above, it depends on the context. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Weird pattern of vandalism

Hello. Looks like there's a concerted effort by Justin082005 (talk · contribs) and friends to insert "Matthew Martin" into multiple articles (although a lot of the efforts have centered on Tampon).

Justin082005 (talk · contribs) [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]

71.241.242.133 (talk · contribs), 71.246.193.172 (talk · contribs), 68.238.162.138 (talk · contribs), 70.110.19.250 (talk · contribs) All contributions have been to vandalize articles with "Matthew Martin"

160.253.0.7 (talk · contribs) [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]

There may be other ones out there...what the heck's going on? Gzkn 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked for this nonsense ... I did find this edit to his own userpage amusing/interesting: [118] | Mr. Darcy talk 15:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiktruth fake image

File:Wikitruth poses with Jimbo Wales.jpg

Wikimania 2006 participants pose with Jimmy Wales as part of a Wikitruth scavenger hunt.

The following is a fairly obvious fake image added to the Wikitruth article. Can we make sure it doesn't go back into the article again? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the photoshop'd image rather amusing, but I'd have to agree. Could this image be removed? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Done Alex Bakharev 08:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish I would've been able to see it :( - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

View it over on their site http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Image:Wikitruth_poses_with_Jimbo_Wales.jpg as far as I can tell this is not a photoshop job. I'm surprised everyone seems to think it is.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in it :-O Cyde Weys 11:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So then you verify that its real and not a photoshop?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, of course it's fake. Proto::► 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes you so sure it's fake? I don't see any Photoshop artifacts when I look up-close. --Cyde Weys 12:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a real one. But were you there as well Proto? I see you pretty sure about the pic being a fake one. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding? Real photo, fake texts (the identical handwritings are a give-away clue for starters), so in toto a fake image which was rightly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

while I don't know exactly what highjinx went on at wikimania I suspect it is real Judgeing by the comments of those who did go.Geni 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really so unbelievable to think that one person wrote the majority of the signs? --Cyde Weys 13:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

wikipedians working together?Geni 14:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, having fun! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its a plot by those from Wikitruth to defame the cabal. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Or vice-versa. --Cyde Weys 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell for sure if it's fake or real, but what I can say is that if it is a fake, it's a damn good one, and someone must've spent a significant amount of time getting the details (such as paper translucency) right. If it's a fake and whoever faked it is reading this, congratulations! However, a rather different issue is that the image file contains a JPEG comment saying "Copyright 2006. All rights reserved." Given that someone must've deliberately inserted that comment there, I would take the uploader's GFDL-self claim with a very large grain of salt. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD running out of control

Could someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish Genocide (Turkey)? This AfD ran out of control when one deletion proponent got rather upset about what he suspected to be a WP:POINT article creation and a votestacking campaign on the keep side (an unproven but not quite baseless suspicion). Debate ran extremely hot bordering on personal attacks; then the article was moved and merged with other material while the Afd was still running; wherupon some votes were changed and the whole picture is rather muddled now. Right now, spirits are hopefully quieting down again. I've suggested an early provisional close, for later reexamination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

<edit conflict> You beat me to it... It would be better for them to continue on the article's talk page for the time being. yandman 16:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've closed it - you're right, it was out of control. Hopefully the discussion about the article can continue on the talk page, the vote stacking claims elsewhere, the Turkish discussion on the Turkish wikipedia and the personal attacks nowhere. Yomangani^talk 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are some concerns over vote stacking at that spesific afd. The concern is that there are way too many greek voters on a topic that isn't about Greece but about a 'historical enemy' Turkey. I hereby request an independent review of the vote stack claim. --Cat out 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of votestacking in the past on both sides when it comes to Turkey-sensitive articles. This is hardly new. Patstuart^talk|edits 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This way to Deletion review → Guy (Help!) 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As per star trek deletions I am absolutely certain WP:DRV and AfD are both broken procedures. --Cat out 23:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sion glyn and his sockpuppet caravan

This user has just complained about accusations of sockpuppetry. This is the timeline of events:

• I approached User:Aperfectmanisaenglishman re his provocative userpage before being attacked personally myself on December 15th 2006.
• User:Dppowell reports the incident accusing User:Sion glyn of sockpuppetry on December 17th 2006.
• CheckUser evidence on December 17th 2006 (Sion glyn = Aperfectmanisaenglishman = Englishpound)
• I than blocked indef the socks and reported the incident here on December 18th 2006. I also blocked the main account of User:Sion glyn for 24h.
• User:Sion glyn is back arguing .

Anyone for an indef block, new soft block or just WP:DENY? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as status quo for the moment. If I interpreted things correctly, both socks are indefblocked...and he blanked the sock notices, but they've been restored? Then protect the sock notice pages (I'll be happy to if you feel you are in conflict with the user). If he continues to be disruptive and / or creates more disruptive socks then we can give him the boot. Syrthiss 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already reverted his blanking. Technically, i had a conflict w/ User:Aperfectmanisaenglishman. However, this is irrelevant because the conflict was about WP:USERPAGE and has nothing to do w/ sockpuppetry. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Shams2006

I have indefinitely blocked User:Shams2006 as a sockpuppet of User:His_excellency, who is under a six-month arbcom ban. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/His excellency. Review or undo invited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who posted the sockpuppet report. Since I assume it's way too late for a CheckUser, the evidence is circumstantial, but I think extremely strong. I hope everyone can see that this guy walks, talks, and quacks like H.E. I considered waiting a couple more weeks to gather even more evidence, but he was already starting up again with his incivility and trademark preemptive accusations of wild anti-Muslim bias and conspiracy. - Merzbow 19:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not perform a checkUser guys so everyone would be satisfied? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence makes it pretty obvious, especially [119]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This diff also: [120]. Plus all the rest in my sockpuppet report. - Merzbow 21:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Disturbing a TfD discussion

• I started a TfD discussion, under related wiki rules.Template:Armenian Capitals.
• User:Clevelander, which is the creator of Template, deleted/divided into parts and transferred some parts to another places my and some other comments. I sent many messages to that user about Tfd, to stop his transactions.(He logged-in with IP and Username, -I think there is no bad faith here), but he emptied IP talk page and User talk page, I found them from my contributions here talk messages;IP talk,

User talk and messages in my talk page

• But he insists to destroy my comments and TfD discussions.
• He changed the name of Template when TfD in process. I posted messages to some admins than he saw my messages and changed back again.
• Due to his distruptive edits, TfD discussion in kaos now.
• Here, his first transaction;clevelander-first
  • my comments-first.
  • my comments-second
  • my comments-last
• Here his further transactions;
  • clevelander
  • clevelander
  • clevelander-last
• I feel, my offer is sabotaged.

Regards. Must^TC 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned User repeatedly evading the indef-block

Could someone please block this static IP as per these checkuser results & this Wikipedia policy? While the User was blocked for disruption, he constantly created socks and was in reality, never really blocked (and that got him banned in the first place); ever since his indef-block by User:Pilotguy months ago, he is returning with armies of meatpuppets (and continued with disruption to an extent). --PaxEquilibrium 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 19:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Uses other IPs as well. I am not sure if this user is still going to be a problem, but I'll try and keep an eye. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Request to block User:Striver

I am requesting that User:Striver is blcoked for violations of Wikipedia:Copyrights and disruption. This user has created at least six copyvio artiles — Thuwaybah, Al-Nahdiah, Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, Sumayyah binte Khabbab, Hind the wife of Amr, Umm Kulthum binte Uqba — and I believe that a thorough investigation of his contributions will reveal more copyvios. Striver edit warred [121] on Hind the wife of Amr to have the copyvio tag removed. Furthermore, today Striver has moved[122] Siege of the Banu Qurayza to User:Striver/Siege of the Banu Qurayza. Striver was indeed the editor who started Siege of the Banu Qurayza, but he wasn't the only one to edit it; anyway, moving an article from the main namespace to userspace is inappropriate. Striver then proceeded to request a speedy deletion of the remaining redirect under the false premise that he had been the only contributor, which was granted[123]. Most importantly, Siege of the Banu Qurayza was subject to an ongoing afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of the Banu Qurayza, and even though the consensus seems to be in favor of deletion at the moment, I do find Striver's action extremely disruptive and disrespectful of other editors. Beit Or 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming for the moment that I'm completely misunderstanding copyright policy here. I just looked at Qasim ibn Muhammed's page, and I'm not sure what you're considering a copyvio there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

From looking at the AfD on Siege of the Banu Qurayza we can tell that it is essentially a snowball deletion. With respect to the AfD, although it might have been a bit out of the ordinary, Striver's actions seem logical (particularly in light of WP:IAR). Also there's no policy against a user maintaining a developmental copy of an article in their userspace. (→Netscott) 20:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've only checked Thuwaybah, and if the Beacons of Light page is older, then the Wiki article is clearly a copyvio in this case. On the other hand, considering that Striver had added the link in his original article, it's hardly as if it was sneaky or anything. If it is indeed a copyvio, delete the article, and ask Striver for an explanation: a block seems to harsh in this case. he doesn't seem to have had a prior history of copyvio's or copyvio warnings. Fram 20:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Those articles were created long time ago:

• Thuwaybah: July 2005
• Al-Nahdiah: July 2005
• Sumayyah binte Khabbab: July 2005
• Hind the wife of Amr: July 2005
• Umm Kulthum binte Uqba: July 2005

Some of the contain so little text that it is hard to argue that the original writer has a copy right on that small amount of info, and even if they had, it would easily pass as fair use, specially considering that a link was provided.

Other cases can not support that argument, on those cases i apologies and refer to the long time elapsed (1.5 years), and to the fact that i was a much less experienced editor at the time.

Regarding the afd, considering that Beit Or was the one nominating it for delesion, im sorry if i robed him of the tension of having the judge announce "delete" by deleting it myself... but i found it in wikipedias interest to have the afd process speedied in such an obvious case, and to spare wikipedia of me going to del:rev and requesting to have it userfied, specially considering that the only other edits was IMHO some bad faith redirects by Beir Or and two bad faith reversions by Beit Or's friend. Yes, i am aware of the AGF guidline.

Obviously did Beit Or find it in wikipedias interest to spend some of ANI's time on evaluating that userfision and also gave some 18 month old editions to strengthen his case of me being a vandal... Anyhow, i am a more experienced wikipedian now and have a better understanding of the copyright issues, although it's still not flawless. I imagine that anyone with many edits makes mistakes, and it's even possible that i have might have made more mistakes than the average person.

Regarding "under the false premise that he had been the only contributor". You should check your facts before accusing me of such things, i did no such claim. You stated that you "do find Striver's action extremely disruptive and disrespectful of other editors". If you could elaborate what is bothering you so much, and i don't mean the action, rather your perception of it and why it makes you feel that way, i might have a better chance of avoiding it in the future. Peace.--Striver 21:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, can a admin tell if Beit Or is right in refusing to remove the tag after i stubified this article, and on top of that coming here and claiming i am a vandal? If ´he had not opposed the stubification of my 18 month of article, i would have stubified the rest, but on the other hand, he could'nt have complained here if i had done that, right ?--Striver 21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but seems fine to me. The copyright page specifically says that if there's a clean version, just revert to that. The "do not edit this page" requirement was meant to say, "don't play with the copyrighted text". IMHO, and I don't see why policy would be any different. -Patstuart^talk|edits 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Umm_Kulthum_binte_Uqba and then see the main page of http://www.themodernreligion.com/index1.html, and it says, "No Copyright: Any organisation or individual wishing to reprint or copy the contents of this website may do so unless otherwise stated on specific articles. The information, names of authors and sources are to be kept in its original form. An acknowledgement to this site would be appreciated."

Technically though having no copyright doesn't allow them to say that "The information...etc etc" i.e. they can't place information into the public domain and then try and control how it is copied. My call is that the intent of the author wanted "No Copyright" more than that 2nd sentence which is maintaining the attribution. I don't see how this can be a copyviolation worthy of a wikipedia editor being blocked.

When I look at the "edit-war" diffs that were going on with Hind_the_wife_of_Amr I think that this is a such waste of time; the article is so darn short !!!! e.g. just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hind_the_wife_of_Amr&diff=prev&oldid=95359324 To tag it copy violation is showing very little common sense. WP:COOL really needs to be read.

Other articles (glancing at random) seem equally short. Heck someone with a reasonably good memory who was really into the subjects could probably read the web pages and then "accidently" edit this into Wikipedia (not saying that has happened). We're not talking pages and pages of data here but almost empty shells of articles on eseoteric subjects. I think I've had a bit of difficult edit consensus with Striver but thats because I choose contentious articles. My response to contentious articles is to start posting to the talk pages so some discussion can start. Has User:Beit_Or done this ? Not that I can see (OK neither has Striver but then he didn't start this mess; User:Beit_Or started the tagging and reverting the tags without clear talk.

I call this attempt at a ban not in Wikipedia's interests and that Striver (and other editors) can have a chance to correct any issues. Ttiotsw 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User requests help

Ronbo76 has requested admin help. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Review me!) 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversial moves

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Mess_created.2C_help_needed; two articles (so far) have been moved. Both moves are controversial (with discussons on talks of many pages and no clear consensus for the move), and led to the creation of forks, revert and move wars, double redirects, talk pages at redircets, breaking talk templates... one of the affected articles is also a FA. Attention of an admin familiar with RM is needed so this mess is fixed, hopefully allowing us to do a proper RM (I am not going to do it as I am engaged in the content discussion, and my attempt to fix the situaton by tagging forks with merge has already been reverted; a neutral party must step in). Disclaimer: I am also engaged in an RfC with the user who moved the article, and he has a habit of remind that on many pages I post recently ([124], [125], [126], [127], etc.), when I enquired into his controversial behaviour - but before another claim of stalking/harassment is filled by him against me by that user, please note that at least two other users (User:Balcer, User:Hillock65) have commented on those controversial moves in discussions I am engaged in before I became involved myself, and the Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618), the moved FA was written mostly by myself and is on my watchlist. To be clear: this post at ANI has nothing to do with this RfC, I am just asking a RM specialist to fix the matter in the appopriate way (I'd prefer revert of moves and start of RM, but anything that will fix pages history, double redirects and broken links will be ok).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I second Piotrus' comment: all changes should be rolled back and then a proper move request & discussion iniciated. - Evv 23:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a RM specialist to fix double redirects. Anyone can do it. If you dispute the appropriateness of the moves, it is a different matter. I find the moves totally sensible as no "invasions" and "massacres" where introduced into the titles like is frequently done by Piotrus. In fact, the titles that would have included "Polish invasion" or "intervention" are widely supported in sources but were not used for the sake of the world's peace while we have all sorts of the "invasion" and "massacre" titles for the Polish articles when those are of rather than by Poland. Interestingly, Piotrus himself said earlier that he did not object to such move. So, I wonder whether this inflammatory post is intended to make more drama or indeed somehow avenge the user for the RfC about user:Piotrus. --Irpen 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you raise the same concern about my old post that I addressed at the talk RM, there is no need to fork the discussion about it here. And what inflammatory drama? Why didn't you comment about inflammatory drama when Ghirla brought my RfC on completly unrelated cases such as the FAC page? Oh well. Admin intervention is required to deal with merging Muscovy (Grand Duchy) (redirect with long history) and Grand Duchy of Moscow (new article with no history). Also, most RM specialists are admins, and we need one to decide if we should leave the articles at their new names and start RM back to old ones, or as belive is the SOP, revert contested and controversial moves and start a RM from old names (which, especially in the case of FA Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) gained acceptance of the community months ago and are disputed only by you and Ghirla. As for your comments on invasions and massacres, it's quite OT, and rather unsupported by reality, I am afraid, as had been discussed ad nauseum on relevant pages (sources, at best, ae split 50/50 for the latter periods, and show preference for Muscovy for the earlier... but this is OT here).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, as for bringing up your RfC, there is no single space in WP (except perhaps main) where you haven't yet brought up the Ghirla's RfC, so please no pot/kettling here. Now, you also do not make it clear whether you find the article's names inappropriate or not. You can't claim that the new arrangement is somehow inflammatory in any way. Article names are historically correct. One article is split into two. The other is moved to a non-controversial title. There is also a new term article. Where is the mess? Merging histories would be a good idea but that alone is no reason to whine. As for the "massacre" stuff, it is not off-topic. You created a whole bunch of massacre and invasion titles. Here we get moves to the titles that do not involve any of this stuff. Merging histories can be done of course, but I see no emergency to bring the issue here except if the goal is to harm your perpetual opponent in the content disputes. --Irpen 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please don't take this thread OT, we are dealing with controversial move and followup requiring admin (preferably an RM admin attention). All the other stuff is irrelevant, a disclaimer about RfC is a sign of good will from my part (to let others now of the big picture and my possible bias). I brought up Ghirla's RfC only during relevant DR proceedings and in a few cases where it was relevant - I never stalked him, inserting notes of his RfC to every place he posted that had anything to do with me or articles I edit. I don't mind some of the changes Ghirla made (split up the article); I mind others (new name which is not supported by majority, and the Muscovy stub with unreferenced claim the term is mostly used by Polish scholars - a claim which is quite evidently false for anybody who goes to Google Print. This is however OT here, so once again, please stop bringing irrelevant matters here. We have two articles in need of review by a RM specialist with admin powers, and an editing behaviour (making controversial moves) that may need to be commented upon. Please don't bring everything else and a kitchen sink into this thread, RfC has enough of that. Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I certanly agree that the moves are controversial, and had to be discussed first.

As a side note, a quite intriguing part is Irpen's response to the moves. Just yesterday Irpen's wrote "unproposes moves are generally a bad idea, but particularly inflammatory are the controversial moves made without proposal" [128]. Then in less than 24h, Irpen seems to favor the undiscussed moves by Girla. In my opinion, it clearly represents the behaviour of a manipulator. --KPbIC 22:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that I don't see those moves controversial in any way. No inflammatory terms were added to the titles at all. I would have proposes such moves first, true enough. But I object to calling them "controversial". As we speak Krys himself moved without proposal dozens of article.[129] I did not make a fuss about it despite Krys' claim to be a follower of move proposals.

I will not respond to the name calling part. Please stop trolling. --Irpen 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, please, no name calling. I have had enough of that recently. Irpen, there is no need to discuss every move, just disputed ones (which are for the obvious reasons controversial). The move of both articles has been discussed long (Talk:Polish–Russian_War_(1605–1618)#Article.27s_title is just one example). No concensus was reached. No move should have been carried out. That's all there is to it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have merged the histories of Grand Duchy of Moscow and Muscovy (Grand Duchy) please discuss the correct name for the article. Please move the personal discussions of editors elsewhere Alex Bakharev 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Alex, I just hope you will not be reverted as when I was when I added merge tags to those articles. There is still the issue of Polish–Russian War (1605–1618), still sitting on double redirects, and with broken templates. I'd like to move it back to the name it was featured under, but I don't want to start a revert war - can you handle this too?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image deletions

I deleted Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg, but I can still access it - however, there is no Delete button and the Image link at the top is red. This has happened once before. Is it just me? Guy (Help!) 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a common problem, when the image is on Commons. [130] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy, if you let me know why you wound up deleting here, I will delete it at Commons. Jkelly 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at edit history, it was tagged with Template:imagevio ([131]), there is also some lenghty discussion (see revision) - hope this helps.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an unfortunately long story here; I was curious why Guy deleted it at this moment, if there was any urgency. Email about this has been sent to permissions, so I'm following up on it at that end. Jkelly 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is stated to be Crown copyright, then stated to be photographer copyright, then an apparent impersonator turned up claiming to be the photographer, and in the end we simply don't need it because we have numerous unambiguously free and adequately encyclopaedic images, so we don't need the lame edit war. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the commons version does get deleted, can someone salt that name with an image similar to Image:Map.gif? Generic names like that just cause problems. --BigDT 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Prevention rather than cure

I'm a great believer in prevention rather than cure - so an Admin might want to take a look at this before it all gets out of hand. Describing other editors as "bedwetters" in a edit summary is likely to result in one of those long protracted threads we have here that takes up so much of everyone's time.

Regards --Charlesknight 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a polite warning. --Guinnog 21:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some WP:OWN issues involved there as well as the edit summary. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

BT Group

This is my fourth revert. I trust this is not really a problem. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a self-report is nice. The usual procedure is for you to self-revert yourself, but as you are actually dealing with a possible libel from anon ip, 3RR doesn't usually apply to cleaning vandalism and such, so don't worry, as far as I am concerned, you are ok.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Same from me, and I've given the IP a short block. Martinp23 22:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

problem with edit summary

Do we need to get this edit summary deleted? -- Donald Albury 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd tentativly see that no, it states that the comment was deleted, so it should not be offensive per se.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did it while you were writing this, Piotrus. History cleansing isn't a big deal when there are fewer than 500 revisions, as there were here, so I figured why not. Chick Bowen 23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is against the GFDL license (which Wikipedia is published under) to do so in many cases. Not in this one though, as long as you deleted the original vandalism as well as the revert and they were consecutive revisions. Prodego ^talk 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They were, I did, yes. GFDL only covers additions to an article--this was a net no change. Chick Bowen 23:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Captain Thomas Graves

In the article on Captain Thomas Graves

someone added irrelevant material that should probably be in its own seperate article.

Quote:

"William Solomon Graves was a full-blooded Cherokee whose parents died on the Trail of Tears. His name appears in the Guion-Miller roles along with other Cherokees with the surname Graves. The Graves family was kind enough to adopt the young boy into their family. The full family chronology of this branch of the family has been ignored by the Graves Family Organization who prefer not to embrace this part of the family's pureblood heritage." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natwebb (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

66.252.245.106 (talk · contribs) removing information

He has removed a list of IPs used by some account from this page, the last time with a legal threat. Am I being oversensitive, or is there a problem? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet/troll blocked (see edits). Patstuart^talk|edits 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"(The IP's listed here are assigned to me and may not be reported or reverted under penalty of law. Any reposting of these IP's will be prosecuted and are used without permission.)[[User:66.252.245.106|66.252.245.106]] 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC) "

This person clearly misunderstands the law and internet technology... or is simply playing ignorant to troll. I'll stop now per WP:DENY, but I sugust a short-term full range-block. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh

I have blocked Vlh (talk · contribs) for one week due to repeated edit warring on Grand Slam Champion, including repeatedly removing an "sprotected" tag. He has been blocked repeatedly for similar actions, and the block lenghts have become longer and longer. He was warned just a few minutes ago not to remove the tag, but he did it anyway, and so has been blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Claims of copyvio

Blent on a Saapteime (talk · contribs) is posting multiple complaints that an article, Red Hand of Ulster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is "stolen from my website" and threatening to take action. User has not anywhere, however, specified what website. Since I asked for the information, there has been no further communication. Trolling? Fan-1967 23:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some Google searches on unlikely phrases and only got us and our mirrors, and the history looks more like our normal editing process than one big paste from a website. Ideally this person will mail us our respond here with their URL. Jkelly 23:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look like they're going to be very cooperative. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Warned about personal attacks and legal threats. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fake vandalism warnings

I found the article Mangeshda with a speedy delete tag that had been there for a day or two. It did not seem appropriate to the article, so I replaced it with an AfD tag. The original editor who placed the tag, User:Terminator III put a vandalism notice on my talk page in response,[132] removed the AfD and replaced it again with db-spam. Since the AfD was already started, I put the AfD tag back, and the user put another vandalism notice on my talk page.[133] I don't think I've done anything wrong here and consider this to be harassment. Could somebody please get this person off my back? A Ramachandran 00:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've agreed with you on his talk page. I'm not sure that an admin is necessary unless it goes further. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong; this might be considered vandalism if you were the page creator. Taking the page to WP:AFD for clear consensus is also not a problem. If you continue to be warned by the user or possibly stalked, return here and mention it. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! A Ramachandran 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Georgebd

I blocked Georgebd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiry time of indefinate because he appeared on WP:AIV with constant spamming to articles after several warnings. See his contributions, those were his only edits. He sent me an e-mail message (see his talk page) saying he does not agree with it. I would like you to review my block and see if it is warranted and should stand. Thanks, Cbrown1023 01:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, though would support unblocking if the User promised to stop spamming his link. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing though... he doesn't show remorse (using the word used by the US prison systems, which are not punitve, but correctional as well). He thinks that his link is okay and would probably continue to add it. Cbrown1023 01:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Pettiness

66.93.251.122 (talk · contribs) is using my edit history to undo many of my recent edits. See this comment. User is upset about this AfD. See the comments in the AfD for a history of problems with that block of IPs. JonHarder ^talk 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's vandalism... block? Cbrown1023 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours, if the user continues, please notify us again... Cbrown1023 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Now see new user account MonHarder (talk · contribs). Sigh JonHarder ^talk 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And evading now by using 66.93.251.120 (talk · contribs) JonHarder ^talk 01:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently cracked admin account?

User:Mike Rosoft has apparently suddently started creating Willy on Wheels accounts, suggesting the password to their account has been cracked. This needs urgent investigation and attention. See [134] for evidence. Unless proved otherwise, it would make sense to regard all their most recent edits and other actions as suspicious.-- The Anome 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OMG, you think an admin would at least know how to hide it better! Have you tried contacting him? Cbrown1023 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly why I find it so suspicious... -- The Anome 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... why would it be necessary to create them from an admin account, if it were cracked? Besides, the interspersed contributions seem fine. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He's creating and blocking pre-emptively, KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the alert but there's no issue here. It looks like he was just trying to be preemptive. Check the blog logs for these new accounts. Each reads (e.g.) "01:29, 21 December 2006 Mike Rosoft (Talk | contribs) blocked "Wiki on Wheels (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Registered by me to prevent its use by vandals)." Newyorkbrad 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, unusual behaviour by Mike's normal standards... Why create WoW account preemptively? There are million upon millions of such accounts which could be possibly created, so trying to anticipate new ones and creating them is pointless. -- The Anome 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that is unusual behavior, what possible use would someone get from that? People don't crack an account and then make pointless creations and blocks, because that would only draw attention to it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

At least two of them are to protect from vandal registration. No threat, just some protectiveness of Wikipedia. Cbrown1023 01:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... Would someone care to go unblock him now? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I would have suggested pre-emptive blocking of the Willy accounts. But I got caught in a personal record SIX edit conflicts, so screw that. We need to do something about the size of this page. – Chacor 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You missed the fact that they're already blocked by Mike. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean I would've suggested he's creating them so he can pre-emptively block them. – Chacor 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Has anyone asked on his talk page what is going on? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • yes, i did right after i asked if anyone notified him. (the second post) Cbrown1023
• he is probably creating and blocking them so no one else does it later we need to assume more good faith here really Yuckfoo 02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Copying explanation from my talk page

No, my account has not been hacked. I have looked at the history of Wikipedia:Suggested usernames, and registered three of the WoW accounts listed there and not yet existing (and blocked two of them with an explanation of "Created by me to prevent its use by vandals"). I even posted a message to that extent to User talk:Misza13. I apologize for the trouble I had caused by my actions - they were probably pointless. - Mike Rosoft 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignorant

JonHarder keeps following me around rv every edit I make and then says its like spam when its really a reference. Sign 66.93.251.118 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)