Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Rachel Brown sockpuppet army blocked

Wikipedia is ridiculously tolerant, but we're not actually stupid. User:RachelBrown has been leading several Wikipedia admins (notably Dan100 and Zordrac [not an admin -Calton | Talk 15:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)]) a merry dance. Kelly Martin and Jayjg checkusered the bunch and found notable links and a lot of lies about locations and grossly inconsistent "explanations". I had a look just now and have blocked the lot. 1 week block on Rachel Brown for gross sockpuppetry, and indefinite on the Poetlister, Newport, Taxwoman and Londoneye accounts. If anyone can credibly dispute this sockblock, please leave me a message or email me and we should ask for an official AC clarification, because that would beat a wheel war. Merry Christmas - David Gerard 17:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I support this action. It's worth noting that all of those accounts were extremely active in a select number of recent AFD debates. This might be sufficient reason to re-AFD those issues, or perhaps more properly bring them through Deletion Review. Nandesuka 17:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for WP:DRV to me. I also suspect everyone there will agree with you on what needs to be done. -- SCZenz 17:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I should probably mention this on AFD talk too - David Gerard 17:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. See User:Zordrac/Poetlister#AFD discussions where 2 or more of the above users were involved and User:Zordrac/Poetlister#Additional articles that should be nominated for deletion as part of this dispute for articles affected in this dispute. All of these should be renominated, due to the User:Antidote sockpuppets and the suspicion of User:RachelBrown socks. Whilst they kind of cancel each other out, it does mean that all of those votes should be redone. I have taken the liberty of researching everything, since everyone seems to be too busy to check things out themselves. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's straighten a few things out. First, sock puppetry per se is ok: see Wikipedia:Blocking policy and m:CheckUser policy. It's only the (quoting CheckUser policy) abuse of sockpuppets use (and in particular voting twice under two different names) which is severely frowned upon. I question whether that's happened here: have a look at this, where the socks actually voted against each other. In other cases, it's a matter of debate if the votes influenced the final outcome of the AfDs directly.

Balanced against that is the contribution history of the various accounts. I guess they were created to contribute to specific areas of the 'pedia (although why I don't know). But the fact remains that until they were used for voting they have contributed a lot to Wikipedia. It does seem a shame to potentially end those contributions over this.

The thing I'm most disappointed about though is people with CheckUser access saying "I think they're socks, I'm banning them, and my word is enough". It's not. {{sockpuppet}} doesn't have a "evidence" parameter for nothing. Dan100 (Talk) 09:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dan, the accounts weren't voting against each other; quite the reverse. RachelBrown voted to keep List of Jewish jurists at 20:57 Nov 18 [1]; Poetlister voted to keep at 09:38 Nov 19. [2] RachelBrown then changed her mind at 17:53 Nov 19 and voted delete "due to the weird attitude of Mr. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters" [3]; Poetlister promptly changed her mind too and voted delete 17 minutes later at 18:10 Nov 19. [4] Londoneye then voted delete at 08:56 Nov 20. [5] Then RachelBrown changed her mind again and voted to keep at 22:52 Nov 21. [6] Perhaps she forgot to change the other votes back again, or didn't want to draw attention to them, or more likely realized they'd make no difference to the outcome. Given that the technical evidence shows they all edited from the same IP address(es), the above is a violation of WP:SOCK. Whether the end result was actually influenced is irrelevant. The person operating the accounts appears to have tried to influence it and that's all that matters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that producing the checkuser evidence in sufficient detail for a third party is generally likely to be a violation of the privacy policy. That's why there are now three people who went over it; three looking and going "wtf" should hopefully be enough. I looked after Kelly emailed the AC list saying she and Jayjg had looked at it and thought "wtf, sockpuppet theatre" so I did too and went "wtf, sockpuppet theatre" - David Gerard 17:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

NO IT ISN'T A VIOLATION OF THE PRIVACY POLICY - not when requested by the user. Not only are you permitted to present it, you are obligated to. And I think it is safe to say that they are giving you permission to do so. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you considered that the users concerned might be friends who use the same IP address as a consequence of visiting one another's houses? People do that, you know. Did you consider the remedy of suggesting that they not use the same IP to vote in AfDs or that if one votes, the others cannot? They insist they are different people. Their track record would imply that they are, as Zordrac evidences. This looks a lot like vindictive action on the part of admins who couldn't get their way, Dave, in the absence of any actual evidence. You have ignored the other evidence that they are not sockpuppets -- no previous suspicious collusion, different editing interests etc. Can you not unblock them and give the admonition not to vote the same way on AfD -- admins to block indefinitely if they do? If they are socks, that will hurt in the way desired, and if they are not, you are not blocking useful contributors in error. Please consider it. There's a bad habit here of using blocking as a blunt weapon to punish those who get on the wrong side of admins. -- Grace Note.

...in the absence of any actual evidence Oh, there's plenty of actual evidence -- the CheckUser thing -- though there's no evidence for the rationale you're making up. And I do mean "making up", since you're not connected with these people/this person, are not not acting as their agent, nor are you passing on what they've told you -- it's all the product of your creativity. Occam's Razor ought to be sufficient. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I know I'd do better trying to teach a mule to tango, Calton, I will spend a sentence or two on explaining it to you. These are mainly users who have been editing Wikipedia for several months, with different interests, not colluding. Suddenly, they all vote together on one issue. Does Occam's Razor really suggest that they are all one user who has been using different usernames solely to create a false impression in one vote? Rhetorical, dude. I've never yet seen you admit you're in the wrong, and I don't expect you to start now. -- Grace Note.

Well, I should have known better than to expect rationality from trolling fishwife such as yourself, "Dr Zen": what's the proof that they are, in fact, several different users and not one (or two) compartmentalizing his/her/their edits? Are you trying to provide some examples for the Begging the question article? --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Newport said on her user page she was based in Newport, Wales. Given that the technical evidence shows she was posting from RachelBrown's London IP address, Grace Note seems to be saying she popped over to London from Newport, a distance of 200 kms, whenever she wanted to make an edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

People often say they are "from" somewhere when it's their hometown, even if they don't live there anymore. That said, I think the sockpuppetry is quite obvious. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 08:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm "from" Cornwall, but lo and behold, here I am with an Australian IP. Must be magic! And Morven, do you really think it makes sense that a person sets up several user names, pretending to be their own friend, just so they can collude on one particular vote, which was not even in the offing when they first set up the username? Why not assume good faith, accept their explanation and suggest that they don't collude on any more votes? Why the blunt instrument of blocking, always and for every "crime" here on Wikipedia? -- Grace Note.

just so they can collude on one particular vote Big assumption there, assuming one specific vote is a target, as opposed to, say, an insurance policy for whatever vote comes up -- or even one vote picked randomly for the purpose of screwing around. --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its premature to call the locations a lie, since the CheckUser info has not been released. From what I can gather from what User:Kelly Martin has said, they only used the same IP address twice - I am going to suggest somewhere in the period from 17-27 November 2005. And from what she said, on one of those occasions 3 of them used it, the other occasion there were 2. So I am going to go with a theory here - Poetlister visited RachelBrown's house every couple of days, and on one occasion her cousin Londoneye did as well. Whilst I guess its theoretically possible that Taxwoman might have, from what I can gather they didn't really know each other. Of course, it might be more than that, but until they release the CheckUser info WHICH THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO DO per Wikipedia:Privacy policy, then I think that we should wait before making conclusions. All that we know at this stage is that they are different people and that there was no collusion. We don't know why these admins are insisting that CheckUser says that they are sock puppets. Until they present the evidence, we have to wait. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The so-called collusion

See User:Zordrac/Poetlister#The_so-called_collusion. This is their collusion. Per User:Zordrac/Poetlister#Creation of accounts, accounts were created on 15 April 2005, 12 July 2005, 10 August 2005, 28 September 2005 and 3 December 2005. The only time when edits were on the same articles was from 17-27 November 2005. So for this fanciful theory of sock puppetry to be true, it would mean that from 15 April-17 November, a period of 7 months, they all laid in wait waiting for this 1 occasion when they would collude. And what was the collusion? Oh, it was to vote to keep a few List of Jews articles - in which they all voted on different AFDs in a different manner on totally different days. Is that collusion anyway? Oh, but on top of that, User:Poetlister and User:RachelBrown both edited the talk page of List of Jewish jurists (only RachelBrown edited the actual page, apart from one very minor edit by Poetlister). And the so-called collusion was solely related to Poetlister criticising User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for his abusive editing process. Oh, and for the record, she was right. He was engaging in abusive editing practises. I detailed that here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister#Lulu_Bad_Editing_timeline. So we are trying to suggest that this "collusion" made any difference. THERE WAS NO COLLUSION! Not only that, but even if there was, IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE! Oh, wait, do you believe that their contributions were somehow hiding what had really happened? I mean, I looked through EVERY EDIT EVER MADE BY ANY OF THE 5 ACCOUNTS. Was there something I missed? Something that a quick CheckUser can tell me that Wikipedia's detailed logs missed? Oh, and so you know, Wikipedia's privacy policy Wikipedia:Privacy policy DOES PERMIT YOU TO RELEASE THE INFO if the users concerned ask for it. I think its safe to assume that they are asking. So release it already! Or else we will know that you are LYING, and that this is all a set up to protect an abusive user. Which is more logical? Yes, Occam's Razor applies. Occam's Razor tells us that this non-existent collusion didn't happen. Occam's Razor tells us that they could not be the same person. Perhaps they had a party one day mid-November and all got on to the computer together. Perhaps they visit each other? Maybe they use the same ISPs. Who knows. But they can't be the same person. It is fanciful nonsensical logic to suggest that. Nobody who has looked at the investigations could conclude that. Or, wait, do we just blindly trust admins? Wait on, according to User:Kelly Martin, I am violating WP:AGF if I dare to suggest that an admin ever made a mistake. Bad me. Yet, in the same breath, she is allowed to violate AGF by not asking the people for an explanation for the CheckUser responses, and not having an Arbitration or anything. Why is it that User:Antidote had for himself a Request for Comment, even after it was already proven that he had sock puppets that were manipulating the votes (in the exact same issue)? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote. Indeed, it seems that, thanks to the ban on User:Poetlister, Antidote is going to get off. Wow - no suspicions there! LOL. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its safe to assume that they are asking. No, it's not "safe to assume" anything of the sort, especially since you're not in charge of deciding that, either. They would have to, you know, actually ask, wouldn't they? Not just go by whatever you happen to think is reasonable in your own mind.

Yes, Occam's Razor applies. Dude, I don't think you actually understand the term. Hint: it doesn't mean "Whatever *I* think is reasonable". --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Zordrac/Poetlister (new discussion to resolve issues not covered so far)

A lot of information on this issue can be found here, including some quite shocking examples of use of admin to silence other people involved in the same edit war by User:SlimVirgin, as well as some very dodgy vandalism by a mysterious anonymous IP (example) who may well be a sockpuppet of one of the users involved here..:
User :Zordrac/Poetlister

I have not seen ANY evidence that they are the same person, it's all been circumstancial guesswork and blocks made by friends of people involved in related edit wars anyway. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

IP evidence is not revealed publically so David would be able to see much more evidence than you. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I have evidence you don't - see m:Help:CheckUser - and I'm not only not going to tell you what it is, I'm not allowed to. Call it a manifestation of this being a project to write an encyclopedia, rather than e.g. an Internet democracy - David Gerard 20:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. Not only are you allowed to, according to Wikipedia:Privacy policy, you are *OBLIGATED TO* if the user concerned requests it. I think its safe to say that that has been done. So release it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its safe to say that that has been done. That's your opinion -- which doesn't trump actual facts. --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's clear a few things up

Under a nice big header so people will notice :-)

• Sock puppets are fine unless they're used to disrupt Wikipedia (eg multiple voting) (See Wikipedia:Blocking policy and m:CheckUser policy, which was agreed by the Board as being the governing policy for CheckUser access).

Now, let's look at this case. Yes, all the accounts are sock puppets. However they were blocked by Mindspillage with the only evidence being an edit summary of "used for edit warring/vote stacking/etc." The "evidence" parameter of {{sockpuppet}}, when left on each user page, was conspicuously blank.

SlimVirgin, above, finally points out to me how these accounts were, for sure, being disruptive and are therefore blockable. Yes it needed spelling out to me, but that's because these accounts had made some damn good edits, and I hold the goal of writing an encyclopedia above all else. This presentation of actual evidence is what should have been done at the very start of this whole saga. Dan100 (Talk) 23:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and regards the whole CheckUser evidence thing - some people made a right pig's ear of presenting the "evidence". That didn't help matters. However, it's entirely beside the true point (which I just outlined above), so I'm not going to say any more about it (unless poked).

I mean, Mindspillage and Kelly only wanted these accounts blocked because they felt that they had been used for disruption, not just because they were socks... right? ;-) Dan100 (Talk) 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter McConaughey

Just blocked for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks after warning, after seeing this edit. Can anyone work out any possible way to bring Mr McConaughey back to the land of the living? - David Gerard 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, it's not really necessary to put it like that. We have to bee civil too, ya know. I have been trying to urge Peter to exercise civility. I don't know what else can be done. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think David was just making a play on words. But you can block him for incivility if you really want :-) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I obviously missed the "play" of it. Maybe I missed something. Oh well... --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I was attempting to euphemise "batshit crazy troll", but anyway. By the way, has Mr McConaughey made any good edits at all, anywhere? - David Gerard 11:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• How about "chiroptera-poop mentally challenged troglodyte"? Radiant_>|< 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I count about 10-20 good edits to articles other than conspiracy theory, 9/11, American terrorism, and related talk pages. I wasn't going in to look at all of those since the idea of POV there is too great to make any sense in a short check like that. Hmmm... an idea. BRB. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are they..? I'm sure there must be a few good edits in amongst the user's total edit count of 579, but I don't see any off hand. The proportions have some interest in themselves: only 119 of them are to article space, 123 to user talk alone. What stood out for me were PM's recent exchanges with two notably unflappable and polite editors, JRM and MONGO, on non-existent or nonsense issues, seemingly purely with the goal of somehow, by hook or by crook, needling those users into annoyance. (Unsuccessfully; well done, guys.) A lot of good-faith assumption has already been spent on this user, and has fallen on stony ground. I'm thinking RFAR rather than RFC, sooner rather than later, though perhaps not quite yet. Meanwhile, I advise only the coolest, most laid-back of us to try any interaction (me, I would be the very last). Mind that blood pressure. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, here are the ones that I found. Caveat: I wasn't going near any of the talk pages, the POV pages (like American terrorism or conspiracy theory), or the Wikipedia namespace. [7] [8] [9] [10] (Maybe)[11] (Maybe too)[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] So, all in all, maybe 25-30 possible "good" edits. However, for every one good edit, there are a couple of edits, maybe not so good. I'm just sayin' is all. Phew... good thing I don't do this for a living, but it might come in handy if an RfAr is ever filed. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In my interpretation Peter has been a very worthwhile contributor to wikipedia. Peter fundamentally grasps the concepts of true consensus and collaborative editing and I have a learned a lot from his WP:0RR guideline. I can give Carbonite the benefit of the doubt if he claims otherwise but I think it was reasonable for Peter to conclude Carbonite was trying to damage the acceptance of WP:0RR, first by moving it to Peter's userspace over a header dispute, then after that mistake was corrected and the guideline was moved back, Carbonite proposed a merge of it to a fundmanetally different and perhaps less effective guideline. However, Carbonite continues to maintain the two guidelines are similar which apparently is easy to do as he fails to even acknowledge the evidence to the contrary. I ask all of Peter's detractors to please assure me they are not attempting to stack the deck against him to ease future discrediting of WP:0RR or any other guideline or proposal he might have? Please give Peter the benefit of the doubt and avoid statements such as the above "batshit crazy troll" that are out of line for an admin and portray him and his contributions way too negatively. The list of "few beneficial edits" above is likewise way too negative. zen master T 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Way too negative? Take a look at his contribs and find any more productive edits and diffs. I was trying to do PM a favor by pointing out he wasn't just disruptive. Remember also, I was only going through his main namespace edits in areas specified above. And some of my diffs are being generous by calling them productive. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a tendency to disagree with Zen-master ;-) , but here I fully agree. I also appreciate Carbonite's openly stated attempt to group all <3RR on one page, but I can understand disagreement about it and coming from the 0RR page his actions may look a bit self serving and lacking openness. Apart of that, for an as yet unidentified reason some administrators seem not to understand Peter (see also the discussion with Voldemort on my talk page User_talk:Harald88#A & B's discussion and Wikipedia management)... perhaps Texans and Dutch speak the same language? (I'm Dutch). Also, most of his edits and proposals that I saw on Conspiracy Theory were definitely good, helping to move in the direction of similar but already featured articles. BTW what did David Gerhard mean with "batshit crazy troll"? I did not understand that, thanks! Harald88 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and see also Mongo's comment on Peter's Talk page User_talk:Peter_McConaughey#Howdy

What you have above is all about "portrayal", you aren't letting the evidence speak for itself. Creating a small list of "productive" edits by an editor already labeled negatively can have the effect of getting people to further unquestioningly accept your negative portrayal -- though I can give you the benefit of the doubt if you assure me that isn't your intention. Regardless, please let the evidence speak for itself and refrain from excessive or multi-layered portrayals. In my interpretation Peter's response to Carbonite's actions was completely reasonable (I give the benefit of the doubt to both parties, miscommunication and misunderstanding can happen). Please simply list any other edits of Peter's you interpret to violate any wikipedia policy, and how? zen master T 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Someone and someone else asked if he had made any good edits anywhere. I, trying not to condemn PM without looking at the edits, compiled a list of edits that show he has actually made some productive edits. Now I am beginning to think you do not assume good faith on my part. My list has absolutely nothing to do with Carbonite or their history together... notice I stayed away from the 0RR and highly POV pages. If you really want, when an RfC or an RfAr are filed (which is very possible, it seems) you will have a list of "bad" diffs. I was just creating a list of "good" diffs. If you can find any other diffs that might fit into a "good and productive" category, please feel free to list them yourself below. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You did/do seem to support the notion Peter has only made "some" or a "few" good edits? That is a negative portrayal and I believe it is completely inaccurate. Perhaps Bishonen and David Gerard are the ones that may have portrayed PM excessively negatively, perhaps inadvertently. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, I interpret the possibility of a hastily made portrayal being excessively negative, perhaps inadvertently, and perhaps even within the motivation of finding "some good" edits. Focusing on some "good edits" of an already negatively portrayed editor can have the effect of switching around the burden of proof, which would be wrong and seems to have almost happened in this case. The actual burden of proof is on PM's detractors to give evidence of any violations, right? zen master T 22:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Evidence of violations is plentiful on these pages. They're looking for evidence of good edits by Peter. Radiant_>|< 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've been following this page quite closely and seen no evidence of any "violations" by PM. Suggesting people look for a few "good edits" by Peter is a negative portrayal which I currently assume was an inadvertent mistake on your part? Please discontinue that either way. zen master T 23:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You apparently haven't been following it all that closely, considering you are unaware that the suggestion that people look for good edits by Peter is actually a serious request by David Gerard, rather than an inadvertent mistake by me. Radiant_>|< 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said above, requesting editors to look for "good" edits by an editor is needlessly prejudicial as it portrays them negatively, though, because I give you and/or David Gerard the benefit of the doubt that it was inadvertent I will simply ask you to refrain from doing that in the future. zen master T 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And I am not even sure why you are arguing with what I did. I was trying to help Peter here. There was a question of whether or not PM had made any good edits anywhere. I, looking for ways to not have him blocked outright, came up with a list of productive edits. That way, no one can say that he has never made a useful edit. I am trying to help Peter, and you are fighting me on it. Why? There are people looking to ban him indefinitely, and I am trying to persuade them to be nice and give him a shot. Did you even read my first comment in this section? I was trying to act in PM's defense. Yet you have already prejudged me as being anti-Peter. Please, continue to assume good faith on my part as I try to save Peter from being banned for good. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand you claim you want to "help" Peter and I can give you the benefit of the doubt. However, what I am telling you is your "help" or someone else's question that you responded to actually has had the effect of an excessive and very unfairly negative portrayal of Peter. The notion that Peter has only made a few good edits is completely inaccurate and taints a fair consideration. What further concerns me is now you seem to be hinting that Peter should be banned for good, that is also completely incorrect. Where did you get the notion Peter should be "blocked indefinitely" from, it seems you are definitely against him now? This page only contains a negative fluff portrayal of Peter, the only evidence presented here involves Peter's supposed "name calling". However, in my interpretation Peter's comparison of Carbonite to a troll made sense given the abusive and stifling actions Carbonite committed, though I give both parties the benefit of the doubt that tensions flare and mistakes happen. But it is starting to seem reasonable a small group of editors are systematically trying to portray Peter negatively because they really don't like his WP:0RR or other posts for some fundamental reason. zen master T 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please listen to me... First, I never said those were Peter's only good edits. I just wasn't going near the aforementioned areas. I was just showing that he was able to make productive edits. You fault me for trying to show Peter in a good light? Second, I never once said Peter deserved to be banned for good. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said there are "people looking to ban him indefinitely, and I am trying to persuade them to be nice and give him a shot." What is so wrong with me trying to be on PM's side here? You want to be the only one? Third, let me say it again, this has nothing to do with Carbonite. Do you get it? Did you read what the first thing I wrote here was? Did you read any of this? See ya, Zen. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Lord Voldemort, you seem to have accepted as a given that Peter should be "blocked indefinitely" and I think that is a completely inaccurate portrayal given the evidence presented. You say "there are people looking to ban him indefinitely" but where did anyone directly state that (innuendo doesn't count)? I am not "faulting" you for anything as I can give you the benefit of the doubt, I am merely only pointing out what you claim to be "help" has actually had the effect of an excessively negative and unfair portrayal. It is true that it was David Gerard not you that was the one who asked the leading question above: "By the way, has Mr McConaughey made any good edits at all, anywhere?" which should be obvious to see was meant prejudicially, perhaps inadvertently, as David's preceeding sentence contains the phrase "batshit crazy troll"... zen master T 19:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So apparently the answer is no, you haven't been reading what I've been writing? Let me say this one last time, as clear as possible... I was trying to help User:Peter McConaughey from being indefinitely banned, by showing that he has made useful edits, and is not just a "batshit crazy troll". There are people looking to ban him indefinitely (You asked for evidence, here's your diff), and I was trying to stop them by showing PM has been useful. And in fact, I wasn't even responding to David Gerard's question, I was responding to Bishonen's question and comment, "Where are they..? I'm sure there must be a few good edits in amongst the user's total edit count of 579, but I don't see any off hand." If you continue to assert that I am against Peter, which I never have been (show me the diffs for evidence of me being anything other than civil or helpful towards Peter), I will not discuss this matter with you further. Your continued lack of good faith on my part leads me to believe that you just want to argue, and don't care what has actually been written. Please, before you respond, make sure you read this entire comment. Thank you, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always given you the benefit of the doubt that you are not directly against Peter, but I separately can't ignore the overall excessively negative and unfair portrayal on this page. Your citation of David Gerard's suggestion of blocking Peter indefinitely is precisely my other point, where has David or anyone actually presented actual evidence and made a case against Peter (again innuendo doesn't count)? It seems you've been following all the various Peter sections on this page quite closely? The Carbonite "troll" comment is small potatoes and was reasonable given Carbonite's actions that were interpreted as being stifling and I've seen no evidence of Peter "wikistaling" him, if anything an opposite case could be made. The entire concept of "search for any good edits" by a negatively portrayed user further stacks the deck against them, perhaps you have inadvertantly fallen victim to that, though I can also give David Gerard the benefit of the doubt as cases and arguments made hastily can have, perhaps inadvertent, prejudicial results. zen master T 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen... buddy... if you have a problem with David Gerard, take it up with him. Quit debating with me. I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth (here, and now seemingly on Peter's page). Why do you keep bringing Carbonite up? I will not argue with someone if you won't even listen. I won't argue with someone who seemingly cannot see that I am trying to save PM, not ban him. This is silliness. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps what you claim is my "not listening" to you is instead us simply disagreeing over whether looking for "good" edits is actually "helpful" or not in this case? I maintain that seeking "good" edits has the perhaps inadvertent effect of unfairly reinforcing a negative portrayal and characterization. I bring Carbonite up because the supposed "personal attack" by Peter against him is the only actual "evidence" on this page, but as I explained above I think that was completely understandable given the situation. What else, if anything, makes you think the case against Peter is so strong that redeeming edits must be found to "save" him? I do take issue with David Gerard's apparently hastily made portrayal that also lacks evidence, but I can give him the benefit of the doubt and need not follow it up with him if he refrains from repeating the same, perhaps inadvertent, mistake. zen master T 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen carefully, I don't really give a crap about how Peter is being portrayed here. I don't give a crap the history between Carbonite and Peter. I don't give a crap if you can't or won't understand me. I DO give a crap about possible good users getting banned.

You ask, "What else, if anything, makes you think the case against Peter is so strong that redeeming edits must be found to "save" him?" My answer: Someone said they were close to banning him! Honestly, at this point, I don't give a crap what the case against him is. Someone was close to banning him, so I thought I'd help him not get banned. If someone says, "Hey, I'm going to ban this editor unless someone can show he or she is useful", I am going to see if I can show them as useful. I provided quality diffs that show PM as something other than a troll (Again, I don't give a crap if this label was justified, that is not what I am arguing here. If you want to have that conversation, we can do that later, for now, please focus on this.)

I don't know if you are arguing just to argue, but this time I really am done with you. You fail to assume good faith, you put words in my mouth, you don't seem to want people to try and help, this case is seemingly hopeless. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So you unquestioningly accepted David Gerard at his word that the case against Peter was so strong that redeeming edits must be found to save him, and, you dutifully took it upon yourself to spend a significant amount of time searching for only that without considering the possibility there is no case, and, you have repeatedly made a point of insisting: 1) you have nothing to do with Carbonite, 2) or David Gerard, 3) and you are not duplicitously against Peter? Ok, I can still give you the benefit of the doubt. Going forward, if you really want to "save" Peter, as you claim, then be aware that focusing on "redeeming" edits to "save" him can, perhaps inadvertently, reinforce an unfairly negative portrayal, which is exactly what almost happened in this case in my interpretation. The case against Peter is actually slim to none, no where near having to search for redeeming edits to "save" him. zen master T 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So the apparent, perhaps inadvertent, effort to portray Peter as needing to be "saved" and the effort by other editors to "save" him has fizzled out as quickly as it started? zen master T 16:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I am just done with you. He's still being watched closely. Don't worry. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You claim above you are trying to "save" Peter, why would he need watching? zen master T 02:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... that is some delicious looking bait you got there. Look, I'm not convinvced either way, so better to be safe than sorry. Possible trolls get watched. Simple as that. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It would additionally be inaccurate to portray Peter as a "possible troll", please discontinue your efforts to "save" him, they are way beyond counter productive. Those who would errantly and duplicitously portray people as "disruptive" or "trolls" get watched likewise. zen master T 15:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mandy Moore uber-vandals

65.241.54.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 206.170.106.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 66.77.127.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have vandalized the Mandy Moore page almost everyday. I have been one of the few users who updates the article, and for that the page has been blanked and i have been labled a perdophile. I believe all these users are the same person. I ask you all to atleast ban one of these users. They have clearly abused the site. Parys

One has been warned only once, and the other has not been warned at all. Please apply the templates {{test1}} through {{test4}}, one at a time, for each incident of vandalism, before requesting a block. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked them all. Multi-day vandals can safely be blocked without touching ninteenth base. Phil Sandifer 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That makes the {{test}} templates pretty pointless, if people will get blocked without their use. People need to understand that vandals should be warned first, and blocked only when absolutely necessary. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I block people all the time without using the test templates. Know why? Because I write my own warnings. I came across an IP's talkpage last night that had nothing but two identical warnings, side-by-side: one from early January, one from late December. And that's just ridiculous. Let's not swoon too much over those silly templates, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that when we see someone who vandalizes the same page every day for several days, it is a safe bet that they have figured out what they are doing. Phil Sandifer 02:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. When I come across a vandal who obviously knows what they're doing (and I try to set the bar for "obviously" high), the standard for "patiently warn" drops accordingly. Sometimes it drops as low as "oi, pull your head in or you get blocked". As, I hope, it should. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Phil. Parys is an editor in good faith whose time here has been made very unenjoyable by a repeat vandal. He was desperate for help and got it. I think that's a good outcome. James James 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for aiding me. I work so hard on the Mandy Moore article. I added a article for almost every single, and every album. And these "fans" come here and disrupt. With fans like those, who need enemies. Thank you all again Parys

So basically, we block without warning at all now, if they've done it more than once without ever being warned. Got it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan; if their vandalism is such a frequent problem (and this was all fairly slow blanking vandalism, that I could see, nothing egregious), then it should take next to no time to give them a few escalating warnings and then block. Obviously a number of these accounts were the same guy (close IP numbers make it clear) so warning each and every one of them wouldn't make sense, but promoting an attitude that says we block multi-day vandals without warning now is a very bad idea. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No-one has said that. I assume, because I respect you too much to think you might be making a stupid sarcastic comment in defiance of the facts, that you've just misread what I and (especially) Phil have written; if so, please re-read it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I understood what you said, fuddlemark, and agreed — especially with the notion that the test templates aren't the important thing; the warnings are. (Though I'll note that the test templates do a good job of giving non-hostile, calm-sounding warnings, something some people might have trouble composing on the spot.) I guess I agree with Phil that we don't need to get to "nineteenth base", either — fourth would seem sufficient. Phil seemed to be calling the runner out somewhere between home and second, though, which I didn't agree with in this case, and he seemed to be advocating that we should all do so: a bad idea. Apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted anything. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm in awe that we have four whole test templates that must be applied in sequence. We block when someone is obviously doing it deliberately, because we don't want to block over random experimental vandalism. When someone comes back EVERY DAY to vandalize an article, it's pretty obvious it's not a test. Phil Sandifer 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OMIGOD! AN EDITOR WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT COMMON SENSE IS! RUN! HIDE! Kelly Martin (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There's obviously a tension between efficiently dealing with vandals and having standard operating procedures designed to avoid biting newbies if a judgement call proves faulty. Different editors are going to fall along different parts of the spectrum between the two views. Do we need the sarcasm? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Phil Sandifer 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner - Please see WP:CIV. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly never apply all four test templates in sequence. For obvious vandalism I apply, say, 2 and 4. Writing your own is good too. I think some people get hung up on the procedure—this applying all four in sequence is nonsense—but at the same time it's vital that people do remember to issue some kind of warning before blocking people. I think we're all in agreement on that. -- SCZenz 06:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The test templates are good in that they're well-written, and perfect for slowly introducing the clue-stick to an anon newbie vandal, who may get bitten if the cluestick is too-enthusiastically wielded. There's nothing wrong with what they actually say; the problem is when you get nine or ten (or even more than one!) identically-worded warnings on the one talkpage, any vandal with half a brain will start to wonder about just how serious we are ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't need nine or ten. You should need four. Then block him. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to use the test templates. They're just an easy way to warn people. Blocking someone without warning them in any capacity is not okay. I don't particularly care how you do it, but I suggested the test templates because they are the easiest way. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just re-read the thread, and I owe you an apology (and one for User:Bunchofgrapes, too, who thought I was sniping at him) for my needless sarcasm above. I had thought you were expanding Phil's "don't give too many warnings" to "don't give any warnings", without any justification. However, the thread began with someone getting blocked without warning, so I can see why you were harping on that. I'm sorry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think you were sniping at me; I just happen to agree with Ryan. (Except for the unneccessary sarcasm). I'm very glad some of the miscommunication got cleared up. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:66.225.247.182

User:66.225.247.182 was blocked on December 19 for vandalism. On December 26 they continued and vandalized 3 more pages. Tnikkel 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not an administrator, I'm pretty sure such reports go at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism, that being where I've always reported my vandals.Tommstein 07:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I blocked him for a week, since he continued to vandalized Wikipedia, with pretty much no edits except for vandalism -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody home?

Fellows (and female fellows), the above section requires the attention of some administrator, pretty much any administrator: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet needs attention. I was going to ask some random administrator directly, but this seems better.Tommstein 07:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Fellow" is a nonsexed term and can refer to either male or female persons. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd prefer "fellowette". Radiant_>|< 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going to say "I prefer <something else that sounds kinda like that...>"  :-) That said, I'm a bit confused regarding what the specific attention request is here... Tomer^talk 05:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

There was apparently some page move fun going on just a little bit ago at Bill O'Reilly (commentator), and the talk page has become seperated from the article. Can an admin please put them back together? Redirects are currently in use which are at least keeping people from talking in the wrong place, but it shouldn't be left like this. —Locke Cole 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Handled by RedWolf24. :P —Locke Cole 13:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes

It's Tony against AfD in single combat again. It's that time of the year.

Recently someone pained himself and nominated a stack of entries on Snoop Dogg mixes for deletion. The articles were nothing more than track listings. In the ensuing discussion quickly consensus emerged that mixtapes and bootlegs are a dime to the dozen and generally too ephemeral to warrant a place in an encyclopedia, except when the material released there had a bearing on the artist's career. Bob Dylan comes to mind.

Now the material is back, cut-and-pasted into one single article. It doesn't fit the letter of CSD-G4 as "a substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy", because the old stuff hasn't been deleted yet - the listing will continue a few days more, but it certainly fits the spirit.

Someone made the point than an encyclopedia article on Snoop Dogg mixes might be a good idea, but this copy-and-paste-job of track listings isn't it.

As a result of the failure of the quality control process in Wikipedia a prolific and competent editor has left the project. [34] Pilatus 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

THe articles are subject to a mass listing for deletion. As an alternative to deletion of material on this significant body of work by a major rap artist, I am producing an article into which the material can be merged. This is normal editing behavior and I take except to Pilatus' patently false characterization of my activities as "It's Tony against AfD in single combat again." This is nothing more than a personal attack. I also take exception to your false statement that "the material is back". The material has never been deleted, so it cannot be "back". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The material has been rejected as unsuitable altogether for Wikipedia. Merging unsuitable material into one entry doesn't make it more suitable and is disrespectful to all participants in the deletion discussion. Your sustained disregard for AfD (and by inference, for the people who participate in the discussions there) has been noticed and criticized many times before. Pilatus 20:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone needs to calm down. I would like to reiterate that Tony is right that works by major artists like Snoop Dogg merit inclusion, regardless of AFD's opinion on the matter. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -- we do not stick blindly to rules or the logic of process here. I think we should all take a few deep breaths and talk this out. Getting personal isn't going to help. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Ryan, the albums discussed in both AfD's are mixtapes, where other DJs re-issue the Dogg's material. The original nomination makes that very clear. Pilatus 20:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate compilation of information. And Wikipedia works by consensus. If consensus says that something is not encyclopedic, then Tony should learn to respect the fact that he isn't always correct. There have been occasions where there was a good argument that AFD had overlooked, but as Pilatus states this isn't one of them, and Wikilawyering doesn't cut it. Pilatus's first remark isn't particularly friendly, but Tony's response is also incivil. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  I would agree if I viewed AFD as in any way representative of consensus, or a means of determining consensus. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • If you mean to say that AFD is caustic, factionalizing, and generally contributing to bad atmosphere, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I've been meaning to do something about that, maybe now is the time. Radiant_>|< 00:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are often cases where material that doesn't justify several articles can be meaningfully compiled into one. The present article doesn't strike me as terribly interesting -- it might be more worthwhile if it were used as an example to discuss the phenomenon of DJs putting out mixtapes. Nonetheless, I don't think that compiling a bunch of non-notable stubs (each eligible for deletion) into a single possibly-notable article is any kind of abuse. It's part of the ordinary operation of Wikipedia. Just because the individual stubs are deletable doesn't mean that consolidating them into an article is some kind of evil nasty disruption. Better to have all this material in one place than in a dozen. --FOo 00:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me. Good work, Tony. Phil Sandifer 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Fluterst

This user seems to be coming perilously close to violating the WP:NLT rule. While, if I read him right, he isn't actually threatening himself to sue Wikipedia or anybody associated with it, he does seem to harp quite a bit on the alleged class-action suit that's being worked on against it, and insisting that we all have to clean up our acts or we're likely to lose everything we own. This hence appears to be an attempt to use the legal system to bully away the opposition to the changes he wants to make. (His conversations are extremely hard to follow due to the propensity on both his part and those he's talking with to leave their respective comments on the recipient's talk page instead of all in the same place as part of a conversation thread, meaning that anywhere you look you only see one side of a conversation like eavesdropping on somebody talking on the phone. *Dan T.* 19:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Flarn2005

Curps blocked this user indefinitely for repeated vandalism, but I feel most of his vandalism was not malicious enough and although his useful edits are sparse, I think the user is showing enough interest in the project to be given another chance. Blocking him indefinitely based on only Curps' judgement seems rather rash.

However, I do agree with giving him a longer than regular block to get his attention. Would anyone oppose if I shortened it to say a week and give him a final chance to behave? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked, it was excessive. -- Curps 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Weird vandalism spate over the last few days

Looking through the vandalism in progress page, I notice there has been some rather odd vandalism over the last few days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=32868173

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=32867168

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=32870231

I notice User:Mike Rosoft said: however, they appear to be a part of a vandalism spree by multiple sockpuppets and may need to be blocked.

All have been hit with the {{WoW}} template and are suspected Willy on Wheels socked. Can someone look into this? I'm suspecting another line of open proxy vandals.... but I could be wrong. --Sunfazer 20:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:OceanSplash

I've been asked [35] to block OceanSplash (talk · contribs) for posting that "Muslims are masters of tricks ... Once you ... become a Muslim and see how they lie with clear conscience you won't be surprised of anything." [36] He's been warned many times about making these kinds of anti-Muslim comments and has been blocked three times already for them. I'm minded to block him for 72 hours for this one, but because the comment partly involved me, I'd appreciate some feedback first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not the first personal attack OceanSplash has made, nor his first racist comment directed in an anti-Islam fashion, including my personal 'favourite' earlier this month Muslims lie. This is what Islam teaches them to do, and another imaginary deity of the self proclaimed prophet of Islam replacing Mohammad Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked OceanSplash for 24 hours a while ago. It started on Talk:Ali Sina leading me to post Talk:Ali_Sina#Stop. I also notified him on his userpage User_talk:OceanSplash#Block. He complained to Jimbo about me which didn't seem to go anywhere User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gross_and_flagrant_abuses_of_power. I almost blocked him again for the comment, however, I decided since it was on a userpage and not on article talk pages it wasn't as big of a deal. I think he could be blocked but when it's on article talk pages it's much worse in my opinion. gren グレン 21:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Compared with her/his former self-deleted user talk page, I see OceanSplash reducing her/his anti-religious personal attacks. I suggest to keep an eye on the next edits. If nothing changes, a longer block would be appropriate. Cheers -- Szvest 22:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Blocked for one week, these kinds of comments are unacceptable and after reviewing this user's contribs and talk page I think it's safe to say that he has a history of this type of behavior and that a one week block is warranted. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it, Jtk, and to everyone else for the input. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I on the other hand disagree altogether with this witch-hunting. OceanSplash has stated his candid opinion, which he should be able to freely present in the free market of ideas which are discussed in the in the talk page without at once being accused of racism or personal attacks.

Furthermore, that particular view is shared by many others throughout the world. Now if we cannot take a bit of adverse opinion to our way of seing the world I wonder then what we are doing participating in an user based online encyclopedia whose mission is to spread knowledge throughout the world.

Like Noam Chomsky tells us quote:

Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech. --CltFn 05:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You think Muslim editors should have to put up with comments from OS like "Muslims have evolved to have no conscience"? And if we try to stop him, it means we're like Goebbels? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Being in favour of free speech for those I dislike does not give me any moral obligation to hand them a megaphone when I see them on the street. Wikipedia is not their private vehicle for these things. Shimgray | talk | 11:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In the free market of ideas editors can take the opinions and ideas of other editors and discuss them and challenge them if they wish. That some editors cannot deal with the opinions of other editors is no reason that these other editor's opinion should be suppressed by wikipedia admins. Stifling free speech is not going to result in a good encyclopedia.

As far as Goebbel goes make up your own mind, Noam Chomsky is the source of that quote.--CltFn 07:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agreed with NAMBLA's right to keep up their website despite the fact that pragmatically it was likely harmful. Should they be given a free vehicle to support their endeavors? If any Muslim editor tried to convert me I'd warm him and if he persisted he'd end up on WP:AN/I. This project has a goal and when you alienate editors it isn't conducive towards that goal. Send some of OceanSplash's edits to an EB editor. See what he or she thinks. Show some of OceanSplash's edits to a manager of a company. Would he or she accept that behavior among employees? Yes we have more leeway for discussion but OceanSplash used more "dawa" than any Muslim I've seen here. gren グレン 13:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jonah Ayers

• Jonah_Ayers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jonah Ayers
• Wikipedia:Account suspensions/Sojambi Pinela (AKA Jonah Ayers)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive40#Biff Rose-related sock puppets

This long time problem user has recently been making attacks by posting private information of other editors, in addition to his usual mayhem of sock puppetry and edit-warring at Biff Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Though the information has been removed, admins SlimVirgin and Dan100 can confirm the attacks). This editor needs to be banned in all of his manifestations. I suppose that will require an ArbCom decision. I'll ask an ArbCom member to do a sockpuppet confirmation. -Willmcw 00:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User HSPMV has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:HSPMV has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 01:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, 5 years from now, Wikipedia will be nothing but bots at this rate...karmafist 02:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Antidote

This user has knowingly evaded a block imposed for violation of the 3RR. He continued several edit wars, including the one that led to the block itself. See a related RfC, which indicates a history of disruptive behavior and lack of appreciation for due process. Although he is relatively new to Wikipedia, he should be no stranger to Wikiquette by now. Jbetak 02:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden

User:Marsden has been blocked, because Wikipedia does not need trolls with nothing better to do than accuse Jimbo of stacking the arbcom with Zionist Randroids. Phil Sandifer 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I can read nowhere in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy where you are allowed to block someone indefinitely on your own (even if you have a few administrators backing you up). I must ask you to either properly start a request for arbitration or undo the indefinite block. Otherwise I'm going to have to take up this issue. -- Dissident (Talk) 22:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm repeating my assertion that the indefinite blocking of Marsden (which goes way beyond a simple enforced cooling down period) was a violation of Wikipedia's blocking policy and should be undone. If anyone is convinced the punishment was appropriate, I'm sure there will be no problem of going through the official channels, in this case by starting an arbitration request, if not a lesser remedy. -- Dissident (Talk) 14:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia's banning policy, which states that the decision to ban a user may come from the Wikipedia community. Since none of the 700+ admins have unblocked Marsden, there is de facto community support for this ban. Carbonite | Talk 14:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Everyking wanted to unblock Marsden, but felt that he might be de-adminned if he did. 222.99.239.170 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You're argumentation makes no sense for several reasons (and I personally find it highly disturbing from a due process point of view). First of all, administrators are not equal to the Wikipedia community and are not to be considered to be more authorative when it comes to consensus forming. Apart from that, consensus is almost by definition not "de facto" and depends on a large participation at a reasonably visible place, which I don't think ever took place in this case. I doubt much more than, say, 5 procent of the administrators were even aware of this issue before just now and there is obviously a massive natural bias in favor of banning from those who were aware. All I see here is a bunch of administrators acting in collusion, and I'm exactly putting up this notice at the bottom in order to raise awareness among much more administrators. If the unblocking simply depends on a single administrator disagreeing, wouldn't you agree that that would be too much of an intimidating prospective for such an administrator? And aren't the policies not exactly meant to prevent such things from happening? -- Dissident (Talk) 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration will come out no different. Harassing users by threatening their employment is not acceptable. Perhaps that should be put into the banning policy. Fred Bauder 14:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As Fred surely knows very well, Marsden never threatened anyone's employment, and in fact assured SlimVirgin that he had no intention of ratting out Jayjg for editing Wikipedia from work; Marsden just wanted a simple statement from Jayjg either confirming or denying that his participation in Wikipedia fulfilled part or all of his employment obligations. 222.99.239.170 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you making assertions (which can be disputed) and then automatically become judge, jury and executioner of them? You can't simultaneously be confident of your side and then fear a subsequent official inquiry? I'm reasoning in circles here. All I'm asking is that you follow official procedures and give Marsden his day in court. -- Dissident (Talk) 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dissident - this sort of thing needs to be done properly. I'm not aware of blocking policy that permits banning people indefinitely for being "trolls". If Marsden has made (legal?) threats, that's a reason for blocking or banning - but that wasn't the reason given by Snowspinner, and a diff to show the relevant edit would be nice. The only thing I can find is this, which does not seem sufficient justification. Snowspinner also apparently failed to notify Marsden of the ban, never mind explain it. Rd232 ^talk 15:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If Marsden was banned an harrasment grounds, and thats considered clearly unacceptable by the wiki community, why don't you just unban-reban with the proper reason this time? That shuould handle most of the objections.--Tznkai 15:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just asking for evidence of behaviour justifying a ban, and noting that normally such justification should be placed on the user's talk page. There's mention here of "Threatening people's place of work", but I'd just like to see the evidence for it. Rd232 ^talk 18:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Threatening people's place of work gets an immediate ban unless and until we can be sure the person operating the account can damn well behave like a decent person and not a thug. (This, by the way, is one of the reasons CheckUser data is guarded with such paranoia — there are enough dicks on Wikipedia that there is real danger of such harassment.) This is unlikely to be negotiable, and in the case of an unblock a reblock is almost certain.

BTW, for anyone who cares: Dissident does not appear to be Marsden, so their concerns are independent - David Gerard 17:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, David Gerard, I am Marsden. And this is the second time you have slandered me. Have you no shame, David Gerard, no shame whatsoever? You are a disgrace to Wikipedia, David Gerard, and you are in a position for which your character, or lack thereof, makes you unsuitable. I still remember your unjustified block of Dervish Tsaddik, and your disgraceful refusal to consider that you had made a mistake. 222.99.239.170 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave, he didn't threaten anyone's place of work. He asked whether Jay was being paid to edit Wikipedia. You must know that that rumour -- which Jay has denied and I take to be entirely false -- has been circulated. Marsden didn't to my knowledge threaten to tell Jay's bosses that he spends time working here. Nor was that what Snowspinner banned him for. It looks to me as though a group of admins has arranged to have a dissident editor banned and now they're making up whatever bullshit reason they can come up with to justify it. -- Grace Note.

I consider your identity checking unwarranted and thus a personal attack against me. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how its personal, or an attack, and you were just cleared of any suspicion seperate from yorur conduct.--Tznkai 17:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't a personal attack but it was, in my opinion, unwarranted. No one accused Dissident of being Marsden. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It was my first thought - David Gerard 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So much for the checks we were assured you'd have on your use of it. -- Grace Note.

If this is true and instead of a crude human analysis by glancing at edits, an outright IP test has been done here without due case, then shame on you, David Gerard, for violating my privacy in this blatant disregard of assume good faith! -- Dissident (Talk) 00:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why do you expect information that you put out for public consumption — a connection on the internet — to be private? Nandesuka 00:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Then explain to me why IP checks are usually reserved for persistent vandals. Must I be a persistent vandal for bringing this up? Am I disruptive for pursuing this matter here? Do you people want me to shut up about it lest I be penalized? These things say a lot about the kind of atmosphere in which the editing take place. If I know I can arbitrarily become a victim of sysop abuse in case I (accidentally) end up at the bad side of a bunch (which is what I believe might well have happened to Marsden here), then at the long term it's going to affect the quality of Wikipedia. With a reasonably well-defined dispute resolution process, I would at least see these things coming in advance and have a slightly better chance at a fairer and a more transparent treatment. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you have a poor grasp of what does or doesn't constitute a personal attack. WP:NPA - David Gerard 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I consider it, if not a personal attack, at least an indirect attempt at a poisoning the well attack on the basis that instead of addressing my arguments you think me as a person is somehow relevant here. If you think my behavior is out-of-line, then you should speak out about that instead of immediately searching for evidence that no one but the subject himself could possibly say what I've said here. Back on-topic, if Marsden has made unambiguous threats which are not based on contrived interpretations of his statements, I would like to see them, and, again, that might as well then be on an arbitration page. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, assume good faith is also highly regarded here. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to those who have had the finger pointed at them. -- Grace Note.

Alright, fine, I would have liked to know, in the spirit of due proccess having everything open, to be assured that you were not A known troublemaker's sock, and/or meatpuppet. ITs not personal, its not an attack, its doing your homework--Tznkai 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

And I am of the (probably naive) opinion that since I don't believe I have done anything that should have triggered such an off-topic meta-issue, it shouldn't have been brought up. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Its the first question that old jaded wikians ask when someone has been banned and someone is trying to do something about it, right or wrong.--Tznkai 21:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dissident, you wrote that you want Marsden to have his day in court. But that's exactly what he wants, and it's why he wrote to you (I assume he did write to you, along with all the others he has tried to stir up). He wants an arbcom case that he can turn into a circus and use as a platform to repeat all his personal attacks. He was here to cause trouble, not write an encyclopedia, and he wants to come back to cause trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What Slim writes is true, if you understand "cause trouble" to mean, "prevent SlimVirgin and some of her prefered co-editors from presenting their POVs as the NPOV." Anyway, as Thomas More is reputed to have said, "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" originally posted by 222.99.239.170 (talk · contribs) on WP:AN/I at 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, out of curiosity, why does it matter what he wants?--Tznkai 20:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If what he wants is to make trouble, it matters a great deal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So don't let him. I don't see how putting it through Arbitration will allow him to make it a circus. Just sayin.--Tznkai 20:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You're the second to make a wrong assumption here (since I'm not an administrator here I would be an odd choice for him anyway). I'm doing this because I worry about due process and that one day I might find myself in a similar Kafkaesque situation. Lots of other people, including highly destructive editors were handled adequately by the ArbCom, so I fail to see how in this case it would "obviously" be inadequate. The way I see it, the administrators are supposed to be the police and the ArbCom the court. What you are calling a circus, might perhaps been judged differently as a valid argument and frankly, whether it could be or not is not for you to decide. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

He hasn't only contacted admins. He's been in touch with anyone he thinks might start up a bit of trouble on his behalf. As for the situation being "Kafkaesque," Joseph K didn't know what he had done wrong. Marsden does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I learned that trick when Jayjg recruited you to revert me on Occupied territories when he'd hit 3RR. And I know I've done nothing wrong, Slim, save piss off some people in positions of authority for which they are unfit. 222.99.239.170 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you and/or other administrators just stopped at giving him a few cooling-off periods on your own that would have been ok. But the moment it was decided to ban him indefinitely (especially since what the ArbCom hands out is usually in the order of a few months at most) the line was crossed and instead an arbitration case should have been started. The fact that you also protected his talk page twice after he was banned doesn't make any sense and makes it seem that discussion of his case by third parties is being stifled. Seriously, can you blame outsiders for finding the whole sneakiness about this entire affair troubling? -- Dissident (Talk) 21:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, wishing to have a process is "stirring up trouble" but just blocking whoever you don't like indefinitely is helping out. Well, it certainly gets the message across to those who disagree with Jay that they must treat him with more care than he has to treat them. I have no doubt Marsden has transgressed and could have done with a month off to think about whether he really wants to contribute to WP, but you're very right, Dissident, this has been handled very shoddily by the party of admins who opposed Marsden and their friends. I'm not Marsden, by the way. Save yourself the work with CheckUser, Dave, if you're checking anyone who thinks that Marsden has been poorly treated. -- Grace Note.

Honestly (and again, I AM Marsden), I am not interested in being unblocked. Wikipedia is a lost cause. Take a look at what two of the other idiots on ArbCom consider to be acceptable behavior (at least, when it's from one of their favorites) if you want another example (warning: it's painful even to read such utterly dishonest nonsense). What's needed is a bulldozer, not just a sledgehammer. And, obviously, if I ever really want to edit something here, I can. 222.99.239.170 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you'll make a marvellous open proxy canary. Do please continue - David Gerard 15:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the block to one month, backdated to when Snowspinner made the block (16 December). I do not think an indefinite block was appropriate, and I'm not sure some of the previous blocks were entirely necessary either (perhaps I'm missing key contributions of Marsden's). If Marsden chooses to come back to the Wikipedia community, I hope he tries harder to play by its written and unwritten rules. Rd232 ^talk 10:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden has been at this for many months; one month will hardly be a hiccup. I see no evidence whatsoever he's here to write an encyclopedia. He does, however, spend a lot of time emailing admins and now non-admins, looking for the ones he can play like a xylophone - David Gerard 15:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, I think an indefinite block requires somewhat more process. At the least the blocking admin should marshal some convincing evidence in a relevant and accessible place. This has not been done AFAIK, and I've asked several times and looked through Marsden's recent contributions myself. In any case, two admins have now restored the indefinite block without further discussion. block log I find this somewhat disturbing, especially as I was under the impression that indefinite bans were frowned upon, and that blocks should be imposed in a rising pattern except where there is extreme justification (evidence of which has not been forthcoming). Marsden's longest block prior to this indefinite one was 1 week - I would have thought 1 month or 3 months would be appropriate as the next step, if further action is indeed justified. Rd232 ^talk 22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden made over 500 contributions in 2 months before being blocked for the first time (24 hours) on 10 November (and after several more blocks, indef blocked on 16 December); that doesn't sound like "has been at this for many months" to me (maybe everybody was being very patient with him before November, but anyway...). Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. People were extremely patient with him. He is one of the most vicious editors I've encountered. He has made only 300 or so edits to the main namespace and most of those were probably reverts. His main contribution has been to insult people on talk pages, and stir up trouble behind the scenes by e-mailing trolls and asking them to intervene on this behalf or revert for him. If he has emailed you to ask you to help him, it is not a compliment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous. If you think Marsden should be permanently banned and his previous actions on Wikipedia more than justify this, then I'm sure it won't be any difficulty at all for you to put together some evidence for the Arbitration Committee to consider. I'm willing to accept on faith that he's made personal attacks, but I'm not willing to accept on faith that he has done anything worthy of a lifelong ban from Wikipedia. That's something I want to see proof for. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Then with respect, look through his contribs, Talrias, and educate yourself, rather than expecting other admins to do it for you. The user has a long history of making serious personal attacks against several editors, admins, and members of the arbcom, including Fred Bauder and Jimbo, to the point where several good editors have stayed away from certain articles because of him; at least two have considered leaving if he continues to hang around; and I believe one did leave, or at least drastically cut back on editing. It can't be tolerated any longer, particularly as he makes almost no contribution to the encyclopedia. This is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a children's toxic playground. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

With due respect, currently M is banned for one month. Surely that is enough time to draw up the evidence of M's errant behaviour to convince any outsiders on the correctness of the indef block. Surely it is not hard to collate this evidence? (not Marsden ->) 210.177.242.221 02:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

With due respect, it's not worth anyone's time to do so; we've got an encyclopedia to write here. Wikipedia is not therapy, and it's not an experiment in democracy either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In light of the fact that (a) Marsden has said he's not interested in being unblocked (b) thinks WP is a lost cause (c) has made personal attacks against probably at least half of ArbCom (giving him cause to demand that arbitrators recuse themselves, and for other known trolls to jump on his bandwagon with the same demand...) (d) is clearly a troll (as an open-minded review of his edits to ArbCom candidates' Q&A pages demonstrates...e.g., this) and (e) has used this page as a platform to further his pattern of personally attacking other members of the community, specifically admins (who have the ability to try to put a stop to his disruptions), I see no reason to think that (a) his block should be removed or even reduced to 1 month from the original indefinite block or that (b) if it is, anything will change in his perspective, and consequently, in his editing or harassment style. In most cases, I would say that taking a case to ArbCom would be preferable to handing out an indefinite block, but I'm compelled to agree that the silence of most of the community on this issue isn't ignorance on their part, but rather quiet agreement with it (and since they're interested in editing an encyclopedia more than they are in seeing disruptive and destructive editors stick around), are happy to see that he's at least blocked for a month, and will unlikely be around long once that block expires, since there's little evidence that he's interested in changing his ways, or ever will be. The only thing taking Marsden to ArbCom will accomplish is to unnecessarily drag this out, something even Marsden has indicated he has no interest in. ArbCom, frankly, has more pressing issues to deal with—trying to resolve disputes, not providing counseling services for editors who clearly hold them, the rest of the community and indeed the entire dispute resolution process, in utter disdain. Tomer^talk 05:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:CyberSkull/Template:Superherobox

Playing around with a live template/infobox (Template:Superherobox) and breaking it in the process. I've used up my three reverts begging him to test in userspace already. - SoM 03:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:CltFn and images

Looking at his upload log you will see many creations. You will also see that very few have sources. When I asked him to give sources he would say things "promo photo, fair use" without giving a source. He has also removed many no source tags on his images put up by other users. He has done this on many images I have added no source to and I have warned him. When I noticed it happened again I fianlly looked at his recent changes with images and deleted the ones he had recently removed things from. This is endemic and I see no sign of respect for copyright. On the Walid Shoebat images he told me it was from a TV network and he took the screenshot but he got it from copies he found online. He does have to cite where he got it since it wasn't a direct take form a TV. But, that's the least of the problems as I can see. I have warned him again and I wanted to run by the idea of a 24 block and progressively stepping it up if he continues to do this. He has been warned at least three times by me. Most most recent warning is User talk:CltFn#Images. Is this appropriate? gren グレン 04:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say so -- did you happen to see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.2Adrew? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:*drew

Since it seems that the investigation is going well, I'm going to unblock *drew. There should not have been a block/unblock war, but of course Jtkeifer's heart is in the right place here. There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square.--Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

23:24, 27 December 2005 Jimbo Wales blocked "User:*drew" with an expiry time of indefinite (blatant copyvios)

Both copyvios mentioned on User talk:*drew are almost a year old; none of his recent edits appear to be bad. Was this block appropriate? User:Vaoverland did similar copyvios a while ago (for instance this one, removed here by the owner of the site it was copied from), and is now an admin. When Jimbo was on IRC, I asked him if he could find any more recent copyvios, and he said that he would keep *drew blocked pending explanation. He doesn't seem to have been warned about what a copyvio is, and why it's bad to copy plot descriptions from IMDB. I'd explain it, but I'm bad at stuff like that, and if he's going to remain blocked it would be pointless. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If he demonstrates an understanding of copyright law and says he won't do it anymore, I'll unblock him. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Um...how's he going to demonstrate anything while he's blocked? Tomer^talk 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing his block (and several other editors have reviewed and can back me up on this) there is good reason to believe that this user made some honest mistakes but since then has tried to rectify those mistakes including even dealing with copyvios and so I have unblocked the user. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... no, let's not overrule Jimbo's blocks, actually. Phil Sandifer 06:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Backing Jtkiefer up here - I've gone through a couple of months of *Drew's contribs and I have not found any recent copyvios. He has uploaded many dvd covers and the like, with proper tagging. He has reverted other people's copyvios. I am convinced that he knows not to do it. FreplySpang (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's seem like irrationality wins again, and people wonder why all the good editors burn out and leave the project. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the reasonable course of action here is to ask Jimbo to review the block. Tomer^talk 07:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been done, and he's working on the review. Phil Sandifer 07:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo is one of the sources from which user bans may come. At [37], Jimbo banned *drew. Admins simply do not have the jurisdiction to overturn this. Phil Sandifer 06:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit. Admins have the jurisdiction to use common sense. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And common sense says "When Jimbo says "banned pending further investigation" and sets the criterion for further investigation as his own satisfaction, you wait instead of wheel warring with Jimbo. Phil Sandifer 06:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Gotta agree with you there. Reverting a block placed by Jimbo doesn't seem very likely to be a good move. --FOo 06:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to revert a block, but I don't think asking Jimbo to review one of his blocks is such a ridiculous idea. Anyone up for asking him to do so? Tomer^talk 07:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good spot to apply WP:IAR. It seems like he's learned from his mistakes, keep an eye on him for sure but it looks like the offending edits were from some time ago and Jimbo doesn't lack common sense. He'll chime in if he wants to. Rx StrangeLove 06:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo is aware of the age of the edits, and still specifically chose to leave the block in place while he investigated. Phil Sandifer 06:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes he did, but that's all he knew. After investigation we know that he probably didn't continue the violations. Jimbo admittedly didn't know if he was still doing copyvios, we know that he isn't. It's not unreasonable to use our judgement. Rx StrangeLove 06:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure Jimbo trusts our judgment to moderate blocks as appropriate. We collectively have far more time than he. If the community of administrators and other editors wishes to monitor this situation, then I think it's quite reasonable to remove the block. We're not defying Jimbo's authority; rather, we're using our good judgment to carry out actions which previously might have seemed ill-advised. Plagiarism needs to be dealt with strictly, but I don't believe this specific ban will be productive. We can be reasonable and still produce a great encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Jimbo also trusts us not to veto him. Phil Sandifer 06:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can think of several users who have continued to disrespct copyrights (both on images and text) and have been warned for months, should these people finally be blocked?--nixie 07:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Give me a list and examples and I'll do it myself if no one else will. --Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You probably should, since I remember Jimbo blocked a user in September over copyvio photos. Jimbo blocked this same user from de. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 07:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if Jimbo says he's banned, then that's that. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyking parole violation

[38]

Thanks to whichever admin gives me 24 hours peace this time. Phil Sandifer 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. Looks like you two one-upped each other into a pissing match. That kind of thing doesn't leave either participant smelling of roses. --FOo 05:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, when he reliably wikistalks me onto any talk page in the Wikipedia namespace I post to, it's unsurprising that pissing matches will occur. The point of the ruling is that he wasn't supposed to start shit like this, and he's been consistantly trying to duck out of the ruling since it was made. Phil Sandifer 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe reread Sam Spade's comments there. I think he's got a few good points. --FOo 06:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 12 hours...I'll be back shortly with an explanation... Tomer^talk 06:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's my explanation to Everyking including my rationale for the block as well as the reason for its duration, and the contingency upon which the block is for only 12 hours instead of 24. [39] Tomer^talk 06:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate (or hope I do) the difficulties Everyking has caused you over time, but I'd like to respectfully suggest that you take a back seat to any discussions of him. Don't comment on his behaviour (except here, I guess, if he violates his parole), and don't try to push other admins (or, God forbid, the ArbCom) into making decisions regarding enforcement of his good conduct. Everyking is extraordinarily easy to bait — you know this, and indeed have exploited this fact in the past. I would like to see him agree to TenOfAllTrade's proposal (that he keep silent about you), but that will not work if you are involved, especially if your "involvement" consists of predictions as to the success or plausibility of various measures. It's equivalent to ordering someone to shut up, then asking them a direct question. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

All of my discussions with Everyking since the ruling have been initiated by him. I've tried on a couple occasions to completely ignore him - he begins pestering me to know why I haven't answered his questions/addressed his concerns. He does not want to be ignored by me. Phil Sandifer 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian

I range blocked every IP he could possibly use, which is 212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255. We have no one else using any of those IPs. This is just for 48 hours. If it goes ok with no complaints, I'll make it longer. I know. It's drastic. But he just won't give up. We're up to 15-20 IPs he posted from. Just no other way. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the list of IPs G has used and it's not even inclusive. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I note this probably means blocking all of Gibraltar. Now the pages in question are semi-protected is this needed? Morwen - Talk 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo's editing then protecting

Carnildo (talk · contribs) edited WP:FUC [40][41] then protected it to try and win the edit war he was in [42], claiming "consensus". I'll head over to WP:RFPP now with this to get someone not involved with the debate to remove the protection. karmafist 09:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't OK to use protection to engage in an edit war. Carnildo should have asked for another person to review it. But you initiated the edit war by deleting a section of a Wikipedia guideline without even so much as an edit summary, and persisting in deleting that section even while the issue was being discussed on the talk page. That's also unacceptable behavior. See unclean hands. --FOo 10:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What would you have had him do? Unprotect it himself, furthering the offense? He was bold and removed a passage; as the talk page has demonstrated, this passage is highly disputed. He did the right thing by taking it up here and at WP:RFPP rather than further escalating the situation by unprotecting it himself. What's the problem here? —Locke Cole 10:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How about, not engage in an edit war? That's the underlying violation of good practice & respect for others here. --FOo 10:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It takes two to revert; and I think karmafist did the right thing in this case rather than escalating it further. Moreover, if you look at the history for WP:FUC, you'll see a few people have removed the disputed passage, not just karmafist. As it's disputed, the correct course of action should be to reach consensus (or show that there ever was consensus) for the passage before re-inserting it. —Locke Cole 11:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Faux AFDs

Could somebody just block Innaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now, please. It is adding faux AfD tags to pages. Tupsharru 10:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Now checking if he has any legit edits. Radiant_>|< 10:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This appears to be revenge for having the article Hans Ove Skau nominated for deletion (the user repeatedly removed the afd tag and was reverted). Morwen - Talk 10:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Interestingly (or, perhaps, not): User:Innaa nominated Beez von Beezen for deletion. User:Innaa was the original author of that page. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 11:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Damn Sockpuppeteer

User:DickyRobert has finally gotten me to the point of wanting to drive to Toronto and physically hurt him. I've been dealing with this jackass for the better part of 3 months now. Is there nothing we can do other than rollback + block his army of socks? David or someone else with CheckUser... can you narrow this down more specifically? I know that most of the anon ips with similar edits all come from U of Toronto. One is a Toronto dial up account. Can we definatively link this user to U of T? If so I know a certain school network admin who's going to be getting a phone call.  ALKIVAR™ 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fluterst

I have blocked indefinitely Fluterst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pending resolution of his legal dispute with Wikipedia. This will prevent any further damage to either Fluterst or Wikipedia. Please see his talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:Fluterst for confirmation. Fred Bauder 15:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User SqueakBox substitutes articles about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero with redirects

The user SqueakBox has substituted the articles Zapatero's years as an opposition leader, Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003, Zapatero and the 2004 General Election, Zapatero's foreign policy and Zapatero's domestic policy with redirects to the main article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero although those articles taken together contain far more information than that in the main article. He has not provided any explanation about his behavior.

The main article had to be protected last month by the administrator Katefan0 because SqueakBox started an edit war by introducing repeatedly spelling mistakes he recovered once they were removed by other users. The page was unprotected two weeks after being blocked. SqueakBox did not explain his behavior although he was invited to do so in that period.

His attacks against the articles about Zapatero and against the users editing them have spread for a long time since May this year. Zapatancas 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume he was acting under the general tendency to merge information from small offshoot articles into main articles. That said, the main article is already generating length warnings - probably what needs to happen is some careful editing. I'll take a look at the articles later today and see if I can't identify some sections that are either overly hagiographic or just kind of excessive. Phil Sandifer 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)