Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive327

Attack after attack

Resolved

Im here to report the many attacks on newcomers coming from User:Calton. As seen on his talk pages and archives, many other users have tried to resolve the disputes that Calton has created. One of them was me. He bit me for putting a template warning him not to write on a persons user page. He started "yelling at me" and an edit war started. Many other users have also been bitten by Calton, saying that he has been making rude remarks to them, about trolling, and that they are claiming authority. I see that Calton has been blocked once before already. If you would like evidence, please go to the talk pages of Caltons and see the unofficial "testimonies" already made by fellow users. Please consider this case as I would not like any more new users to be attacked by Calton. Gunnerdevil4 05:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What this appears to boil down to is that you templated a regular and Calton quite understandably didn't like it. You've admitted that you don't know why you put the template there and your overreaction - threatening to take it to ArbCom - is just short of hilarious. I'd suggest that you simply let the matter fade away gracefully into the night, because you're digging yourself a hole with every post. FCYTravis 05:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that I may have overreacted but what about everyone else that has tried to talk with Calton? And besides, Calton shouldn't have overeacted himself. I threatened to send this to ArbCom because of his failure to display Good Faith. Again, this isn't just about me too. Gunnerdevil4 05:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, on the WP:DTTR article it says that if I templated a regular by mistake, the guy that was templated shouldn't bite the person that templated the regular.Gunnerdevil4 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You've been advised to stop digging the hole. You would be well-advised to heed that advice. Unless, of course, you want to keep digging, in which case I'll get out some popcorn and watch, as it's kind of humorous. K. Scott Bailey 06:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, just resolve it. Gunnerdevil4 06:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AWachowski long term use of affilation to discredit other editors

I warned this user several times [1] [2] [3] [4] under his previous incarnation of Lwachowski to stop broadcasting my (many times stated) affiliation with the BKWSU. However he persistently uses this technique to imply untrustworthiness and an agenda on my part [5]. In the linked example he's complaining about the removal of a link to a community site that was established to be inappropraite by an rfc [6] [7].

Whatever the complexities of the article may be, I hope I get some support for the principal that these constant comments about me and other editors and their affiliations by AWachowski will now have to stop. I would appreciate some kind of assertive remedial action to enforce this in no uncertain terms. I have suffered this abuse pretty-much for as long as I have been registered on Wikipedia. AWachowski is just one more of a long line of incarnations that seem to find this technique useful. I suspect Green108 is a notable previous incarnation.

There are many more examples of this. Just look at any post made to a talk page by these users.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 13:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Aren't AWachowski and Lwachowski username violations for being confuseable with famous real people? 70.227.232.162 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you may well have a conflict of interest. Maybe if you are involved in this new religious movement you shouldn't keep editing its article? Secretlondon 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are a Christian should you not edit articles on Christianity? Also I have left the really major changes to the article to other non-involved editors. For the record, AWachowski has quite a major conflict of interest, otherwise why would he edit the article and post comments in such a blatantly aggressive way? If you believe what he is saying that my membership of the BKWSU is a show-stopper then his propaganda campaign to discredit other editors is obviously working. I would hope my willingness to accept an NPOV article and work in a reasonable way with neutral editors would determine how much of a COI I really have.

I hope that you are not implying that perceived conflict of interest on my part means that no action should be taken to enforce a basic NPA policy? Either he is intimidating other editors unfairly or he isn't. Please enforce the policy. That's all. Thanks. Bksimonb 05:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I appear to have ranted. A more appropriate and considered answer would be that, yes I probably do have a COI and I would be happy to discuss the issue and explore solutions for ensuring the article doesn't become defamatory and misleading as it has done in the past. However, right now, I would really appreciate that the specific problem that I have highlighted is addressed in some way so that I have at least some chance of working on a level playing field in a civil environment. Much appreciated Bksimonb 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If Bksimonb has a COI, then AWachowski has just as much a COI if not more being an ex-BK (and a particularly vehement one at that). COI does not prevent one from editing; one must discuss changes and gain consensus on the talk page and refrain from controversial edits. This position should go both ways here. Right now there is little attempt to get consensus on the talk pages. AWachowski makes huge wholesale changes without discussion and Bksimonb is reverting back to the previously agreed-upon version and trying to get discussion on the talk page to gain agreement on changes. Renee 23:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Without getting involved, it's apparent that User:Reneeholle is also involved in this edit war, so again, objectivity in this argument doesn't seem to be apparent. It's pointless crying 'COI' at someone if you yourself have an obvious COI. I'd suggest that perhaps page protection for a while, to let everyone cool down might be a good idea. Perhaps an RfC in the duration. Coldmachine^Talk 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm...let's see, I've made one edit to this article in 6 weeks and that edit was to revert Wachowski's complete overhaul of the article, made without discussion on the talk page. You'll see on the talk page I took the time to give feedback on each change he made, which was virtually ignored. Please check the facts Coldmachine before you accuse people of being involved in edit wars. Renee 14:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted, completely unrelated to anything above, I have blocked the account for violating our user name policies. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Shazaam!. Let's see what account name comes back.

In response to the previous posts, I'm curious, as a principal, shouldn't WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA been enforced regardless of any other COI or editing issues. I thought that nothing excused personal attacks or incivility, especially if it is directed with purpose over a long period of time. Regards Bksimonb 13:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrator violating Wikipedia policy

It is clear that from the source of this image from WWII in Color that the "Copyright : unknown"

Even after knowing this information, the user Akradecki chose to revert this copyright tag twice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AP-51D_Tika_IV_361st_fg.jpg&diff=171792994&oldid=171760889

Image History page

• Additional violations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P-59_Airacomet.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spitfire_V_316.jpg

Please see: User Akradecki contributions history and discussion

-TabooTikiGod 02:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because a copyright is unknown does not mean the image is free, or in the public domain. If an image isn't free, and doesn't meet specific criteria, it can't be used. There's no admin abuse here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Striking my last comments since on my first pass, I had the roles reversed in my head. I'm not sure the tags should have been reverted as the copyright status seems unclear, but I'm not sure this counts as admin abuse, since no buttons were invoked that I see. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already said those exact words [above] a bazillion times already on two separate projects. I'm not going to repeat them. O₂ (息 • 吹) 03:08, 16 November 2007 (GMT)

Then how do you explain the logic posted here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Help_needed_on_Image_challenges Please read the section with the images and reasoning that Akradecki uses to cite why the image is "okay" to use.

Image:P-51D Tika IV 361st fg.jpg: This was clearly taken from another Army air corps plane...and is obviously PD.

Image:P-63 Kingcobras.jpg: same as above...air-to-air inherently must be PD because of where it was shot. Image:P-59 Airacomet.jpg: same, air-to-air First 3, saving before looking at more. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:B-25 refuelling.jpg: This one could go either way. Bzuk, you noted on your license tag that the author had released it...I don't see that on the original site, can you point me two where you got this info? Image:P-39N.jpg: Given the location and setting, could not have been taken by anyone other than another serviceman. Image:B-25s in New Guinea.jpg: air-to-air during a bombing raid. No one was in the air except servicement. Image:B 24 in raf service 23 03 05.jpg: Another obvious one. As the plane is british, the brit tag is most appropriate. Image:Capturedfw190 red.jpg: Copyright is claimed at source, so if you want to use this, add Fair Use rationale (it would be certainly legit...no way to reproduce that!) Incidently, the website URL for the copyright isn't working. Image:Fw 190A starting up.jpg: Bzuk, need clarification on S. Kunker's release. I'll leave this one tagged for now. Image:Fw 190As in flight.jpg: Bzuk, this one too. Incidently, there was discussion somewhere recently about captured Nazi material being PD...does anyone recall where this was discussed? Image:Me 262 Abandoned.jpg, Image:Junkers 88.1.jpg, Image:Junkers 88k2.jpg, Image:Junkers 88.jpg More for Bzuk. Image:Stirling of 7 sqn.jpg: This was properly tagged, as it is clearly before 1957.

Image:Spitfire V 316.jpg: UK image older that 50 years, so PD.

-TabooTikiGod 03:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You were told that their reverts weren't vandalism here, and it's obvious from the discussion that this might not be a clear-cut case of a copyright violation. So please stop edit warring, TabooTikiGod. You've already violated the three-revert rule at least once [8] [9] [10] [11], though I haven't really bothered looking for more. -- RG² 08:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Burma

Background: at the end of September/beginning of October there was an extended and highly publicised requested move discussion, archived here, the result of which was to move the article Myanmar to the title Burma.

SqueakBox does not seem to have accepted this outcome. After revert warring with Husond over the closure of requested move opened a few days ago, SqueakBox opened another requested move discussion a few hours ago. Vegaswikian, noting that the discussion was premature this soon after the earlier one, altered the heading to redirect it into a discussion to try to build consensus in anticipation of a future requested move, and removed the pointer at WP:RM. SqueakBox reverted that alteration and accused Vegaswikian of trolling.

Having noticed this as a result of this thread above, I closed the requested move discussion, on the basis that the matter was only recently discussed in a very extensive debate, and there was no reason to suspect that consensus had changed so quickly. SqueakBox reverted, with the edit summary "rm trolling POV pushing sigh this is not welcom". I re-closed the discussion, reminding SqueakBox that as I had not participated in any of the earlier discussions (I don't think I've ever edited anything related to this country) I was an uninvolved administrator, and that if he wished to contest the closure he could do so here at ANI. Apparently accepting my closure on that basis, SqueakBox instead re-opened an earlier discussion which had been closed on exactly the same basis, with the edit summary "trolling the proposer canot speedily close". I then re-closed that one, exhorting SqueakBox to follow Vegaswikian's advice and continue to work on his arguments.

SqueakBox has now spliced the two closed discussions together in a new section ([12], [13]), with the edit summary "sigh following instructions you activists NPOV is non negotiable". I don't want to revert SqueakBox anymore, but I think that this conduct is not appropriate. Thoughts? --bainer (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A block should be in order. Not only he doesn't stop this massive disruption as he won't listen to explanations on why should he stop, and ultimately resorts to attacks towards those who revert him. Húsönd 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I also call for the current new move proposal at Talk:Burma to be speedy closed (again). Totally out of process. Húsönd 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I also call for a block. This is clearly disruption. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 03:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 6 hours. If someone wants to extend to 24, I won't gripe. Tomer^talk 04:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Blocks are preventative, i.e. to prevent further or imminent disruption, not punitive. Why then did you block SqueakBox two hours after his last edit? --Iamunknown 09:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to register your point of order near the top of this page with respect to the block MastCell imposed upon me. I was not engaged in either disruption nor edit warring. My block here was meant to be a signal, more than anything else, to SqueakBox that his disruption and edit warring are unacceptable. That is not punitive, it is preventative. It is also barely more than symbolic at this point, especially since, as you point out, he was apparently finished editing for the evening. Tomer^talk 09:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not qualified to comment on the block of your account, as I am blissfully unfamiliar with the intimate details of the AOA arbitration.

As to the matter at hand, your block of SqueakBox, I do not consider your block "symbolic", I consider humiliation of an established editor. This is not a statement of your intentions, which you have clarified were fine and just, but it is a statement of the community's perception of blocks. SqueakBox is an established editor and, though he can be disruptive at times, I feel deserves to be engaged in discussion rather than blocked as a common troll. In the very least, he has shown good will with regard to accepting criticism and thereafter acting more appropriately. I do not understand why the article was not simply move-protected. --Iamunknown 09:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, SqueakBox did not move the article, so discussion of move protection as a remedy is a non sequitur. I apologize if I sounded dismissive of your inquiry above, but I was truly incensed that you should take such a strong stance in support of SqueakBox when you have said nothing about me. As I said on SqueakBox's talk page when I blocked him, he is an established editor, well enough established to know better than to editwar (ah, new verbs, thank you WP) and disrupt the project with his call for a new rename vote. I can understand how you could perceive this as a punitive move, but it was my intention that it should be regarded as preventative. We may regard the boundaries between preventative and punitive somewhat differently, but I don't think it is at all fair to characterize this block as indicative of the sentiment, on my part nor on that of any others, that SqueakBox is but a "common troll". Your registering your strong dislike of my blocking of SqueakBox "as a common troll", and at the same time, failure to say a word above about my having been blocked "as a common troll", apparently, was grievously offensive to me, whether you intended any offense or not. In that vein, I hope you'll understand the source of the somewhat harsh tone I took with you previously. Tomer^talk 09:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the block of your account, as before, I am unfamiliar with the details surrounding anything or anyone mentioned in that thread and so my uninformed opinion would be useless.

Otherwise, I think that difference in perception is probably in part an explanation. I am aware that my thoughts about blocking tend to be a lot more malleable and relative than others'. I would vehemently argue against a strict set of criteria, but that would be more appropriate at another forum. --Iamunknown 10:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In any case, rightly or wrongly, the block is about to expire. Hopefully the aforementioned disruption and edit warring will not continue. Tomer^talk 10:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno about alleged disruption but I do recognise that edit warring disrupts the project. My point is that a user who legitimately suggests a move should not weeks later close a continuing debate on the subject, its a clear internal COI. And he speedily closed citing that the debate was not listed at RM. So I listed at RM and this was the result. This episode shames wikipedia and all who were involved in it (which is me too). Thanks, SqueakBox 10:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My two cents - most people don't have any POV regarding the title of the page (i.e. I call it "Burma" because I always have, not because I support political party/junta/etc X). The move therefore should be based upon what the most common name is. But anyway, as long as Myanmar redirects to Burma or vice-versa, it's all moot. As it was only moved a month ago, with at least a 2-1 (and possibly a 3-1) majority to move, leave it be for a few months, then reopen discussion if enough people have a valid (i.e. not "filthy anglo/american imperialists") concerns. We don't want more drama than there already is. Will ^(talk) 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with non-binding discussions to gauge if consensus has changed. There apparently are a number of editors who are giving their comments who did not participate in the previous move debate. Shutting down discussions because a similar discussion by a different set of people happenede before is very un-wiki. --Polaron | Talk 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Veesicle

After Veesicle made this edit to David Gerard's userpage, and then when asked about it replied that it was a point, JzG blocked indefinitely for "abject stupidity", Viridae unblocked saying there was no warning, and I reblocked for 24 hours since clearly some block length was in order. Before this escalates into a wheel war, we should discuss it here. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block without warning on an established account is clearly out of line. I support the 24 hours though for the sillyness. Viridae^Talk 05:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on Guy's talk page, considering that the user did not request an unblock, and even appears to be accepting of his block, you should have at least attempted to discuss it with Guy before unblocking. It may not quite be wheel-warring, but it is certainly a matter of admin-admin courtesy. - Crockspot 06:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Next please? GRBerry 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to block people for "abject stupidity" then please propose such a policy and gain consensus for it first. Until that happens, it is not an appropriate reason for a block. That being said while a block may have been in order for other reasons, I don't think an indefinite block is in the best interest of Wikipedia. The new 24 hour block is much more appropriate. 1 != 2 06:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless WP blocks are now punitive, no block is in order. A simple warning, to go along with monitoring him for continuation of the disruptive behavior would seem a more prudent and policy-abiding action. K. Scott Bailey 06:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a strong point there, but from Veesicles reaction he knew what he was doing, and just might do it again. I dunno :S Viridae^Talk 06:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This was a deliberate, calculated act of disruption. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• This was a deliberate and utterly unacceptable action. Looking at Veesicle's actions before and around that action, I would say that it was intended to get the account blocked. Veesicle has been disruptive for some time. This is no, I think, the first time that Viridae has reversed a block with absolutely no prior discussion whatsoever. At the very least, Veesicle should remain blocked until wehave some assurance that this kind of thing will not happen again. Labelling User:David Gerard as a sockpuppet of User:WordBomb is not even remotely acceptable, especially when his user page was then under attack by vindictive sockpuppets. The statement that it was deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, on Veesicle's talk page, makes it much worse. Wikipedia is not a MMORPG, these actions had precisely nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia. Given that Veesicle didn't even ask to be unblocked, I am at a loss to understand why Viridae felt the need to reverse the block without discussion. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You simply do not indef a long term contributor without warning. As with what Until(1 == 2) said. Viridae^Talk 09:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite does not mean forever, it means until they have undertaken not to repeat the utterly bizarre and completely unacceptable behaviour. And I do mean completely unacceptable. Long-term contributor? Debatable. Look at the mainspace edit activity: [14]. Not that much of a contributor, compared with disruption like reopening a debate started by an anonymous editor using an open proxy bringing an allegation made by a banned editor with a grudge. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1 != 2 has made a reasoned point. User:JzG's reasoning was invalid, at least when concerning influential blocks. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• The behaviour was disruptive, identified by the user themself as deliberately disruptive. Since when was that not a reason for blocking? Guy (Help!) 10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In this instance, I feel an indef block in this case might be uncalled for, and that the mod of time was a good move. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Guy's point above. There is no problem with undoing the indef block when the editor promises not to repeat such a disruptive action. A fixed-time block is not really constructive as it does not affect the editor's ability to merely repeat such an action when they are unblocked, being effectively a "slap on the wrists". ELIMINATORJR 10:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • If a "slap on the wrist" helps, then it's better than a "summary execution". |dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 13:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is an editor who has almost stopped editing, comes along and does something truly bizarre and completely unacceptable. That says to me that he's actively trying to be blocked and run. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hum. Ok, I'll have to admit I didn't check up on the context of that action. But maybe Veesicle will yet come around to do more useful contributions? Not sure though, and certainly not my call. |dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 13:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If the editor does intend to be disruptive and does something like this again we'll give him a long or indefinite block. But we shouldn't indef block simply over a single edit from an otherwise productive user (even an that is highly disruptive, offensive and trying to make a point). Also, our block summaries really shouldn't be things that read like the block summaries at Conservapedia. That should be a bad sign by itself. JoshuaZ 13:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see the point that this user may have been aiming for a block through this action, but I don't think it is in itself deserving of a block, although a warning is certainly in order. He might very well have apologized and promised not to do such things in the future, while a poor reaction to the warning might have confirmed the need for a block (but still probably not indefinite). Everyking 16:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Request restoration of image speedly-deleted

Resolved

 – image restored and fair use rational added. Avec nat...Le Wikipédia Prends Des Forces! 09:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request restoration of Image:Hasbara.png, which was deleted in this edit:

20:16, 14 November 2007 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Hasbara.png" ‎ (Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale". using TW)

This was speedy-deleted after the image had been up for some months, and was deleted without any discussion, other than perhaps with the uploader. CSD I7 may have been applied overly aggressively here. It may be necessary to fix the fair-use rationale; but with the image deleted, that's hard. I'm not the uploader of this image, so I can't just upload it again. At least a temporary restoration is needed. (Policy note: the image deletion procedure, unlike almost everything else in Wikipedia, assumes that the uploader of the image is responsible for it thereafter. If the uploader is absent, even for a few days,, the image tends to be lost, without an opportunity to correct the problem. That's a policy bug which needs work.) --John Nagle 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What article would that possibly be appropriate in? —Cryptic 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It was used in Hasbara Fellowships; it's from their web site. --John Nagle 06:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the image so that non admins can take a look. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty straight forward: WP:NFCC#10c (cited by the deletion warning) requires the exact article name to be used in the fair use rationale, which it does not. Probably caught by BCBot and tagged appropriately. --MASEM 06:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Added appropriate fair use template to image info to keep bots happy. (We welcome our new bot overlords.) --John Nagle 06:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Severe violation of WP:CANVASS

Archiving, as it appears that the original complaint has been discussed. -- Relata refero (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Raiseshort

Resolved

User has been making very disruptive edits in the Sandbox, as indicted by these sample diffs 1, 2, 3. I am not sure if "sandbox vandalism" is AIV reportable, but I thought that this should be checked into. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not a valid AN/I report and anyways, people are encourage to edit however they like in the Wikipedia Sandbox. Regards, Avec nat...Le Wikipédia Prends Des Forces! 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was, but posted it here just to be on the safe side. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Turns out this was either a sock of Grawp (talk · contribs) or a copycat. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

personal attack

personal attack on the page of Prince Henry of Wales, with the words "schwul und hasslich" (gay and ugly) in the first line of the article

81.96.252.8 14:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – was reverted by Kateshortforbob

Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Crucible

Resolved

 – Reverted copyvio material. Arakunem^Talk 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The book The Crucible has a its whole plot summary plagiarized illegaly and without permission from sparknotes.com. --Malarc41 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been added around 2 October: [15] by IP:147.72.66.100. The problem seems to be mainly with Acts One and Two. I will revert the affected plot sections if no-one has any objection. (non-admin) -- Kateshortforbob 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I put up the copyvio template. If you want to go ahead and revert, feel free, as that's what is likely going to happen anyway. :) Arakunem^Talk 15:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted plot summary to last good non-copyvio revision that Kateshortforbob located. Thanks for the digging :). Arakunem^Talk 15:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann

Resolved

 – Participants are counseled to prepare a detailed report to support their complaints. No action is justified at this time. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User or adminstrator (I can't figure out what he pretends to be) User:Dbachmann insinuates I am a neofascist. I don't have anything to do with fascism, I despise fascism and don't know what he is up to. To me it seems he recurs to ad hominem for lack of arguments to support his point of view, since I always take effort to source as well as I can. Maybe it sounds silly (it probably is), but I suspect his personal commitment to the Kurgan hypothesis is the root cause of his impolite attitude. Anyway, I don't think such a personal grudge is healthy and it feels as if he is rallying people against me. I don't think throwing dirt and loose insinuations are acceptable. Recently he dedicated in removing a lot of what I contributed, and only came up with a lot of personal accusations to have this justified. I think he needs a break. Please take a look at this discussion: at User_talk:Dbachmann#Kurgan_hypothesis: [16]. Thanks! Rokus01 23:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann is an administrator. Prodego ^talk 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"...I have never been prepared to compromise with disingenious pov-pushers. Intelligently argued neofascist pov-pushing is just the same to me as dumbly argued Afrocentrist pov-pushing..." [17] is a pretty unwarrented insinuation and is counterproductive on Dbachmann's part indeed. — Save_Us_229 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

dab overreacted, but is understandably frustrated given what Rokus is adding to these articles. I've interacted with Rokus in the past, and his M.O. is to add large globs of text to inappopriate places in articles, usually sourced to obscure Dutch authors, and usually written like an essay. Perhaps an RFC is in order. - Merzbow 03:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I'll vouch that dab is very frustrating in his zeal to wipe out nationalism, and what he calls fringe. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have followed Rokus's edits you will understand both of Dab's comments about Rokus's disingenuousness and his "fascism". As Merzbau says, Rokus's MO is to create impenetrable bodies of obscure argumentation with elaborately mystificatory claims apparently supported by citations which often turn out to be only tangentally related to the arguments he is making. He is a master of WP:SYN. He will always react strongly to the accusation of fascism, for the simple rerason that all his edits are tied to a POV that the "Nordic race" of north west Europe were the original Aryans and that a pan-Germanic mythology underlies cultures in Northern europe, which is somehow associated with this 'racial' identity. This is standard mystical Aryanism familiar from the early 20th C. Paul B 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, you and DBachmann lost a chance to prove how sincere your "battle against fascism" really is, when DBachmann failed to support me in the revert discussion I had with one of his protegés (you): Talk:Nordic_theory#This_is_NOT_a_good_article. And you even refused to have the folly of the masterrace addressed in terms of racist ideology, and dared to idealize fascism with WP:OR, contradicting academic sources forwarding something so basic as to define nazism being a characteristic feature of fascism. Sincere? I rather have the impression DBachmann and you are abusing such would-be anti-fascism to create a false pretext of "neutral credibility", like DBachmann is doing now in the other intolerant battle against Afrocentrist pov-pushing. This is not sincere, this is hypocrism. Maybe you think you can fool somebody sometimes, but you can't fool everybody all the time. Rokus01 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As usual, you are barely intelligable. Nazism is not "a characteristic feature of fascism". How can Nazism be a "feature" of fascism, since fascism predated Nazism? It's a particular form of fascism with its own unique features, as everyone on the fascism page pointed out to you. Paul B 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is extended revert-warring on the part of Dbachmann and he was recently warned by two administrators on his talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Afrocentrism and related articles are a mess, and those of us who frequent WP:FT/N are very grateful to DBachmann for taking the lead in keeping unsourced nonsense out. I see that's what the 'warnings' are about. Relata refero 06:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not, he's a bane, and does nothing useful but makes others angry and frustrated. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I sorry if you feel angry and frustrated, but perhaps you should realise that Wikipedia articles can't always look the way you want them to look, and it isn't always other users' fault. Relata refero 08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann is trying to keep fringecruft out of Wikipedia articles, and Rokus01 is very often criticized by other editors for adding such material, see e.g. Talk:History of the Netherlands, Talk:Frankish mythology and Talk:Paleolithic Continuity Theory. I think that Dbachmann is doing his job well as an administrator.--Berig 06:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to review Rokus' contribution history and find a major edit that isn't a complete head-scratcher. For example, [18] - "Applied on the issue of origins of the Indo-European languages, the approach resulted into a set of prepositions supported by generally accepted principles that lay the burden of proof on the shoulders of competing theories, especially when relying on invasions." His contributions are filled with text like this, and invariably they are either unsourced or the conclusions are synthesized. Another: [19] - "the Netherlands could be considered one of the worlds most underestimated cradles of people and civilization." I can't figure out exactly what type of weird pro-Dutch pseudoscientific agenda he is pushing, but it's not encyclopedic.- Merzbow 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, it is impossible to communicate with everybody on the same level of understanding, still I am grateful you made your problem clear by quoting a sourced phrase that was literally copied from Alinei. Did you challenge yourself? In the second phrase you missed the key word "underestimated". Equally, I could forward similar compelling arguments to label the contribution to civilization of Sub-Sahara Africa "underestimated": or did you already know that Europe's Neolitization was accomplished by people of originally Sub-Sahara stock? Very easy to call this Afrocentrist pov-pushing whenever mentioned, still I am convinced some facts deserve special notice, especially with people that miss an open mind. Rokus01 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can challeged Rokus' contribs. But there are many others who have a problem with Dbachman. He is uncivil, arrogant and is just as bad as those he refers to as trolls. I'll be back with more examples. But, I may not because I don't really want to waste my time. I'm pretty sure there is another AN/I about his behavior somewhere in the archives. He's actually threatened me and other's with his powers while engaged in an edit war. This is but one of many edit wars he's been in. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 07:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently I've also had issues with this particular administrator very similar to the issues you've mentioned above. Not only is he exceptionally uncivil to the point of blatantly rudeness and insults but also has a habit of reverting without note, as can be seen here: [20] One may also note that he's taken a short quip from a small review here that is basically an off the cuff insult and used it as the descriptor for this page's article here, which I removed and gave my suggestion as this obviously is an attempt to frame an opinion and violates WP:NPOV. The response? A simple reversion on his part without explanation. I've had past disputes with Dbachmann [21] but I've noticed he's becoming more bullying and bullying lately and I simply don't have the time to go through his edits and pick out what he's called (or lumber together wtih) "fascists" today or "Neo-Nazis" yesterday without a source. Because of this and my concern for Dab's edits as well as his reckless usage of these terms and the associations they bring on to their subjects, I've decided to speak up here. :bloodofox: 08:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A reminder: will those who don't spend time around nationalists and supremacists of various descriptions please not throw the first stone here. Relata refero 08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Rokus. Dbachman is very rude and Impolite. He is never objective in his arguments and always tries to comment on the motivations of the user. And the comments pretty much drop down to insults. He also keeps on editing articles he has no clue about. Some one should take action upon this admin. He is a real menace to wikipedia. Xyzisequation 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) — Xyzisequation (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I filed the Sadi Carnot arbitration case about fringe theory pushing. Before coming to ANI with complaints, I suggest each of you prepare a detailed report offline to document the fringe theory pushing, or the administrator misconduct that you allege. If you provide clear evidence, either here or via RFC, I can offer advice, warnings or sysop services as needed. For the moment, I see scattered diffs that don't tell a coherent story. ANI is for complaints, not investigations. I recommend you better organize your evidence. If you wish to collaborate in private, Google Documents is a useful tool. You can place the final report in your userspace and reference it in your complaint. Here's an example: User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. The mere repetition of complaints won't be either addressed or considered relevant on AN/I. If those who object to Dbachmann's efforts can pool together their complaints, it might be reasonable to ask if there's a case for ArbCom to accept, but I don't think that this will get anywhere. Relata refero 10:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann is merely trying to enforce Wikipedia's core policies. After all, we're supposed to be creating an encyclopaedia here. If POV-pushers are allowed to skew content and add inaccurate information, then we're failing at our primary aim. More admins should be following dab's example, then perhaps he wouldn't get so frustrated. --Folantin 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No action? This user has been highly uncivil and has responded to my request for civility with disdain and generally questioning my good faith as an editor. Saying: "Just teaming up with any editor that happens to be "pro-Afrocentric" no matter how pathetic their output is unwikilike, disingenious, disruptive..." He implies that all users who disagree with him are unintelligent. This isn't what I expect from an admin. futurebird 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget the process wankery, leave Dbachmann alone, and try to help him out. He's one of our best contributors and has done an absolute mountain of good work. If he's getting frustrated, there's a reason why. Look for the subtext, look at the content! I'll try to get my head around this over the next 24 hours or so, provided the India wars haven't completely killed off my sanity by then :) Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway thanks, if somebody thinks it is worthwhile to fight blunt and incooperative attitudes, especially when the methods employed to enforce a point of view increasingly point to an utter lack of tolerance and respect, we could do it together for each of us not having to waste too much time on this matter. I think this whole POV-pushing fighting, would be anti-POV-pushing heroism and "self sacrifice" is a sham as long Administators so overtly abuse their powers to advance their own intolerant POV-pushing: like DBachmann fully engage in having his one and only Kurgan religion prevail. Without the willingness to compromise and without the encyclopedic interest to harbour different points of view, such a war against otherwise undefined "POV-pushers" (always "them") will only result in a display of power and abuse. To me, a user that prevents other points of views (especially scholarly views!) to enter "his" article is nothing more than a troll. I never seek to push other views out, only that at times I try to push some new views inside. Who is pushing harder? Only trolls lack the ability to compromise and I think it is obvious that trolls are the real POV-pushers in this story. An Administrator that engage in POV-pushing and refuse to compromise is a King of Trolls that should be disposed of inmediately. Of course I don't mind to gather information as long as this behaviour (or culture?) doesn't change, or grow worse: still I have a practical attitude and feel such actions would involve me in activities that really don't interest me. Until now I found DBachmann, at the very end, also willing to compromise, even though I can't evaluate the grudge of an administrator if compromise to his POV feels like losing control. For instance, I am amazed at the grudge that Merzow has displayed here (another admin by the way?), I was totally unaware of this for in my opinion we achieved an agreement in a one-time encounter that greatly improved the quality of a certain article. It feels like if to some the definition of a POV-pusher is "a nasty person that forces others to listen to dreary arguments". As for now, DBachmanns unwarranted insinuations reveal bitterness instead of pride for the compromise he has achieved in the past. Rokus01 (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Haizum - request for further admin action

It appears a community ban was supported, unfortunately, after user threatened to blackmail Wikipedia and hide under a new username... • Lawrence Cohen 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of being blocked for incivility and personal harassment of Wikipedians, and is very thorough POV pusher. If you review his full Block Log, you will see a variety of blocks for personal attacks on other users. The latest block was today.

History of blocks

Starting in 2006 he began to rack up blocks (an indefinite block in December 2005 was overturned):

• 03:44, 18 February 2006 Madchester (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (personal attacks, talk page vandalism)

• Madchester reduced this block and protected his talk page instead, to stop his attacks and disruption. The next day, however, he reblocked Haizum again for 31 hours for still more personal attacks:

• 04:05, 19 February 2006 Madchester (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (personal attacks on webpage; accusatory comments)

This user has been on ANI afterwards many times for abuses and violations.

• June 2006: Harassing admins User:Sceptre and User:Will_Beback with email. Result was a block, which was upgraded several times, and finally removed five days later by Shell Kinney.

1. 21:52, 2 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Massive incivility and edit warring on Laura Ingraham)
2. 22:16, 2 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (lengthening block)
3. 22:17, 2 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days ‎ (asked for another day, I'm happy to oblige)
4. 02:26, 3 June 2006 Tawker (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (npov tag is not rationale to block)
5. 10:58, 3 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (extending block, again)
6. 10:59, 3 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (abusive emails)
7. 21:49, 4 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (lengthening block)
8. 21:50, 4 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (particularly venomous email I recieved)
9. 00:12, 5 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 days ‎ (shorter block)
10. 12:13, 6 June 2006 Shell Kinney (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (block excessive for content dispute, already discussed on ANI)

Another block followed two weeks later from more attacks and incivility, but was again overturned:

1. 05:53, 25 June 2006 Circeus (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (user repeateadly assumed bad faith and was uncivil on several talk pages)
2. 06:31, 25 June 2006 Lord Voldemort (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (See his talk page.)

Haizum was again blocked by Nandesuka this time for five days, for this attack.

• 12:44, 19 March 2007 Nandesuka (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 5 days ‎ (repeat offender, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Depleted_uranium&diff=116206235&oldid=115154874)

Again today, he was blocked by LessHeard vanU for insulting Vermont editors among other recent incivilities:

• 13:47, 15 November 2007 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Incivility)

Other ANI reports on Haizum, final warning issued

Further information on ANI archives:

• Thread on the June 2006 blocks involving Sceptre, Will Beback, and other admins over Haizum and indefinite blocking, where Sceptre is urged to simply filter out abusive and harassing emails. From reading ANI recently, this seems to be counter to the idea of protecting people from harassing users...
• Later in June 2006, ANI discussing Haizum's further personal attacks; thread was initiated after he apparently made semi-homophobic comments about Bear community.
• December 2006. Haizum starts an ANI thread about a dispute with another editor, ending it with the comment, "I've started a dialog on the respective talk page instead of edit warring, so I'll take my Get Out of Jail Free card and think about who's edits remind me most of bovine excrement. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)"

More recently, in addition to the above blocks, he was being disruptive on Talk:Blackwater_Worldwide#Shameless, which led to *two* ANI reports from Pleasantville, and then another from myself two days later (which I can't find in the archives, now). The Blackwater Worldwide talk page section also clearly demonstrates the POV he pushes heavily across Wikipedia. While its fine for him to fervently defend conservative viewpoints (mine are fairly conservative, though not quite so far right), his manner is very troubling. Read: Talk:Blackwater_Worldwide#RS_.26_NPOV. Summary quote from Haizum:

• "A similar Blackwater USA article could have been written entirely from conservative sources, but it wasn't, and it never will be. The community simply will not allow it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"

That does not engender any kind of good will collaboration. As a result of all the bad behavior on that page, the administrator User:Haemo gave Haizum a final warning:

"I've given this user a final warning about his behavior. His conduct on this page, and the page in question is clearly crossing a line. --Haemo 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)"

Extensive history of personal attacks and nastiness

Haizum also has an ongoing habit of leaving nasty attacks, which apparently have been missed by all these blocking admins. I only went back to February of 2007, and only on User_Talk pages. There are more but I honestly am tired of staring at all these horrible statements. I imagine given that the blocks on this user go back to 2005, and that he has directly harassed administrators by e-mail (note the block log) I don't believe these are unique situations.

• 05:17, 30 October 2007: "In the future, when you act as an apologist for Nazis and a rewriter of history, please try to not be so obvious when doing so. Thanks."
• 09:50, 17 October 2007: "Get back to your indoctrination sessions and stop crapping all over Wikipedia."
• 03:48, 4 October 2007: "Get a clue."
• 01:14, 1 October 2007: "As an editor I deal with the reality of Wikipedia being infested with powder puffs and intellectual frauds on a daily basis, but I found this attempt to delete an article that meets featured article quality standards to be particularly egregious, especially considering the totalitarian motivations behind said attempt."
• 11:17, 24 August 2007 "Keep up these kind of garbage edits and I'll watch you go down in flames."
• 18:40, 26 July 2007: "Stop crapping on Wikipedia. It's bad enough as it is." After another editor removes that comment as too extreme on a new editor, Haizum reverts and re-adds it.
• 19:42, 23 July 2007: Pointlessly goading a homosexual woman: "This individual insulted the Wikipedia community by referring to heterosexuals as "breeders." In order to expose the hypocrisy of this, I asked how it felt to be the product of a couple of breeders. To interpret this as "anti-gay" is a cognitive failure. Logic wins.".
• 22:17, 23 July 2007: "In that last little rant, your own English doesn't exactly uphold the highest standards, does it? Heal thyself."
• 03:06, 10 July 2007: "It doesn't matter if you think I did something, the rules still apply. Apparently the University of Florida doesn't teach anyone logic."
• 03:26, 27 June 2007: "Stop leaving your mouse turd edits on Wikipedia."
• 10:34, 3 June 2007: "Learn how to edit before you start chicken scratching all over Wikipedia."
• 07:10, 3 May 2007: "STOP VANDALIZING ARTICLES YOU JACKASS."
• 07:08, 5 April 2007 "Hiding won't save you." -- further harassment of User:Nricardo.
• 05:03, 27 March 2007: "Stop making garbage edits to Wikipedia."
• 01:54, 21 March 2007: One of his unblock requests... "I'd simply like my block lifted. I don't have time for tyrannical admins with agendas that get in the way of proper use of privileges."
• 00:42, 21 March 2007: "I suggest you do something about it before you start pissing on the sovereignty of my talk page, again."
• 20:28, 10 March 2007: "Get a life."
• 10 March 2007: Edit summary -- "rm fake survey that probably funds fascism".
• 01:47, 25 February 2007: "Thanks for deleting my comment. You have shown that as a self-described neoliberal, you are incompatible with opinions contrary to your own. You've inspired me; I'll be sure to monitor the mousetrap image discussion to be certain that my freedom of expression is not infringed upon by neoliberal tyranny. Feel free to retract your own illogical viewpoint, but keep your hands of my rationale."
• 02:12, 26 February 2007: "Someone go ahead and ban this douche indefinitely."

Summary

I'm posting here as numerous users and admins have had ongoing conflicts with this person. I don't think Wikipedia benefits from his participation. At the least, I think we should consider a personal attack/civility parole, with increasingly lengthy blocks. While I think he can be of some benefit, maybe, I don't know if an indef block isn't the best solution here. His basic role has been to argue aggressively in favor of a very conservative political POV; to insult people; and he rarely if ever actually edits articles. See here. Only 278 encyclopedia contributions. He seems to be just around to stir some political pot and to cause drama. This user made working on that Blackwater Worldwide article and it's related articles painful at best, for me, but he had moved onto other pastures, and had moved his attacks onto everyone else he came across. • Lawrence Cohen 18:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Emails

Emails #1, #2 were blatant Wikilawyering. The second asked for "another 24 hours", which I was happy to oblige. Email #3 was Wikilawyering with a dash of incivility. Email #4 used the two most Godwinific terms ever, "admin abuse" and "fascism".

The fourth was what I blocked him over. It all was over Laura Ingraham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I rv'ed three days back to pre-edit war, which severly pissed him off. He's continuing incivilities fourteen months on, so let's get rid of him.

Footnote: I'm (regretfully) not an administrator any more. I'd block him myself if I was. Will ^(talk) 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have upped the block to indefinite. If anyone feels they can reform this guy they are welcome to try, but it's clear to me he's not interested in fixing the problem. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

I have had only one extended interaction with Haizum, so I cannot and will not speak to the vast majority of what has been posted above. What I can say, however, is that the link above marked "Pointlessly goading a homosexual woman" is rather misleading by omission of context. The "homosexual woman" being referred to is User:Cr8tiv, an enthusiastic POV-pusher. Cr8tiv made a long series of uncivil edits to Haizum's talk page, apparently prompted by this innocuous edit. Haizum's reply was less than ideal, and I can't say that I care for his style, but he was the one being attacked here, not Cr8tiv.

Again, if Haizum has a long history of tendentious editing and POV-pushing, then that's beyond the scope of my interaction with him and I cannot comment from experience, but I didn't want to let a misleading statement stand unopposed. A Train^talk 19:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

User:Haizum has requested an unblock at User_talk:Haizum#Block extended, citing the block as retroactive. • Lawrence Cohen 20:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, I wish I could nail the final hole in the coffin. His unblock reason just shows the kind of incivility. Will ^(talk) 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

With a block log that long, how did he keep avoiding the indef? Kwsn-pub 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing no one looked too closely at what he was doing. :( • Lawrence Cohen 20:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He updated the language to say, "Retroactive and capricious indef block based on vendetta ANI." It was anything but a vendetta. I was taking his abuse towards me in stride personally, because I assumed it was limited to the two articles we interacted on. His (wildly and overly) critical comments forced me to dig up bulletproof sourcing and language on the Blackwater Worldwide articles, which I'm glad for now. But the rest of that? Calling people douches? Sorry, Haizum. • Lawrence Cohen 20:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm astounded he's lasted this long. Tendentious editing is one thing, persistent aggression, rudeness and email harassment is another. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know why I reduced the block in the fist place... Will ^(talk) 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I know we are not supposed to repost from banned users, but in good faith (from me and I hope from him) I'm posting here what Haizum just put on his User talk page. Please delete this entry if this inappropriate. I'm not going to post to him again (beyond my last apology for this notification, and a confirmation that I posted this). Sorry for any extra noise.

"A block should be based on prior administrative action, not comments which only received attention today -- because you personally took the time to dig them up. Therefore, we have a. retroactive blocking and b. a vendetta. Please convey this to the ANI even if you do not agree. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)"

He wanted that reviewed. I asked him to use the unblock template again for anything else. • Lawrence Cohen 20:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently, as I understand it, he is indef blocked not banned, so reposting is fine. If he was community or ArbCom banned it might be different, but you are in the clear. nb. My original block was pursuant to an AIV report - I censured the other party to a longer block because the language was more violent, but generally acted to stop an escalating cycle of personal attacks. I accept whatever actions other editors and admins with more experience of this individual decide upon. LessHeard vanU 20:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry ultimatum

From here"

"I'm fully capable of coming to terms with my actions. However, I will not volunteer this when it is clear that there is a double standard in play, specifically when my edits are trolled for alleged infractions that were never subject to administrative action. I feel that is a fair stance to take. Now, we can do this honestly; I will accept a long but limited block for my actions with the mutual understanding that there was past administrative malice and a questionable ANI, or, I will change my IP address and create a new account with a blank slate. Yes, I'm sure at this very moment you are recoiling at my ultimatum, but note that my preferred concession keeps me publicly accountable for my block log. I ask you, which is preferable?"

So for allegedly attacking everyone in sight, if admins don't agree that he was not at fault, he will come back with a new IP immediately and a new account. Perhaps this should be elevated to a full ban. :( • Lawrence Cohen 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Blackmail? What an excellent reason for an unblock. NOT! LessHeard vanU 21:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This bloke is not good for wikipedia and should be banned. I intend to protect his talk page now Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed. Unfortunately the user doesn't seem to see the underlying problems with his behavior and hasn't shown any interest in changing his ways. henrik•talk 21:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse a full ban. I haven't dealt with this editor since last year but judging by his history since then he is not making positive contributions to the project and is disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. My original indef should've stuck. Will ^(talk) 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If his response to this situation is to threaten that he'll change his account, rather than make some serious effort at finding someone to work with him to reform his abusive behavior, it's clear he's not going to reform. I think we can consider him community banned at this point. --Haemo 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Support community ban. Georgewilliamherbert 03:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My my, he has a way with words

Apologies for my snarkyness throughout the thread, but I love how it's all my fault he got banned. Yes, surely I am a part of a secret non-existent cabal who can make personal attacks and do whatever the fuck they like without fear of punishment, when the truth is that I tend to operate solo unless I need admin assistance. I'll maybe reconsider this post if political ideologies are no longer used as epithets, which is unlikely to be soon. Will ^(talk) 23:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

US President candidates

Resolved

 – Next! -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that all biograph-articles about the candidates in the upcoming US Election will be locked and can only be edited by registered users of Wikipedia.

I think it's vital for Wikipedia that they have this lockdown as a safety procaution to preserve the quality of the articles. Not to mention all the countless hours undoing all this vandalism.

84.202.208.245 22:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles are not protected pre-emptively. Even going to RPP (where this should be) will result in your request getting declined. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. There will be many significant developments in each of these peoples' lives over the next year, and their articles will need to be updated accordingly. If there's persistent abuse from anons, we'll semi-protect for a suitably short duration as needed. -- Caknuck (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Dbachmann (cont'd)

Archiving as it no longer seems appropriate for this noticeboard. Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for one year, and may appeal that block by the normal procedures. Arguements about the conduct Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should be discussed calmly at an RfC, should editors wish to pursue the point. Physchim62 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As per discussion above, a formal user conduct RfC has been opened here: [22]. I want to thank everyone for their input.---- Ramdrake (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove indefblock

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

I have blocked Giovanni Giove indefinitely for unrepentant POV warrioring (see this note). Giovanni was placed on a revert parole by ArbCom in the above linked case but he has completely ignored this. The ArbCom case mentions that after five breaches of parole Giovanni may be blocked for one month. Given his attitude towards Wikipedia, particularly the editors he fights with, and his already lengthy block log I simply do not think that tolerating several more months of POV war just to give him a one month block is the best course of action here. Hence, I bring it for the community to review. – Steel 17:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this Steel. The arbitration case only closed at the end of August and although the case states that after 6 blocks his block length should be extended to 1 month, since the close of the ArbCom case he's only been blocked once, so in effect the 1 month block should be enacted after 5 more blocks. I haven't looked into his actions too closely, but if his behaviour is a bad as you say it is, I would have expected more blocks since the close of his case. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the case closed in October. Since then there was apparently one revert parole violation later that month which went unnoticed by admins (User:Kubura has the diffs, I think). Then there was another violation earlier this month, and now two today. Over the past year Giovanni has completely disregarded our policies on edit warring and has also racked up four violations of an ArbCom restriction in as many weeks. I cannot see him changing anytime soon. – Steel 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah so it di d(probably should have had my glasses on). Presumably the committee found something constructive with Giovanni's editing or else they would have banned him. As the case only closed in October, this is his only block since the case closed, so the remedies given in the case haven't been tested. Some users don't understand the severity of ArbCom - If Giovanni is subject to some short sharp blocks for every violation (it's unfortunate the earlier ones weren't caught) then there is a strong possibility he will change his ways, I just can't agree that banishment is the best course of action here when the other method hasn't been given chance to work. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence at all for the supposition that "there is a strong possibility he will change his ways," and think indef block will be the ultimate outcome. Nevertheless I prefer we adhere to the letter of the arbcom ruling to forestall endless disputes over the propriety of blocks, which likely would waste even more of our time than putting up with GG for a while. -- Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's his second block since the case closed, and seventh block overall. As I say, I am pessimistic about the prospects of him reforming given his multitude of blocks for edit warring and deeply ingrained pro-Italy, anti-Croatia PoV. – Steel 18:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Steel, have you waded through all of the reports at WP:AE? If so, then I trust your judgement. However, some of the diffs Kubura has are from before the case was finalized, and Giovanni has alleged edit warring by a faction including Direktor, who was also placed on 1RR, and other editors working with Direktor. Some of the complaints are that Giovanni is generally disruptive (on talk pages even) which would normally call for an article ban under a probation, which Arbcom did not put in place for this case but which could be requested from them. Thatcher131 18:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that a lot of the links and information posted by Kubura on various pages (including WP:AE) are reports of general disruption by Giovanni Giove, not specific violations of the one revert per week ruling. I'm open to the idea of article bans if people think it's worth it. – Steel 18:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Who was Giovanni edit-warring with? Have those persons also been sanctioned by ArbCom? Are they on revert parole? My experience at Republic of Ragusa is that the pro-Croat editors are at least as dedicated to pov-pushing. I'm too lazy too look into the incident, but if Giovanni Giove is edit-warring, then there's someone he's edit-warring with, who should also be sanctioned. If the other edit-warrior isn't on the ArbCom Dalmatia list of participants, a checkuser may be in order. Argyriou (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That is my thought too. I will delve into this tonight. There's no particular urgency though since violating the 1RR would warrant a block of some length anyway. Thatcher131 20:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I dropped his block to 2 days, as I feel there are extenuating circumstances, described here. Thatcher131 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) and can't restore it

Resolved

 – Will be handled by mail, nothing to be done here. — Sebastian 19:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone put their e-mail address on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). In order to protect their privacy, I wanted to delete the revisions with the e-mail address which should be easily accomplished by deleting all the revisions and selectively restoring the edits without the e-mail address. Unfortunately, this particular page has 11,676 revisions and my browser (Internet Explorer 7) seems unable to handle the huge page being generated by the Wikimedia software. I don't know what to do in order to resolve this. Can someone else take a look or contact a developer? Thanx. Sorry for the mess. ---- Richard (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That explains why wikipedia went a bit crazy 15 minutes ago. I'm not sure anyone will be able to restore it, so I'm asking the devs to sort it out from there end - I'm sure they have an easier method. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If that is the explanation for the lag, what the heck were we deleting yesterday? The entire French Wikipedia? :) spryde | talk 18:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! My Opera doesn't seem to handle Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) too. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And Brion's undeleted it for us so it should be back up and running when he servers catch up. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The page is back but there is no revision history. Personally, I think we should move the revision history off to an archive file somewhere and make sure to archive the revision history every few thousand edits. ---- Richard (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not going to be needed soon as we're going to have the ability to delete single revisions from the page history so we'll never have to delete a whole page to remove problem revisions (It's coming very soon I believe). The revision history will come back gradually. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've added a new section to WP:NAS/Deleting warning not to do what Richard did. We can take it out as soon as revision deletion is ready. -- Ronnotel (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly right. Not every kind of personal information qualifies for oversighting, so sysops have to delete less serious leaks themselves. The problem is that deleting/undeleting pages with huge history is extremely server-hoggy, and therefore it shouldn't be resorted to unless it's crucially needed. In this particular case, email is somewhere on outer limits of what could be considered personally-identifiable information. Oversighting may be in order if the user explains why it's so private, but deleting a village pump section... Too tough on my liking. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for removing things like e-mail addresses and that kind of stuff should be sent to oversight-llists.wikimedia.org --Deskana (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. ---- Richard (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[23]... but do people even read that? east.718 at 20:54, November 16, 2007

For the record, an other page that mustn't be deleted is Wikipedia:Sandbox. Brion will hunt you down if you do that. _→AzaToth 01:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, could an email address be oversighted, or is that not serious enough to be permanently purged? hbdragon88 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Email the oversight list, if they don;t want to do it, they;ll tell you why. Unless its on a page will a bazillion revisions, an admin can delete it; its just that deleting certain pages with big histories breaks the server. Thatcher131 04:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unusual disruption by an editor and socks

Earlier today/or before we had an incident where Cheesegrater2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) randomly started harassing Qst (talk · contribs) for their first edits and later on they asked a potentially illegal request of the editor to somehow gain them "a passport to the United Kingdom" so they could live there and of course they were blocked for this. I don't know the seriousness of this but, later on today another editor appeared called Cheesegrater2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who immediatly appeared on Qst (talk · contribs)'s talkpage again asking the same illegal request, looks like sockpuppetry to me. Any opinions on this? -- The sunder king (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That user is a sockpuppet, but if we can't prove it he was still making an illegal request that needs blocking for. You can put in a request for chaeckuser if you want--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)|||

I will be watching those pages incase it happens again, and I am going to see if there's more socks in the line before this one. -- The sunder king (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Found Cheesegrater2004 (talk · contribs)- made no edits but the account does exsist, could be a sleeper sock. -- The sunder king (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the magic tool is necessary here :) Qst 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is real suspicion of other accounts that aren't grating cheese, it's probably better to just treat it as a case of WP:DUCK and treat them as sockpuppets, rather than waste checkuser time (they'll probably decline it anyway for that exact reason). Orderinchaos 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait a while first then if happens one more time I will register a request, but I possibly will anyway. -- The sunder king (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering it was created today, it's an obvious sleeper. east.718 at 21:10, November 16, 2007

Lulu Margarida

Despite having been banned recently for edit warring, as soon as the ban was lifted Lulu Margarida once again has started edit warring and trying to revert the Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira article to a bad version despite multiple editors telling him to stop, trying to claim WP:Ownership of the article by deciding who can and can't edit the Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira article, attempting to meatpuppet by asking other users to go change the article to way he wants, and being rude and incivil on the Talk:Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira page. This editor continues to be disruptive to his pet articles and refuses to listen to any other editor who doesn't agree with him. Further assistance would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this user has an open RfC/U under her previous username, which was endorsed by 5 users (including 2 admins). She has also been banned for one year from the Portuguese Wikipedia for issuing personal attacks when others have tried to edit the same articles as she does so here. This seems like a clear case of a user with ownership issues and admitted POV-pushing motivations becoming belligerent whenever someone points out something on one of her "pet" pages. Also, her latest comment on the Simone talk page,

...the "edition" on left the side (Revision as of 00:21, 16 November 2007) is YOURS and it already has plenty of disruptive, misleading, tricky erros. Simone is famous for calling her lawyers as soon as she sees any damage to her image. I mean it: Watch out! I would advice you to give up "editing" and confine your editions into that cut/paste/copy

could be construed as a legal threat as it's basically telling us to "stop editing or she'll sue you". Where before I was mulling sending this to ArbCom, this is clearly spilled over into plain disruption when she engaged in vandalism and personal attacks (again). Considering the very same behavior, on the very same articles led to her ban from the Portuguese wikipedia, I can't see any room for second-chances or excusing it on "language".---- Dali-Llama (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have applied a one week block for disruption and intimidation [24] following a very recent pattern of shorter blocks. At the next incident, I think an indefinite block would be appropriate. The only reason I didn't do an indefinite block now is that the evidence was not comprehensive enought to justify a longer block. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. The editor doesn't seem to understand the concept of NPOV and the need to cite sources; hopefully, the block will be a wake-up call. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Metal to the Max!

User talk:Metal to the Max! left a message on my user page, deleting the Wiki Pro Wrestling Project userbar, saying I didn't know enough about the project, so I was kicked out. He then left a link to Ron Simmon's talk page, to a discussion from a few months ago about his current catch phrase. I had said it wasn't a catch phrase, he had only said it once. He then replied a few months later, saying I wasn't a real wrestling fan, how I was dumb, etc.

Could someone please let him know that he has no authority to kick somebody out of a project, and to not edit someone's userpage without permission, if anything their talk page. Thanks! -- Kris (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already done so, please come back if they persist. east.718 at 21:07, November 16, 2007

Okay, thank you! -- Kris (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Unhappy52

Resolved

 – ··coelacan 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Account created for the sole purpose of vandalizing User_Talk:IrishLass0128 page. See [25] for violation. Could be Grant_Chuggle again, but they've only made one edit using the account and that was to place the message on IrishLass' page. CelticGreen (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Come back here or to my talk page if the harassment continues. ··coelacan 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of a block

Hello, for a while, I have been observing the behavior of TougHHead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I have seen repeated bad behavior. S/he was blocked on Wikia and is harassing Wikia users here, not to mention several other offenses. I would like to propose s/he be blocked for a week (or any other time period). It has gone on for too long. Examples of bad behavior:

Incivility: [26] [27] (in edit summary) [28] [29]

Harassment of users: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

Other bad behavior [35] [36]

Note that these diffs are all recent. Looking at the user's contributions, one can find more disruptive behavior. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please leave this peace loving user alone. I did not do that and in fact the days of bad behavior will never come after my first block. I only asked questions to know them not harass them. Also the Civil articles I only tried to tell the truth on the articles not lie to the articles.(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

• I would support any block of this user. I would do it myself right now, but I'll wait for a few more admin opinions before action is carried out. Metros (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

TougHHead, if you are so peace loving then start acting that way. Stop being uncivil. Stop taking your Wikia conflict here. And I removed your irrelevant comment about fuck, Wikipedia is not censored. And something else, alol my diffs provided were in the last few days. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure it's actually a good idea to delete another editor's comments when those comments may be useful in assessing that user's position. I take your point about WP:NOTCENSORED, but then you act directly against that principle. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I am currently trying to be the Protagonist here not the bad guy all because I am trying to talk to old friends I meet before notably Mikael GRizzly, Eldarone, Angela, Dantman and even Catherine Munro. I also tried to tell the truth on webpages and articles not lie in them. I am trying to help and someone plots to block me for more than one month.(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

If you're the protagonist, why have I found so many recent diffs regarding your bad behavior? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

She is not the protagonist, since this is your proposal. This is not the forum for a one-on-one argument, but I suppose the admins will have taken note. To quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 908, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Circuit 2002).--Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I say you leave me and my edits alone right now. Stop having concerns for random users and why you had to keep an eye out for my edits? Can't you see I am new here and I did not poster a long history in anywhere. Some guy name Rosicrucian and Metros reverted edits for out of no reason when I put down facts on Trivia pages.(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

There's some useful guidance at the top of your talk page about what Wikipedia is and is not. Could you read it before arguing without ammunition? Also, my advice above applies to you too. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not have concerns for "random users", only those who constantly violate policy. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked this guy last time, and I, too, and within a hair's breadth of blocking again, especially following Angela's comment that my intial block might have been too lenient. This edit where TougHHead tried to impersonate an admin was a bit over the top, but though the edits border on disruptive, I'd like to have another admin weigh in. After the last block, this user pledged better behavior, and as this user is clearly a kid, a lot of what I see is simply kid stuff from someone who doesn't yet have the maturity to see how his edits look to others. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone do something about this RfC?

It's devolved into a stagnant cesspit of ABF and incivility. One of the participants, Anittas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was banned (again) as a result at it.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anonimu

Thanks, Will ^(talk) 23:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do what? Put the closing tags on it? Block/ban Anonimu? Clean it up to take to ArbCom? Argyriou (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... not quite resolved

I was just trying to add a section.

Does this user have CheckUser status? Why are they saying that anonymous IP address (myself) is TBSDY? See this edit. Why are they harassing an anonymous editor? All the points were valid. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone thinks you're ta bu shi da, but you're obviosly not. I'll remove it--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for a strike out to me wouldn't you say? ---- WebHamster 00:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why "obviously"? ---- WebHamster 23:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been clear. I am (have scrambled my password, just following up a few things before I go - I've been here a long time!), but it doesn't give them the right to make a positive ID of an anon as another editor. In a few hours this IP address will be recycled into the Optusnet network. I respectfully ask that the editor backs off and gives me my privacy. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

By not declaring who you are (were) given the circumstances surrounding this MfD, you were in effect sockpuppeting and trying to have some effect on the discussion without putting your cards on the table. Someone else did what you should have done, i.e. declared your vested interest. ---- WebHamster 00:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users meaning you will have greater privacy--Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Friend, after a minute or two I found this, which is pretty convincing. If you're here just to "clean things up", you have no need to sweat over the edit. If you're coming back for some other reason -- don't. I could tell from our discussion on Slashdot you were burned out on Wikipedia; there's no need to keep stirring up the ashes, since you know full well that doing so is only going to make you even more unhappy. Just go & God be with you. -- llywrch (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Just read this. Yeah, time to go: I agree. Don't want to get into arguments with WebHamster or 12Noon, all of whom have been accusing me of horrible things. It's hard to leave, but best to do. Thanks Llywrch. 211.30.71.131 (talk) :( 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Add'l IP of Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Notre Dame vandal

I suspect that 70.113.73.42 (talk · contribs) is another sock account of Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Notre Dame vandal (which includes a similar IP: 70.113.76.108 (talk · contribs)). Evidence includes a recent edit at Joe Montanta that matches the edits of Seaver11171944 (talk · contribs). What are the next steps? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've referred this to WP:RFCU and would be willing to do a WP:DUCK block if the problem continues. FYI: this vandal was the one who tried to pull a joe job on a legitimate editor during the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson case. Very sneaky and mean, and nearly got away with it. Worth keeping an eye out if you're a fan of American football. Durova^Charge! 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Atulsnischal cut n' pastes POV into many articles

Is this similar to SPAM? Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) has repeatedly cut n’ pasted a very POV section of text into multiple article. This has been discussed in most detail at Talk:Genetic pollution. I moved the section to the talk page to see if it could be cleaned up a bit but it was immediately reverted with an accusation of stalking. The exact same problematic text has also be added to at least the following article too:

• High-yielding_variety
• genetic erosion
• High-yielding_variety
• Hybrid
• Biodiversity
• Agriculture
• Genetically_modified_food
• Food_security
• Genetically modified organism

So what is the best approach to dealing with the type of POV pushing? This user does a lot of constructive edits but does not seem to take criticism well. He has been unwilling to discuss this on any talk page. David D. (Talk) 01:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x sock again - in need of block

Resolved

 – Peace has been restored now that Peace is gone. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

New user Peace2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) arrives on the scene today to undo the striking out of comments by the most recently blocked Dereks1x sock, Jessica Bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was blocked yesterday - then posts this checkuser request on himself. Probably would not yield a match even if filing on oneself were allowed, as the puppetfarm is known to sometimes edit from different IPs. The MO is completely identical to that of Dereks1x and his 57+ socks, and I request that this latest one be blocked too. See some of the sordid history here.Tvoz |talk 01:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

He drew the Ace. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ThanksTvoz |talk 02:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

40 Attacks a day by December 1st?!

I just saw this when I was on my patrol. Seems like User:PWeeHurman's sockpuppet, but he has already been blocked. I also found this and this. This may be serious. -Goodshoped 02:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite a silly request. Well blocked. bibliomaniac15 02:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree how silly he is, but seriously, if that does happen, well, I don't know. But he is blocked and may keep coming back as other sockpuppets - I'll confirm that with Checkuser. -Goodshoped 02:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pioneer (disambiguation)

Resolved

 – Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Could an administrator please fix the cut-and-paste move done from Pioneer (disambiguation) to Pioneer? The move is fine, but the way it was done is not. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Malicious page moves

Resolved

Cargopie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Moved a bunch of pages, and they all need to be corrected. I gave an "only warning". Given the edits (see contribs) and mentioning of the number 41, I believe it is a sock of User:Rogersize, User:Straightway, who are both socks of User:Quacking. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess they already were corrected, and the user was blocked, so never mind. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hambla

Resolved

Hambla, if his/her contributions are observed, very convincingly seems like a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, aimed exclusively at reverting all my edits, whatever they are.

The momentum that convinced me of this user's behavior is his talk page, where makes very short nonsensical replies in a discussion that's obviously going nowhere. To just quote some: "My pants are shaking", "No it's not."; after I invited him to calmly elaborate his edits, he writes things like "So you say.", "You sure?" and "The pot calling the kettle black.". After I wrote in the bottom: "In the end, all your edits have shown 0% interest in Wikipedia, showing absolutely nothing at all (culminating with "Yes they are") and qualify your edits as plain vandalism, hence you are leaving me with no choice but to revert your edits." and he has responded with "I can say the same about you. If you revert me I will revert you. Woop-dee-doo. Hambla 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)"

I have indefinitely blocked Hambla (talk · contribs), a recently created, single-purpose account for causing a serious disruption against PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs), a long-time editor in good standing. I regret the inconvenience you have suffered, Pax. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet. Thatcher131 02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had worse. Remember User:Afrika paprika... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by User:CBFan

Hello. I've recently noted some behavior by User:CBFan against User:Kingdom of crash and spyro, the former of whom has a long record of uncivil behavior, and the latter of which is a rather inexperienced user. This is especially seen on the page history of the latter user's page, which shows that CBFan is doing nothing other than harassing Kingdom of crash and spyro to make a point. Even in cases where his actions would be justifiable, his edit summaries frequently show hostility, and are unnecessarily bitey. Looking at Kingdom of crash and spyro's contributions, CBFan appears to almost stalk this user, reverting them frequently with the same incivility in his edit summaries. Even at an apparently honest attempt at reconciliation, it was reverted with a rather uncouth summary. I attempted to converse with CBFan here, but was met with a rather uncivil response. Given that this user has not ceased in their uncivil activities, despite blocks and multiple entreaties do so, I'm bringing this issue here to get it resolved, as conversation with this user appears to be impossible. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is clearly one-sided, with the attacks coming from only one side, then action can be taken against the guilty party. But if both parties have a history of engaging in back and forth banter, then unless one of them files a complaint, it's best to let them deal with each other without getting involved. SouthFerryRoad (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a reason for deleting everything both KOCAS and you put on my talk page, SBCR. I first became aware of KOCAS when he continually tried to post an un-wanted, illegal and unneeded image in the Crash Bandicoot page. I, along with Freqrexy and Cat's Tuxedo, attempted to reason with him politely about why he couldn't post the image he had in mind (and the reason was because it was heavily edited, by him) and I suggested that a spellchecker may be beneficial. But did he listen to us? No. He blatantly ignored BOTH of us and claimed we were being mean. I will admit that I lost my temper then, but that was a long time ago. It got even worse when he tried to put forward his "Incredible RFA" (as quoted by Sbowers3) when he, yet AGAIN, told lies about me...he claimed I was deliberately picking on him, when I had been trying to help him originally AND that it wasn't just me. If I may quote them, Sbowers3 then claimed that Kingdom had "violations of 3RR, sockpuppetry, inability to write, inability to understand or accept comments by others, and general immaturity." Since then, Kingdom has been continually posting on my talk page, as shown above, yet he STILL refuses to use a spellchecker (even when I re-asked him nicely...I am aware the original blasts were a bit over the top) and he STILL told lies about me, those lies being that I was being a bully AND that I was the only one doing it (as you can see, at least three other members had something to say about him). I removed the comments because I didn't want my talk page cluttered with lies...if anything, HE was picking on ME more than the other way around. My edits were at least attempting to be constructive. Freqrexy was the one calling Kingdom a two year old, yet he blatantly blamed it on me. And SBCR, the only reason I removed your comment was because I didn't find it remotely civil, because the way it was written, it was blaming me and ONLY me for something I hadn't fully done. I know I may have over-reacted, but I won't stand for people telling lies about me. If what SBCR had written had been more civil and polite, I would not have deleted it. But, I'm sorry, but Kingdom's lies are becoming real annoying. That's why I intended to have a break (until I read this, then I needed to bring up my defence).

P.S. I'd also like to note that I may have been going on for a while back then, but that was just that...back then. Back then, I thought the guy was an I.P vandal. I tried to control myself and be politer, but he just refused. CBFan (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Serious IP vandalism and personal attacks in the Istrian exodus article

Could someone take a look at the latest IP User edits in the Istrian exodus article. They destroyed a weeks-long effort to balance the controversial article, between User:PIO and myself, with low-quality very POV edits. The IPs have also indulged in disgusting personal attacks as well, and continued to edit in spite of protests. If I may, I'd like to request the article's semi-protection for the time being.

• Edits: [37]

• Personal attacks (in edit descriptions): [38]
  

Please note that the frase "pitchku mater" means "your mother's cunt!" in the Serbian and Croatian languages.
DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection appears a bit hasty right now. If the vandalism continues after warning the ip's they can be blocked (use WP:AIV for a quicker response) and only if they continue vandalism should the article be protected. It is a bit of a pain, but keeping articles unprotected until absolutely necessary is the best policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

These guys switch IPs all the time, so I'm skeptical about blocking, that's why I went straight to the block request. But you're right, the procedure's the procedure. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've issued an only warning, if the vandalism and abuse continues then it can justify semi protecting - but yes, procedure protects us as well as articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Greater Albania

I'd appreciate a look at Greater Albania. I've locked it for a week due to edit waring and I have blocked two of the culprits for a quick 24 hours. I blocked User:TheFEARgod and User:Bardhylius. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

With the absence of the above I don't see much need to protect, hardly anyone else managed to get in an edit recently. I presume the protect is for when the blocks expire? If they resume edit-warring upon the protection expiry I suggest indef blocks until they agree to dispute resolution (or is SPA socks likely?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually there was one other editor I considered but his wasn't has bad -- just a judgment call. Otherwise, I agree that indefs could be required. As to the socks, I don't know. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 15:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked IP vandalising user talk page

Resolved

• 152.216.3.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - This user is already blocked but continues to vandalise and make personal attacks on his/her talk page. I reported this on WP:AIV, but the clean-up bot kept removing it, presumably as the user is already blocked. – Tivedshambo (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry - many thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Williamliew

The above user has made a number of POV and controversial edits mainly on the Tibet article but also on a couple of other articles today. All of their edits are unsourced and clearly POV. I have tried reasoning with them on their talk page and left three of the "unsourced" template messages. I have also left a message on the Tibet article talk page asking them not to keep adding unsourced material and to add a source. However, so far they have simply ignored all these messages and keep adding what are clearly controversial POV edits back in again. If I recall correctly when things like this happen it is the norm to revert the article to the last "good" version and to request discussion on the talk page before any further edits? I have done this, however the user has simply ignord all my messgaes and again added the content, unsourced, back in yet again. What happens now please? I have not reported this as vandamism as I don't believe it is. I just appears to be someone with a very strongly held opinion who doesn't seem willing to discuss controversial edits. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Warned npov4. Next time he does it earns a vacation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Casual vandalism and POV pushing by User:Bwmiller

User:Bwmiller is a single-purpose account who comes on every few weeks/months to argue about a marina at Greystones, which he is strongly against but which has recently received planning permission. He has added POV statements and weasel words several times in the past, eg. here; and he is a member of the Greystones Protection & Development Association (he personally added their link here), which is a group vehimently opposed to the plans.
His current problem is with the fact that a landfill on the site is 'inert' (meaning non-toxic). Even though there is a valid citation for this fact, the user has twice removed it, here and here. On the talk page he has argued that the citation is not from a "reputable" source, and that information that he says he has heard in an "oral hearing", which he cannot provide any evidence for, should be kept in the article. He then finishes by saying "Frankly, by constantly reinserting the word 'inert' you are making an ass of yourself." which I think is a bit unacceptable. I would ask for either a strong warning from an admin, or a straight block. Thanks. Schcambo (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:!!

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have placed an indefinite block on this account as a disruptive sockpuppet. Due to the nature of this investigation, our normal open discussion isn't really feasible. Please take to arbitration if you disagree with this decision. Thank you. Durova^Charge! 16:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but some degree of further explanation here will be necessary. I appreciate your desire to keep your investigation techniques confidential but a first review of the contribution history here reveals no disruptive edits of any nature and no warnings of any kind. A response on an urgent basis is requested. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What what? Yeah, Durova, you're really going to have to explain this. I see no transgressions of any kind on the part of this user; indeed, with over 100 DYKs, he seems to be a pretty positive force around here. GlassCobra 17:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NYB... someone who writes 100+ DYK articles simply can't be here purely to be disruptive. Explain to NYB in private, there's no security issue there, and I think nearly everyone would drop this if he says in public "the secret evidence is enough". But as it is... I'll take this to ArbCom if no one else will, and I don't even really know User:!! --W.marsh 17:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Grossly poor block. I happen to know who this "disruptive" editor is, and I'll tell you now he's done absolutely nothing wrong at all Any admin who wants to know can email me. Majorly (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah I'm sorry, there's got to be more transparency than this when we're talking about an editor with that contribution history. Even if we're talking about a good hand account that is looking for adminship at some point. ELIMINATORJR 17:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I will be more than happy to explain my research to the arbitration committee. Please take this there if that is your opinion. WP:AGF, please: I don't do something this bold without very good reasons. Durova^Charge! 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• (fourth edit conflict) As Durova is not a checkuser, I find it difficult to think of what could be confidential about the evidence in this case. Should not !! be unblocked until others have checked the situation? Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If the reasoning behind the block involved personal information of editors then this is the correct thing to do. If you truly object then make your objections known to arbcom. They are not just going to let Durova block someone for the fun of it. There are certain issues that cannot be transparent here, this is a fact of the wiki. I have seen it happen a few times and when I investigated it was indeed correct not to discuss it publicly. Unblocking without talking to arbcom first would be about as irresponsible as Durova making this claim without good evidence(which I am sure he has). 1 != 2 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Given arbcom's current level of activity that isn't really an option. If you won't answer to the community chose half a dozen admins and explain your reseach to them.Geni (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I can understand where Durova is coming from. I don't find the suggestion to send this to ArbCom unreasonable, given Durova's history. Mercury 17:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been a tough call, but in my opinion a necessary one. I am very confident my research will stand up to scrutiny. I am equally confident that anything I say here will be parsed rather closely by some disruptive banned sockpuppeteers. If I open the door a little bit it'll become a wedge issue as people ask for more information, and then some rather deep research techniques would be in jeopardy. As I've said this before, take me to arbitration if you want to challenge this. I think I've said that enough times clearly - I opened this thread for exactly that purpose. More than half a dozen administrators have already seen this research. Durova^Charge! 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Names?Geni (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to send your evidence to other, independent admins who haven't been cherrypicked? If so, click here. If not, then yeah, I'm sorry, this is going to ArbCom. Not out of an assumption of bad faith, but because such an extreme action with no public evidence must be confirmed by experienced editors. You say that more than 6 other administrators have "seen the research" but none other than you have commented supporting the block here, so there's a bit of a disconnect. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova has made a reasonable request. Her block should be respected pending arbcom review. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Assuming good faith applies equally to !! as to Durova. Blocks are there to prevent disruption and I see no evidence that !! was being disruptive, or would suddenly start to be disruptive if unblocked. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely you can see the liability and danger in revealing investigative techniques? Mercury 17:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Security through obscurity? We've tried it a few times. has resulted in things like the main page being deleted and various inappropriate images turning up on the main page

• Durova, could you please explain why you can't elaborate to the community and this has to go through ArbCom? Are there privacy concerns? Or is this soley to keep your techniques secret? If it is the latter then this is extremely disappointing. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that rather than demanding things we can't have (names) or speculating, we wait for ArbCom? Durova is in direct contact with several arbitrators and CheckUsers at the moment, and her past investigation skills are held in some regard. Durova is not one to block lightly. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can we have the names of the admins who have reviewed the evidence?Geni 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tom Harrison and Mercury. We clearly have a sock infestation. If disclosing details would hamper future sock ID techniques, it is better for ArcCom to review it confidentially. If someone is truly concerned, take it there. Complaining about it here is counterproductive. Crum375 (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are arbitrators/checkusers who have evaluated the evidence it would be very helpful if they would comment here; after all, it would be counterproductive to start an ArbCom request if ArbCom is already reviewing the case. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

AGF'ing both sides, while I see no evidence of disruption (as a DYK frequenter), I'm not going to say anything against either side since I don't know the underlying information. I would like to see the evidence if Durova trusts me with it, but if not then I understand. Iff Arbcom can resolve this in a imely matter then I don't mind it going there. Wizardman 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of my filing a formal request for arbitration, I urge that one or more arbitrators review this situation immediately. Based on the information available to me there is insufficient evidence to support any block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's my question, if he's a sock, who's the master? Kwsn (Ni!) 17:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I know of !! and the thousands of excellent contributions he has made... No idea what this about, can we have some idea as to the nature of the transgression at least? My impression was he'd exercised his right to disappear and return... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I also don't get it...I understand not giving away confidential personal information, but could Durova at least cite the disruptive behavior for which this particular account was blocked? If it's a good hand/bad hand thing, then block the bad hand indefinitely and warn/short block the good hand. But this user account seems to be a productive one. Some of the recent sockpuppet hunting and blocking seems a little witch-hunty to me - what's the point of blocking alternate accounts that are not causing disruption? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Meta comment: Thank you, all, for not jumping to undo the block. Durova has unblocked !!, and I expect she will explain shortly. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock with apologies

When I make a mistake I like to be the first to step forward to correct myself. It's very surprising that a few facts didn't come to light sooner, given the amount of time my report circulated and the people who had access to it. This is, in fact, not a first account. But it's a legitimate situation. I request early closure and archiving of this thread to protect that person's privacy. Durova^Charge! 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BetacommandBot blocked

I've blocked BetacommandBot for incorrect operation. It's been tagging images that are not claimed as "fair use" as "orphaned fair use": see, for example, [39]. Betacommand has not responded to my concerns that this is confusing for new users; he thinks that because templates such as {{no copyright holder}} place images in the category Category:All non-free media, it is appropriate to treat them as fair-use images. --Carnildo 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BCBot has been blockec numerous times for incorrect tagging, I think Betacommand might be in the process of fixing it. He is usually rather quick in fixing problems to get it running again. Qst 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(As an aside, I deleted the image, it was an obvious copyright violation though the tagging was somewhat unclear. It was taken from [40] and the source image is copyright General Electric... Georgewilliamherbert 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) )

It's just the example I came across. I could probably find a dozen more without even trying by looking at images OrphanBot's tagged recently. --Carnildo 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind doing that so we can take a look at one that hasn't yet been deleted? Thx, Wikidemo 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a couple: [41] [42] --Carnildo 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight correction, [43] is an inappropriate NFCC #10C tagging, not an inappropriate "orphaned fairuse" tagging. --Carnildo 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NFCC: For purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. (bold mine)

Then, from the same page: 7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (bold mine, note that it does not say "fair use")

I can't say for sure, that I follow where BetacommandBot was doing something disruptive. SQL^{Query me!} 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, you are correct. However, the point of {{no source}}, {{no license}}, and the like is that we don't know if it's under a non-free license or not. All we know is that it does not have a free license tag.

The specific disruption is that, by adding a potentially irrelevant tag, new users are confused as to what's wrong with their image, and the image will be deleted after 48 hours, not after the seven days that {{no source}} allows. Since new users don't visit Wikipedia on a regular basis, the image can easily be deleted before they have a chance to fix any problems. --Carnildo 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it appears the bot is correctly applying the image policy in tagging these images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is clearly wrong to tag/claim that a fair use claim is invalid when there is no fair use claim in the first place- and in fact no claim at all. The bot isn't applying policy here, it is generating random noise. While the bot sometimes gets it right, we shouldn't let it be this blatantly wrong. GRBerry 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The image in question was tagged as orphaned and nonfree, and it was both. The image was on our servers without a free license, and used in no articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are referring to the same image I am. The one I'm referring to is Image:MOP.jpg. Before Betacommandbot screwed it up, there was nothing in the image page about it being a fair use image. Then the bot falsely claimed that the image was orphaned fair use. There was never a fair use claim, so it wasn't orphaned fair use. It was orphaned, but it never had a fair use claim. It was completely unsourced, which is WP:CSD#I4 and would have led to deletion even if Betacommandbot had never touched the page. So Betacommandbot is not helping in these cases, it is making things worse by causing confusion and making it harder to fix the real problem. GRBerry 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering how many times the bot has been here with some sort of problem like this, perhaps it's time to retire the bot completely? Argyriou (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Won't happen, sadly. But it would be a glorious day for many, many editors. Neil ☎ 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm against retiring the bot without a replacement being available. We do need to comply with NFCC policies, and like it or not, automated tagging is the best way. Maybe if BC could break the bot out into several userid' bots (BetaCommandBot1, BetaCommandBot2, etc). According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Bots%2FRequests+for+approval%2FBetacommandBot&namespace=4 it is approved for 8 tasks. At the very least, multiple bots would prevent the entire operation from being shut down if one of them goes haywire. Mbisanz 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, splitting separate tasks into multiple bots sounds like an excellent suggestion. At least that way when the programming gets screwed up, we could only shut off the affected tasks. We've seen bad coding too many times to let this continue. GRBerry 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

this was not caused by me, it is an improper use of {{non-free media}}. Template:No copyright holder contains that template. {{non-free media}} is used to label non-free media. β^_command 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is caused by you. It wasn't too hard for me to add various exceptions to OrphanBot; how hard can it be to add a check to BetacommandBot that says "if there is a deletion template on the image, then do not place an 'orphaned fairuse' or 'fairuse disputed' template on it"? --Carnildo 02:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock BetacommandBot soon, please. I need it to inform me when my pictures get removed from articles, so that I can vent some incivility upon some of my fellow wikipedians. Jecowa 03:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the bot shouldn't be unblocked until the tests requested by Carnildo are added, and ideally, until the tasks are separated into separate threads under separate bot accounts. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a small comment here, the whole point of the {{non-free media}} template was to add it to our non-free image copyright tags to make it easy for a bot to identify non-free images without having to maintain a huge list of tags that are exceptions or special cases and such. So the solution here is obviously to make sure {{non-free media}} is only actualy added to non-free copyright tags, and not all sorts of deletion tags. I'll just go remove {{non-free media}} from teh various "no source" "no license" tags and this will no longer be an issue. --Sherool (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking initiative to fix the problem, Sherool. She rule. Cereal. Pizza. Oh, sorry. It's that ADD thing. Jecowa 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I will not separate the bot into separate accounts, As for the error with {{non-free media}} I would have removed that template my self but I cannot edit protected pages. Also BCBot needs unblocked still. β^_command 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please leave it blocked and do the whole project a favour, or at least let's open up another RFC or something. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"I will not separate the bot into separate accounts" - what a helpful response to good faith suggestions. Why not? It seems like a very good idea. If you can't manage the coding, I'm sure someone could give you a hand. I note the bot has been unblocked now. Perhaps we should have a sweepstake on how long until it breaks down again ([44]). Neil ☎ 09:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it would be seven more talk pages to monitor and seven more accounts of redundant code in which to make bug fixes and because it's his bot and he doesn't want to. Jecowa 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see KISS Keep It Simple Stupid, A core principle that I use when programming. β^_command 14:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also much simpler to do whatever the hell you want and respond rudely when questioned about your or your bot's actions. You, sir, are the very model of what an admin should not be. Argyriou (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I try to respond to every reasonable question, in a calm and civil manner, If Im a little frank its because I dont like playing word games or wikilayering. People asked that I split the bot into seperate accounts and Im saying that I will not do that. If I dont explain my exact reasons its because 85%+ of the people reading my comments will not understand the technical concepts. β^_command 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many users who do understand these highbrow "technical concepts". They seem to block your bot, a lot, because it keeps breaking. I don't think you need to be very technical to understand that. By having multiple bots working on different things, whenever your code breaks again we don't lose all the functionalities. Neil ☎ 16:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Most people who block the bot most of the time dont understand policy or procedure. my code very very rarely breaks. if you want technical explanations of why I will not separate the bot into multiple accounts? here it is: there are redundant shared threads and co-dependent shared data in independent processes that use the same libraries. In order to separate the the individual functions I would have to re-organize and re-write the modules in order to separate the individual functions and and remove the cross dependency. Once that is done I would have to create a method of updating all the modules that were previously shared once they are separated and set independent of each other. β^_command 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What?!? Having multiple apps share common libraries is the oldest trick in the book. Solving this problem is standard practice. Friday (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And even if you're not willing to do that, there's no reason why edits related to different tasks can't be made with different accounts. All you have to do is send a different cookie. —Cryptic 17:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the code really is a problem, what if the same code ran on multiple accounts? And, it looked at the account name it was running under in order to decide which job to do? Maybe there's a way to achieve separate functionality without having actual different programs, if technically separating them is a problem. Friday (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

the issue is isolating the login code that is shared, in order to isolate that code I would have to isolate the whole program. End of discussion I am not going to use separate accounts. and that is the final, its my choice as a programmer and a bot operator. β^_command 17:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you make silly choices, other people will make the choice to block your bot. Wouldn't it be better all around if people could instead choose to turn off only the jobs it's screwing up? Friday (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless its a ORFU/DFU run Im at the computer, a note on my talkpage will normally get the same results. (Most of the blocks on BCBot are by admins who do not understand the policy and that the bot is operating properly) I cannot be held responsible for dumb mistakes admins make. the bot should not have been blocked in this case, it was not my fault that {{non-free media}} was being abused and used on templates that it shouldn't have been. That template is designed for use in licensing templates so that Identifying non-free media is simple via bot. dont yell at me for having the bot do what its supposed to do, and able non-free images as orphaned or as bad rationales, and be mad because the image that it tagged was free, {{non-free media}} labels it as non-free. mis-use of that template is not my responsibility. β^_command 20:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is your job to ensure the bot is functioning properly. If it is not functioning properly, then fix things so it is. If you cannot fix things, then do not run the bot. --Carnildo (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What about setting up the bot like the AIV helper bots? Have a "control panel" page where individual tasks are managed. And all you'd need to do to modify your code would be to add some if/then/else statements that read the control panel, and then perform the tasks that are switched on. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Threats

Resolved

 – Editor has advice for dealing with future content deletions. Nothing more to do. ··coelacan 21:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not one hundred percent certain where to put this, so if this is the wrong page I apologize.

I did a minor edit on the homophobia page that seemed to go against neutral POV which was reverted [[45]]. I’m not particularly concerned about that, as I don’t really care about it, but since then Ctjf83 has been threatening to ban me. Now I don’t know if he can do it or not but he hasn’t stopped. I appreciated it if an Administrator spoke to him about it. I know that trying to do something about his disruptive edits will probably only encourage him but I felt I should at least draw attention to it. I’m not looking for the Administrator to do anything in particular – whatever they see fit is fine. Thanks --24.62.221.173 08:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Ctjf83 did not threaten to ban you, he left a message saying that "you will be blocked if you continue to vandalize". There is a difference between blocking and banning.

Secondly, I looked at the the diff you provided and I can see where Ctjf83 is coming from when he stated and believed that your contribution was vandalism. However, it is my personal opinion, your contribution was not vandalism, but something that clearly needs to be discussed on the talk page before adding to the article.

Thirdly, point 2 brings up the fact that Ctjf83, might have been heavy handed when he posted the warning on your user talk page.

That's my 2¢. --Avec nat...Le Wikipédia Prends Des Forces! 08:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't see the removal of sourced material as a minor edit, and you were quite rightly reverted. While I wouldn't classify the edit as vandalism, it was certainly agenda pushing, which is another reason to revert. Given all the homophobic vandalism here on Wikipedia, I can understand why the other user gave you a warning. He probably wouldn't have were you a registered user. Perhaps you should consider that. -- Jeffpw (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What?! ok, the reason i put vandalism is because i see it as a straight guy who is homophobic, and is offended by the fact that the sourced line says it equals insecurity in men. there was absolutely no threat, just vandalism warnings, which as i think it is vandalism, is the policy to do. Ctjf83 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ctjf83, how is what you write after "because" logically equivalent to the definition of vandalism? — Sebastian 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, I'll agree i shouldn't have given my personal opinion that s/he might be a homophobe, but I believe removing sourced relevant info. is not appropriate. Ctjf83 20:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• The part I removed was a rather agenda pushing edit to have in the article so I removed it. What I got in return (to use Ctjf83's terminology) was a gay editor who is "hetrophobic" and offended by the fact that some people might think the article needs a more neutral POV and so threatened to have me banned. It's silly and it's uncivil and absolutly goes against wiki policy. That's why I brought the issue here. The article itself is not in question, just the behavoir. --24.62.221.173 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

as stated above, i never threatened to BAN YOU Ctjf83 07:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps veiled threat would be a better term. But yes, yes you did. Twice. And last I checked you did not remove them or added a comment that you were too heavy handed in adding them in the first place. Until then the fact remains. --24.62.221.173 (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

At Arbitration Nomination Parties in dismissed ArbCom are Re-litigating the case

At User:Raul654's Arbitrator nomination, User:THF and User:ATren, who raised legitimate questions initially, are now re-litigating an arbitration case that User:Raul654 worked on. This hardly seems a fair way, especially since this is the side that was losing every finding of fact, and they are now going after Raul over it and discussing issues irrelevant to the Arbitration hearing, such as User:Cberlet and User:William M. Connolley and their status. It's going on here. --David Shankbone 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not relitigating anything. I'm asking questions about why an arbitrator who participated in the underlying content dispute participated in an arbitration notwithstanding a pending motion for recusal, and trying to understand the basis for his interpretation of the COI policy, which contradicts what WP:COI says. But to prevent further harassment from Shankbone (which has included editing multiple mainspace pages related to me, notwithstanding requests from five separate admins not to do so), I will not make any followups. -- Evidence storage (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, because after you wrote that you posed a sixth question. The ArbCom was dismissed because you left the project. Are you in fact still here? --David Shankbone 21:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We are questioning his activities on that case, specifically related to the fact that he didn't recuse from the case, when there is a significant amount of evidence that he had a prior involvement in the case and with one of the editors. The discussion is civil. Is that not permitted? If so, I will cease. -- ATren (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not fair and I think falls under trolling. Raul was part of a clear majority in finding THF's edits problematic, and the case was dismissed for the sole reason that User:Evidence storage, AKA User:THF, left the project. Now that the case is dismissed, and on its way to be decided in his disfavor, he is back and re-litigating it on Raul's nomination. This is clearly abusive.--David Shankbone 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I left the project before Raul654 participated in the arbitration, so Shankbone's characterization is fictional. There are legitimate questions about Raul654's position (and participation) in that case, which he has not been able to defend when questioned about it. It's not religating the case, because the case will not be reopened, and I will not return to Wikipedia even in the unlikely event that Raul654 admits that he was wrong to characterize compliance with guidelines as a violation of that same guideline. -- Evidence storage (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that you did not take part in the ArbCom when Raul was taking part in the ArbCom? Is that seriously what you are saying? Because one need only look at your contributions to see that is false. --David Shankbone 21:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. User:Evidence storage is an alternate account of a user who has officially left the project in the midst of an ArbCom case. The sock's userpage states it will be used only to collect diffs. However, the account is currently being used to re-explore issues relating to the ArbCom case, to participate in ArbCom elections, and to comment on WP:AN/I. Given that the account holder was party to an ArbCom case which was dismissed on the understanding that he had left Wikipedia, using an alternate account to continue to revisit these issues is a violation of the "Avoiding scrutiny" section of WP:SOCK. I have blocked User:Evidence storage, but with the autoblock disabled, and encouraged this user to utilize his main account only. If he wishes to invoke his right to vanish and start anew under another username, that's fine, but the new username should not be used to immediately engage in the same line of dispute as the old account. That's avoiding scrutiny. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict. I was about to do the same thing. Good move. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Evidence storage" was literally a single purpose account. "THF" isn't blocked and hasn't requested a name change. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has in general disagreed over at WT:SOCK with Will Beback and Jehochman on the interpretation of WP:GHBH, I'd say that this is certainly a case where avoiding scrutiny is central, and concur with their judgment. Relata refero (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that any attempt to rerun the arbitration be sanctioned. THF escaped sanction only by "retiring", to come back and try to replay the arbitration on a candidate page is completely unacceptable, as noted above. If THF wants to reopen the case and let it run its course he is more than welcome to do so. I know from past experience that ATren will not drop it once he's decided that someone should have recused, so it may be necessary to close that inappropriate rerun of the arbitration by force. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I missed this discussion yesterday, but have posted in opposition to this block at User talk:Evidence storage. Please see that page for my comments and for responses from THF/Evidence storage and from the blocking administrator. I note in passing that Raul654 is not the only ArbCom candidate who has been the subject of questions about this case on his question page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Negro

there is a vandal/sockpuppet who continues to vandalise the article negro. He has been reported several times in the last 24 hours, unfortunately he can easily switch Ips to evade all blocks that have been imposed. the user is User:Nordic Crusader Muntuwandi (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree about this being vandalism. Rather, it appears to be a content dispute with accompanying edit warring. I suggest leaving the article alone for a bit and attempting to start a discussion on the talk page. For what its worth, if your concern is the picture, while it does contain a nude figure, it's an extremely artistic nude and shouldn't count as disruption in my view. · jersyko talk 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

... that said, if this is a sock puppet of an indef blocked user, then you have a point. Additionally, a block or blocks could perhaps be handed out for edit warring. · jersyko talk 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not a puppet. Look at the diff of Negro, you will see all I have done is include a picture to support the text which states 'Negress' is almost confined to artwork, and written a clear definition in the first sentence of the article. One should not have to read through an entire article to get a basic understanding of what the word means! --222.155.53.237 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• User talk:222.155.38.11
• User talk:222.155.43.118
• User talk:222.155.53.237
• User talk:222.155.41.78

are all the same user. You can tell from the ip range and the articles edited. Muntuwandi (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are only 4,000,000 people in New Zealand. Our IP's don't cover a great range. --222.155.53.237 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

...and since when did a dynamic IP user get to choose what IP he/she could use at any given point in time? ---- WebHamster 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The actual quality of the recent user's more recent edits is debatable, but he is still being disruptive and violating 3RR. Also, apart from the more legitimate content dispute, the same user has repeatedly vandalized[46] [47] [48] [49] the same article. He is clearly up to no good. If this is a banned user (I'm not familiar w/ the alleged puppetmaster), we shouldn't even be having this discussion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But the fact that user 222.xxx.xxx.xxx made a WP:3RR report here [50] linking to his own violation and blaming it on Muntuwandi tends to prove that this is just vandalism and harrassment.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

'The fat man" or whoever added those last 2 diffs not me

Duh, you still opened a WP:3RR bogus report on MW linking to your own violations. Did you think nobody would realize?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my mistake. I mis-read the complaint as a report by MW against 22.155.xx.xxx and tried to add some diffs showing how many times 22.155.xx.xxx had reverted the article. I have since clarified the report and restored 22.155's original diffs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But let's come back to the issue at hand: I don't know if 22.155.xx.xxx is a sockpuppet of a banned user, but he's editing disruptively, vandalizing and violating the 3RR. He needs to be blocked.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My edits are solid gold, you should feel privelidged just being allowed to read them. --222.155.41.78 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please take a look and block the range for at least long enough that this vandal will stop having fun at everybody's expense? Please?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please do a range block or something? Editor is still waging an all-out edit war on Negro (protection has been requested) and stepping up his harassment and personal attacks as well[51].--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon is back, as User:222.155.54.191, and reverting on the Negro page.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I protected the article, albeit clearly the wrong version, in an effort to foster discussion and prevent further edit warring. Clearly the anon is editing disruptively by edit warring and evading blocks. However, this appears to be a content dispute at heart, and there was essentially no talk page discussion on point before I protected the article. I'm open to being convinced that a clear consensus exists to exclude the material, in which case I would posit that the correct path to take would be to semi protect the article to prevent further disruption. · jersyko talk 00:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A follow up: [52]. Please review my actions and explanations if you like. The anon has revealed itself to be a troll. · jersyko talk 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Content can be sorted out by non-disruptive users. So a talk page discussion is good. I'm more concerned with the anon's vandalism (stuff about Negros being monkeys, etc.), personal attacks and alleged ban-evading sockpuppetry.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:222.153.97.176the user is back causing trouble again. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As noted above this is Hayden5650 (talk · contribs), a banned neofascist sockpuppeteer. All users are asked to revert him, non-admins to report on AIV at sight, and admins to block as soon as possible. This is not a content dispute, this is vandalism. Thanks, Picaroon (t) 03:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Typhoon

The User:Typhoon has been taking a very uncivil approach to his Wikipedia contributions. The user has been taking talk page messages, such as image deletion warnings, very personally. Every single time that a user posts a message on his talk page, it is deleted almost immediately, and replaced with something vulgar, such as the following:

I don't care about WikiProjects, I don't care if I uploaded a non-free image, I don't care about any bureaucratic Wikipedian bullshit, I just want to make my stupid edits and be left alone. If I made a change you don't like, just undo it and leave me and this page alone.[53]

After leaving two messages on his talk page earlier today about image deletion warnings, he replaced his entire page with "FUCK YOU"[54], which I consider to be a personal attack. Later today, another user posted a message on Typhoon's page, and it was removed right away by Typhoon, which lead the posting user to revert the message, and leave an additional message on his page about removing talk page messages.[55] Basically, it is pretty clear that this user does not adhere to policy, nor does he/she have any desire to do so, and has not changed his/her behavior despite having received several warnings. Typhoon's last talk page edit was replacing the entire page with a copyrighted image[56], which I have just reverted. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, Dream out loud. A few things:

• he says just revert if you don't like his edits - so, if you don't think his edits are appropriate, just revert as suggested (with good explanations!). Does he then revert and edit war back? Or attack? If not, he is true to his word. If he does, then discuss here.
• He says he just wants to be left alone - so let's do that. But of course, don't fail to carry out WP policies that must be strict, such as image copyright violations.
• He's perfectly entitled to remove comments from his talk page, in fact, doing so suggests he has received the message, which is the point. Do reinstate these messages (and I don't know if this has been happening) would be simply goading him.
• Saying F*** You is a personal attack and problematic. Now, i don't know the circumstances behind it. Would leaving him and talk page alone in his own little world perhaps prevent such messages occurring?

my suggestions is to just get on with reviewing his edits (as he has requested), and removing copyright infringements, and leave the talk page alone. Just some thoughts. Hope to see you around the U2 articles again! kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, perhaps an admin could post a firm but polite message about any continued violations of image use policy - ie, suggesting a block could be instated. Let him read it, remove it without reverting it back, and give him a chance to comply, and then if there is further image policy violations, further action can be then be taken. Just don't keep reverting his talk page back as that is just provoking him. cheers. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Sandstein (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning against personal attacks issued. The user may remove messages from his talk page, though. You should let him know that his conduct is discussed here. In the case of continued disruption, please report it to me, to another admin, to WP:ANI or to WP:AIV as appropriate. Sandstein (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that he has a sense of humour. --Merbabu (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Known harmful bot

With this edit, HBC AIV helperbot4 removed an entry for the IP 198.237.124.2 from the Administrator intervention against vandalism list. The offending IP had not been blocked yet, and the bot did not make any reference to the removal in its edit summary. When I re-added the IP to the list moments later, it was immediately blocked by admin Dreadstar, indicating the block was justifed, and the bot should not have removed the entry.

When I addressed the issue with the bot operator at [57], I was told the problem was unfixable from a coding standpoint, or that a fix would require "excessive load". The bot is known to remove valid entries (a violation of the bot policy's requirement that bots be "harmless"). The removed entries are generally not re-added until they are caught vandalizing by another editor who can be bothered to add them to the AIV (which may mean a significant amount of extra vandalism). The bot op estimates this to occur about twice a day, and the bot op does not monitor for such mistakes.

Given that the task of removing blocked users from the AIV list is one admins can perform when they apply the blocks, I believe the benefits of this particular task of this bot and its other instances may be outweighed by this problem. I leave it to the admins to determine what, if any, action is called for. — Swpb^talk.edits 17:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly do you want done? This bot is extremely helpful and I would think that the errors are very minimal. As he said, it occurs when there is an edit conflict. Given the level of assistance the bot provides vs. the rare problem I wouldn't be too concerned. JodyB _talk 17:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned either. I do not think this is a serious problem. The bots remove a lot of the tedium from blocking users and maintaining the AIV page. Worst case scenario is that it takes a few more vandalisms for a few vandals to get reported again, which can be a problem - but it is not a particularly serious one. The benefit the bots provide outweigh the mistakes they make, by allowing admins to operate more efficiently. henrik•talk 17:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe at least that the bot op has a responsibility to monitor for these mistakes, given that they occur twice a day, which seems pretty frequent to me, given that bots are expected to never screw up. When a human editor encounters an edit conflict, they back up and try again. Why can't this bot do the same? — Swpb^talk.edits 18:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a bug with the mediawiki software itself I think. It sometimes fails to catch edit conflicts. It happens with humans too, if I make a post and you save your post very close to mine, it may overwrite yours with mine and tell neither of us that there was a conflict. This needs to be addressed at the mediawiki software level. 1 != 2 18:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that bots are expected to never screw up? I would like to clarify that if the bot gets an "edit conflict" it will re-read the current version and try again with the new info. The problem is that the edit conflict is not caught by the mediawiki software. Both users are told that their edit went through, but an unreported edit conflict happens. I think it has to do with master/slave database lag. This is something that effects all users and bots equally. 1 != 2 18:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec):::Making two errors per day is only significant when measured against the totality of edits in a given day. Next, you cannot discount the worth of the bots work. Third, the error really cannot be considered harm to the encyclopedia - at least not without a considerable stretch. I suspect the code is freely licensed so feel free to correct the problem and post it to the op. JodyB _talk 18:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do come up with a programming solution for this Swpb I am sure the ops will check it out, the source is open. 1 != 2 18:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a programmer, so that option is out. I'm pretty sure bots are expected not to have known screw-ups, but I suppose that's a moot point if the problem is with the mediawiki software. In that case, is that a fixable problem, worth writing an error report about? I would also note that 2 errors per day is the estimate of the bot op - the real number may be higher. — Swpb^talk.edits 18:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the mediawiki software has an open bug report one this. The problem lies in that we use many database servers that don't always stay synced. The problem is really that of resources, the solution may involve throwing money into more and faster database servers. I am not sure, but I think that it is impractical for always wait for a DB sync or page loads would take to long. All theory on my part. 1 != 2 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do find the open bug reports, perhaps mention the link here. The more people that complain, the higher priority it may be given. 1 != 2 18:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Many thanks for steering me in the right direction. — Swpb^talk.edits 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I just wish I made so few errors per so many hundred edits as it does per thousand... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible RL intervention needed

Resolved

 – I think we've done everything we can here now. Authorities and OFFICE can take it from here - Alison ^❤ 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I just tagged Tiffany Ellis for speedy but it appears to be someone's intention to commit suicide. Not sure if we would normally act in these cases or if we can find out more about the author and contact authorities. --Bloodzombie (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SUICIDE. Qst 19:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

After having the deleted text provided to me (as there were no BLP or other issues), I don't believe this is a true account - I believe it to be a sick joke. However, please feel free to further comment here as it is still at a serious level, currently. Qst 19:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no real way to know whether this is some creative-writing student's sick brainchild or if it's serious (we can only hypothesize), so I'd side with caution and treat it as a real attempt. —Animum (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it looks serious enough to me - Alison ^❤ 19:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted Omaha PD? JodyB _talk 19:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was going to ask - this type of thing is either serious, in which case intervention is necessary, or a hoax, in which case this child needs a good talking to by the local police department. I would be happy to get in touch with the PD in Omaha, if no one has yet. Natalie (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, best not to wait any longer. JodyB _talk 19:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of contacting them. Natalie (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I probably would have done, but calls to the USA from England cost a fortune, and the may not trust me, as I'm a minor (only just). Qst 19:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no reason to international dial. Reported, we'll see what happens. Natalie (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Working on it here too - Alison ^❤ 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What did the local police service say, are they tracing the IP addressuser account right now, or will they be investigating it at a later date? Qst (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The non-emergency operators were busy so I left a message w/ phone number. I can't call emergency services b/c I'm not in Omaha (my cel will connect to an emergency services for my cel company, or emergency services in Minnesota which is very far away), but I'm going to call back non-emergency in a couple of minutes. If I can't get a hold of them I'll call emergency anyway. I've also contacted the Foundation office through email - not sure if anyone is there on Saturday. Natalie (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly not, as it is only working days - hopefully somebody will be around, though. Qst (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I obtained certain details re. the account (don't ask!) and have contacted their ISP. Natalie has contacted the police, so that's about the extent of what we can do here now - Alison ^❤ 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Omaha PD called me back and they're looking into it. A volunteer for the Foundation also responded and has forwarded the information to the appropriate people. This is as resolved as we're able to resolve it. Natalie (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. I have indefinitely blocked Sssadow (talk · contribs) for creating the article that triggered this call to police. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism to Ohio High School Athletic Association and related articles

I've been reverting a lot of vandalism to Ohio High School Athletic Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and associated talk pages lately. Someone from various dialups under tukw.qwest.net has been inserting statements alleging personal and organizational ties to NAMBLA. Buckeyeguy2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also registered an account to make these edits when I had the article semiprotected. They've also been hitting Talk:Linkin Park and I think they've been following around the edits of Maralia (talk · contribs) this afternoon. This is worth a heads-up. I don't want to have to block every Qwest dialup from Tukwila, Washington, since that would be antisocial. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a sock of User:Jetwave Dave. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jetwave Dave and sample any of the example edits listed there for comparison. Ongoing campaign of harassment against another user; he's merely hitting me now because I cleaned up some of his harassment. Maralia (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Otto4711

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

- All a big misunderstanding. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Otto4711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user seems to have some Ownership issues with Boy Meets Boy (TV series). Due to the 24-hour period, he hasn't technically violated WP:3RR, as he appears to have waited a few extra hours for his fourth revert (likely to avoid the policy breech).
[58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]

All of these show that the user is reverting edits, which are removing trivia tags from the article, and restoring useless trivia. He received this warning, and replied to it in this edit summary. He received another warning and again, removed it and left this reply on my talk page. The replies he left to about the 3RR warnings indicate that the user fails to realize the problem he is causing, and the policy he is disregarding. If an admin could take appropriate action, leave a comment, or whatever, to make sure the user understands the policy he is breaking, and ask him to stop it, it would be appreciated. Obviously I, and User:Collectonian have other things to do here, and shouldn't have to monitor this users disruptive behavior. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the user has been blocked several times, but 2 of the blocks are 3RR blocks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: This is a content dispute, and should be dealt with on talk page or via a request for comment or other methods of dispute resolution. In particular, I wish there were more discussion on the talk page.  :-( --Iamunknown 21:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page was already tried, and didn't resolve anything. Otto still removed a trivia tag. As evident from the block log, Otto has a history of 3RR violations and civility issues. Some action needs to be taken. "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive" - from WP:3RR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar WP:3RR, but I would hardly characterize Otto's actions as "disruptive". This is, cut-and-dry, a content dispute. The next course of action, if the active editors on the article feel that they have not generated a consensus and have exhausted discussion on the talk page, is other methods of dispute resolution (I would recommend a third opinion or a request for comment), not a discussion thread here and not blocking Otto's account. --Iamunknown 22:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but quite frankly, I brought this to the Administrators noticeboard for a reason. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I did attempt another method, posting at the Village Pump for assistance and comment, and stepping back from trying to continue to improve the article until I received comments. I also tried discussing with Otto ways to incorporate the trivia stuff into the article and was met with rudeness and a growing sense that he won't let anything to be done to the article that he doesn't like. He has been increasingly uncivil on both the article talk page, in his many reverts and on my talk page as seen here my talk page (and [64]. It is not the first time he has displayed ownership over the article, reverting another editors attempt to tag the trivia section [65], yet at the same time refusing to allow any other trivia to be added [66] , and reverting any change he doesn't like [67][68]. He has not shown any willingness to listen to anyone else or even really discuss anything that he doesn't agree with. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Looks can be deceiving; Despite all of the text above, there has yet to be an admin comment on this - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I disagreed with Collectonian on whether the information in the trivia section is encyclopedic. It seems to me that someone's military career ending in part because of his decision to participate in the show and the fact that the winners of a dating show didn't take the trip that they won together are reasonably encyclopedic, and all of it is now sourced. Collectonian removed the entire section. I put it back and attempted to initiate a discussion on the talk page while adding sources for the information. Collectonian removed the information again after it was already sourced, which, the last I heard, sourced encyclopedic information should not be removed without a really good reason. He claimed that the information violated WP:BLP, which is simply not true, and then went on to declare that the highly respected LGBT publication Southern Voice was unacceptable as a source because it wasn't "neutral" enough, which struck me as bizarre. He also falsely accused me of vandalism, a stunning failure to assume good faith amounting to a personal attack. I do not agree that three sourced items constitute a problematic trivia section but hey, if it makes people feel better to have the section tagged then so be it. I note that trivia sections are not prohibited but are rather discouraged, with the proviso that a) poorly presented information (which this isn't anyway) is better than no information and b) WP:TRIVIA does not in any way contemplate the wholesale deletion of such sections contrary to what this editor did. Further, under that guideline, "the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list....A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." Three items of information, organized and sourced, do not in my opinion even qualify as a trivia section under the guideline so why this tempest has blown up in this particular teacup is a mystery to me. If preventing an editor who I'm assuming has good intentions but whose actions are utterly misguided means that I have ownership issues, then I have ownership issues. I stand by my actions and I call into question the actions of the first editor who got this mess going through his wholesale removal of information and the second editor who's now trying to drag admins into a dispute over a trivia tag with phony accusations of "disruption." Otto4711 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring (between the both of you) is disruptive. Edit warring is evident from the history of the page. That cannot be disputed. It is an obvious fact that you were engaged in an edit war with another user. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet you only bring me up on charges. Interesting. I don't consider restoring and sourcing information removed by an editor who clearly has an incomplete understanding of the guideline he's invoking to be edit warring. Otto4711 (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that you were both edit warring. It is obvious for anybody who looks at the history. I only made this rpt about you because you were the one nearing violation of 3RR, and when warned, twice, you didn't seem to care. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand. Two editors were in your opinion "edit warring" and I'm the only one you're trying to get in trouble because I didn't in your view express the proper level of contrition?

And to add to my previous comment... if I were really so deeply mired in ownership issues and edit warring, wouldn't I have done something about the other major changes in format that the same editor made to the page? Or maybe it's like I said, the editor took out information improperly and, when it was restored and sourced, took it out again anyway with no justification while flinging about bad faith vandalism accusations. Otto4711 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how else to explain it, as you don't seem to understand what I am saying. You can see Wikipedia:Edit war for more info on that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't understand. The point still stands that there were two people involved in the situation you're stressing about but you're only trying to get one of them in trouble for it. Otto4711 (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is fine if it's sourced and relevant (take for example, this GA, which has a one paragraph triviaesque section), but it shouldn't be called "Trivia". Too many knee-jerk reactions. "Notes" would be better, as it solicits less knee-jerking, at least. Will ^(talk) 01:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm fine with calling it "notes" or something else. I have no intention of changing it, however, because I find the notion of being hauled before the tribunal again for it to be far too intimidating. Otto4711 (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indefinite block of User:TabooTikiGod

Review of the progression of the discussion at WP:AIR will show this user's approach to not be the most collegial... but be that as it may, I construe this as a legal threat. Therefore in accordance with WP:LEGAL I have indefinitely blocked this user pending their either deciding to recant the threat, or to pursue legal action and remain blocked. As always I welcome review of my actions. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive327#Administrator_violating_Wikipedia_policy and User_talk:TabooTikiGod among other places. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would've done the same thing, and I warned the user about making those legal threats before you intervened. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:16, 17 November 2007 (GMT)

Concur. I note that TabooTikiGod was given 20+ hours to respond regarding WP:LEGAL.LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon engaging in vandalism after previous warning.

Resolved

This anon has engaged in acts of vandalism after being warned by ZimZalaBim earlier this month against continuing his or her disruptive conduct. Here are two examples of this user’s vandalism: [69] & [70]. Seeing as ZimZalaBim warned the anon that further intentional vandalism will result in the blocking of editing privileges, I think a block is indeed in order. ~ Homologeo (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: Moved to WP:AIV. An admin will deal with it there. --EoL talk 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Resolved

I just stumbled across this page: User:Isomorphic/scary. I'm not sure, but it seems like it makes a comment that is a personal attack on another editor:

"Q:What do terrorists and mathematicians have in common? A: AxelBoldt

That statement is preceded by an Image of AxelBoldt. If this is a personal attack, I would delete this page as that isn't what the userspace is meant to be used for. — Save_Us_229 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The owner of that page hasn't edited it in two years. Have you tried discussing the matter with them? I suspect it's supposed to be humourous, given the awesome pic of David Gerard on there - Alison ^❤ 23:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Deleted WP:CSD#G10. Mercury 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ally Magazine

User Dparamedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recreated Ally Magazine, which was deleted as a result of this AfD. There is no sign of if being discussed at WP:DRV, and it looks to me as if they've simply pasted a version that existed before deletion, with the AfD template removed. Would this be appropriate to delete and WP:SALT?

Also, this gives rise to the idea that perhaps the newpage patrolling needs to provide prominent links to deletion logs and previous AfDs if they exist, as this article has been labelled as patrolled. I'm not certain where to take that idea. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this idea to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/patrolled pages. The only thing remaining here is the question of whether to salt. The general indication was that there was a WP:COI issue with the article and staff from the publisher may persist in trying to re-create it. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done east.718 at 23:37, November 17, 2007

86.134.242.89

Resolved

I accidentally blocked this IP indefinitely when I meant to do so for a day and am unable to unblock it. east.718 at 00:38, November 18, 2007

I've unblocked it for you, not sure what the problem was but it took a few attempts to do it myself. It's probably the servers not catching up with the block. Feel free to re-block with whatever time you thinks appropriate. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. east.718 at 00:45, November 18, 2007

User:Mervin 110694

Mervin 110694 has been uncooperative lately, he doesn't want to respond to queries and generally undermines articles with fanboyish edits. He's been also uploading like crazy. Also, his insistence of adding TV ratings for every episode of a 5x-a-week program that hasn't even aired yet (LOL) against consensus and without response/replies in unhelpful. --Howard the Duck 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's links to Mervin's contributions and logs for reference

Mervin 110694 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

-- Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  05:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Massive, disruptive canvassing

• Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in massive internal spamming/votestacking for a deletion discussion in blatant violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking, and refuses to stop despite a request on his talk page. John254 03:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal, especially when the page is just a photo page of Wikipedians, and not an article or anything of consequence. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see Ta bu shi da yu has been blocked. I'm not a great fan of this block, as he was clearly trying to alert people of something they had participated in was about to be deleted. It wasn't as if he was spamming random users. And as gaillimh says - it's not as if it was over anything important. I would certainly support an immediate unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Ryan and gaillimh. I don't think Ta bu was doing this in bad faith and is quite distressed over this whole issue. Mr.Z-man 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a big deal when you consider his related actions over the past 24 hours:

A. Speedy kept an MfD out of protocol,

B. Attacked the nominator (as a sock!!),

C. Canvassed [71] (and was blocked [72]) once he realized the DRV would over turn his out of protocol speedy keep.

--12 Noon 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with 12 Noon. And in response to Mr.Z-man, it is abundantly clear that he is "quite distressed over the issue"—quite so, to the point of irrational behavior. He needed to disengage and refused to do so voluntarily, thus the 1-hour block was entirely appropriate. Mike R 04:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What he said. I fully support this action and would have done it if I hadn't had to step away for a while. Metros 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I think the dude just retired [73]. Maybe something is going on behind the scenes with him? He seemed to just be having a bad day, but maybe it is much more serious than that?--12 Noon 04:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. He just needs a break. He's quit and come back several times before. Mike R 04:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not if he scrambled his password. - 211.30.71.131 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bleh I scrambled my password of my old account after stupid conflect, I came back with a new one, he needs a break and I hope he comes back soon. This is a Secret ^account 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He has hardly retired, now he is using the anon account to add comments 211.30.71.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Is this appropriate or is that considered a sock? Seems like that is circumventing the block.--12 Noon 04:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If I read the timestamps correctly, 211.30.71.131 didn't edit while the block on Ta bu shi da yu was in effect. Mike R 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Still seems underhanded to add to the MfD without identifying himself. I added a tag after the IP address identifying him. I hope that is not too crass, but I think others have a right to know.--12 Noon 05:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Only as underhand as using a sockpuppet account to participate in xfd. I'm just popping back in to protest at you changing that signature on MFD! - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to throw in there that I also think this was a bad block. I've said it once and I'll say it again, if I'm involved with a page, or if I add myself to a category, etc, then there's really no issue if someone notifies me or someone in a similar situation of something like a deletion discussion related to that page. The fact that this page had a large number of participants is nothing more than a technicality. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. MFD doesn't get all that much attention, and it is WAY too easy to get Wikipedia: space pages deleted by a small number of opinionated people. Notifying interested parties that the page is up for deletion is quite acceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is this behaviour even characteristic of this particular editor? I am wondering if something has happened either to the editor or the account. --健次(derumi)^talk 07:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's normal of him when he becomes very upset. Surely any other admin who's been around since 2005 and knoweth TSBDY will tell you the same. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned about the notice as I am about item B - any admin should know enough not to create a sock puppet and it them solely for making a WP:POINT violating attack on another editor who has taken one of their decisions to an appropriate review venue. (See thread above or in archive.) That is the issue that I think most needed to be addressed, and I'm not sure a 6 hour block was sufficient. But I don't know this admins history to know if this is an uncharacteristic flipping out or a pattern of behavior. GRBerry 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. It was probably a mistake to do that. However, I wasn't trying to attack the user. I was trying to get them to change their sig to make it easier to read talk pages they sign. Yes, handled badly, but wasn't an attack. That sig should be changed. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone's going to have to explain to me how this falls under WP:CANVAS, because I don't see it. I also know that from time to time a proposal has been mooted that people who had edited any article up for deletion would receive a bot notification. Until I see more information, I have to call this a defensible block with unfortunate outcomes, as 1 hour is certainly proportionate, and editors do disagree on the canvassing policy. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was canvassing either. And I'd strongly support exactly the sort of bot-mediated notification that Mackensen describes above. Far too often articles simply are "disappeared" around here when one of the cool kids decides they don't like the article, AfDs it, and quietly manages to quickly gain enough support for the deletion while none of the fans of the article are even aware that it's in jeopardy. This sneakyness is one of the principal reasons I've cut way back on my participation here. The notifications that Ta bu shi da yu was providing are exactly what a fair system would do automatically.

Atlant 12:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Really I'm having trouble seeing anything re: canvassing here. I don't know that he actually stated to "go vote keep..." but I do think he just should have walked away from this a while ago as he clearly has a passion for this, the outcome so far has just been unfortunate. -Pilotguy contact tower 13:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The massive scale of the posting does make it canvassing in my opinion. The "votestacking" section of WP:CANVASS is also relevant, because the editors who were contacted were those who were listed on the page nominated for deletion.

I think this incident raises the issue whether it is reasonable to expect editors to watchlist the articles they care about, or check MFD every few days. If an editor doesn't do these things, and we don't permit canvassing, the editor may feel left out from deletion discussions. The no-canvassing policy is, in my opinion, an unfortunate consequence of the way we close deletion discussions. Does it need to be modified to allow this sort of canvassing, for wikipedia: namespace pages? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that, taken by itself, posting the "friendly notices" on other talk pages may seem innocent; but when taken together with the big picture (harassing the nominator of the MfD and usage of a sock, uncivil actions, point-pushing, not to mention the ill-fated speedy closing of the MfD after 1.5 hours), it is hard to assume good faith here. IMO, taken with the other evidence, canvassing appears to be the motive. Additionally, this guy (he's a he, not a she) has been around for years, so he should know the rules (and how to skirt the rules), so I would not give him the benefit of the doubt. From comments above, it appears that this seems to be his modus operandi. But I guess it is rather subjective - but this case seems a little extreme. Regards.--12 Noon 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally have a problem with alerting editors to things they are likely to take an interest in, although I have to say that's a lot of alerting, nearly 100 people, and I think when it's at that level a person might want to consider trying to get the message across in some other way. And aside from that, some of TBSDY's surrounding behavior seems worrying. I'm not sure it rises to the level of a block, however, and I hope TBSDY hasn't truly quit over this. Everyking 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think his actions were clearly canvassing/votestacking. Going around "alerting" people who have an interest in that page is nothing more than shopping for keeps. I think this block is fully warranted and think that an even longer one would be appropriate. I'm very sorry that this person has done good things here, but he also has a long history of odd behavior, including 3RR violations, petty vandalism, "retiring" and then coming back, and lately the abuse of his admin tools to speedy keep an MFD discussion out of process, harassing me with a sockpuppet (which was indefblocked specifically with that reason in the summary), and then when DRV overturned his speedy, he proceeds to shop for votes in an effort to either 1) votestack, or 2) bugger up the discussion so that it results in a "no consensus". As I stated in the new MFD, I'm shocked that this person was trusted with admin tools. Ya know, I'm sorry if he's a friend of yours but that's no excuse for this behavior, particularly since admins should really know better. Everyone here needs to follow the rules equally and be held equally accountable when they blatantly contravene them. (edit) Furthermore, as the MFD template was placed on the page per the normal process, anyone who has watchlisted that page would be able to see for themself that it was being nominated for deletion. Anyone who added their photo to the page would, almost certainly, be someone who wants to keep the page, so alerting them all is clear voteshopping to me. -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have thousands of pages on my watchlist; I don't look at every edit to every page. Sorry, you're not going to convince me that it's canvassing to notify some of hundreds of people who contributed to a page of its impending deletion; I believe it is just common decency.

Atlant (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the only people he's notifying are, by virtue of their having contributed to the WP:Facebook page, inherently predisposed to keeping it, that amounts to a violation of WP:CANVASS because the user is targeting a biased group of individuals instead of just any old neutral, "interested" members of the community.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, who else should have been notified to make this "balanced"? The only people who noticed the MFD... are those who constantly participate in MFD. Regular editors who edit articles (and don't waste their time on xFD) probably won't discover this deletion until too late. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a simple notice on the AN (which you created![74]) or any other page with that is frequently read by long-time users who might be interested in the page's deletion would have sufficed. Targeting huge swaths of biased users qualifies as disruptive according to 2 of the 4 criteria illustrated here ("Scale" and the "Audience"). --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to the hundreds of biased users who participate on MFD? Alrighty then. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. speaking of appropriate, why would I post to WP:AN? It's not something only admins participate in. That's not the reason AN was created, as I would have hoped you'd have realised by now. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I also have over 4000 articles on my watchlist and don't notice everything that's going on. I do not regard notifying people who are on there as canvassing, simply a courtesy - and neither am I automatically disposed to vote keep as I didn't put my photo on that page. It is far too easy for small cliques to get together on this project to delete material before interested parties are even aware of an xFD, and we don't all watch AN either. -- Arwel (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at this from the sideline for a while, but I now feel the need to share my opinion. TBSDY is obviously entitled to be upset by the MFD of Wikipedia:Facebook. But if he expresses that in speedy closing an MFD completely out of process using just about every argument that shouldn't be used in a deletion discussion, and in creating a sockpuppet to prove a point against a fellow Wikipedian, he is not admin material, and he should strongly reconsider his position here. If his blood starts to boil to the point where he feels the need to do this, he should walk away from the keyboard and take a break. If he instead becomes disruptive (and the sockpuppet account definitely is disruptive), he shouldn't be an admin. Aecis^Brievenbus 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How was it disruptive? I didn't block anyone, I didn't stop The Parnsnip! from editing, I didn't get into any deletion debates with the account. All I did was note the issue on WP:AN/I. I agree, it wasn't the best way of dealing with the situation, and for that I apologise. It doesn't actually change the fact that the sig is misleading.

So you are aware, I've been getting steadily concerned about Wikipedia for a long time, this whole business of taking the WP:FACEBOOK to deletion was really the very last straw. Wikipedia is genuinely not a pleasant place to edit anymore. The amount of bad faith assumption that have been made in this section alone highlights that. Do you think I like the fact that Wikipedia has become such a horrible place? Should I be overjoyed that it is straying from it's original goals? - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the guy is stressed out beyond belief in the real world and let it slip over onto WP. I talked to him on my talk page and I think he just needs a long break, be it voluntarily or via a tough-love block of his IP address he is using now. As it is, he scrambled his password so he cannot use his account anymore, and with it I assume he gave up his admin powers. Seems like it is sort of a moot point for the time being that can be reviewed if/when he asks to resume as an admin?--12 Noon 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's clear up something, as you seem to know about my personal life (you don't). I'm not particularly overstressed (I have been sick with the 'flu, but that's just run of the mill stuff), in fact I'm quite excited about my job and the fact that I'm going to have a baby soon (yay!). My frustration is solely on the things happening at a project I used to believe in quite a bit. So real life is great, but watching Wikipedia doing things to destroy itself isn't fun. Being blocked doesn't help, being accused of being a sockpuppet for making anonymous comments also doesn't help (see User:WebHamster's comments [75] [76]), and watching trivia get added to the project to good articles, along with Wikipedia:Service awards, people who make it hard to read conversations by disguising their sigs, and a whole raft of other nasty comments that have been made really make me shake my head. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Know what? You don't own Wikipedia. Wikipedia is what the various users make it and at the root of that it is always an encyclopedia. It's not a social networking site, as much as you'd like it to be. I don't care if you built the entire Wiki from the ground up using duct tape and baling wire. Your shrill, senseless rants here about "loss of community" and whatever else you're on about do not change the fact that you've broken policy, abused your position, and now are trying to save face. If Wikipedia is such a horrible place, why don't you stay retired instead of having a temper tantrum, scrambling your password, and then posting here under an IP? Frankly and in my opinion, you're behaving like a prima donna and I still don't understand how you were ever trusted with admin tools. Your backpedaling regarding your harassing me with a sockpuppet to prove a WP:POINT is inexcusable. No, it's not just a bad choice, it's a violation of a core policy. Your speedy closure of a legitimate discussion was out of process and a gross abuse of admin tools. Now you're here saying you did it all because "it's not fun anymore". TOUGH. Wikipedia is not here to be fun for YOU, it has many many users. If you had posted a polite note on my talk page asking me to change my signature instead of pulling the stunt you pulled, I probably would have changed it. But as it is now, as I have not broken ANY policies with my signature, and since I've registered a doppelganger account as requested, I will NEVER change it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You won't change your sig, even if it is the right thing to do? OK then. No backpedalling involved, apart from admiting that it wasn't the best way of alerting you to the fact. I have left the project, currently doing a few last things that need doing. Like replying to you, though not sure that from your response it was entirely worth it! Incidently, that deletion of Facebook: a dumb MFD by someone who doesn't understand how things work around here. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am quite upset that John254 has been deleting the comments he takes issue with from Ta bu shi da yu off of people's talk pages, including mine. Regardless of how he feels about canvassing or the MfD at hand, THAT is totally, completely, absolutely unacceptable behavior in my book. -- phoebe/(talk) 04:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, we have an admin enabled account that is not accessible for the user who was entrusted with the admin tools. I suggest a precautionary desysopping of the account Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs), to prevent account hijacking. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just wait until things cool down and reset the password assuming there's still an e-mail address associated with the account. -- Ned Scott (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like there's not. But I doubt it would be a problem. It's not any more an issue than any other admin account that is no longer active. -- Ned Scott (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)