Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

Meatpuppetry?

I must begin this notice by declaring my bias in this. I am one of the disputing sides in this issue. The issue I wish to raise is the following: In recent days, the deletion process has witnessed two strange cases. The first occurred in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay rights in Iraq. User:Chooserr wished to see this deleted because of pov issues. He then posted this message on User:*drew's talk page: "You listed yourself as Roman Catholic so I thought I might bring this unencyclopedic total POV pushing article to your attention. It is currently up for deletion here." He left the same messages at the talk pages of Burwellian and Pitchka. Pitchka was the only one who voted. When I nominated Category:Pro-choice celebrities and Category:Pro-life celebrities for deletion, Pitchka immediately put notices of this on no less than 57 user talk pages. These users were selected as members of the Catholic or pro-life user categories. The first 30 or so of these users were told: "Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities The abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life." When I pointed out to him that I had nominated Category:Pro-choice celebrities for deletion as well, Pitchka told me: "Am I wrong? I don't think so. Most pro-abortion people don't want this information out. There are plenty of categories and articles that might no appear in an ordinary encyclopedia. This is not an ordinary encyclopedia. So it doesn't matter that you nominated both that is standard operating procedure for people who don't want the info out!" After this, he informed another 25 to 30 users of the ongoing cfd, with the deliberate intention to convince them to vote to keep the category. Of the 57 informed users, thirteen joined the vote (Chooserr, Anti-Anonymex2, Musical Linguist, Dominick, Jakes18, Elliskev, jgofborg, Avalon, Merovingian, Patsw, Eoghanacht, Getcrunk, Shanedidona), all voting to keep the article. In fact, the only keep voter that wasn't contacted was Pitchka, the person who contacted all the others. Technically speaking, these users are not meat puppets. These are all decent and appreciated contributors. However, it's safe to say that their joining the cfd was a result of a deliberate canvassing by Pitchka. Since Chooserr has done the same with an AfD, this behaviour cannot be viewed as isolated acts. This is a clear pattern to influence the outcome of votes. I am contacting the admins about this, because I believe that this case is important to the future of wikipedia. This pattern of behaviour does not just influence wikipedia's content (the decision to keep or delete articles and categories), it also involves wikipedia policy. I fear that wikipedia will be prone to AfD campaigning, that users who have an interest in seeing an article, category, template or stub kept or deleted will canvas a large amount of users, hoping that a sufficient percentage of those contacted will vote and steer the vote in the desired direction. This might open up wikipedia to a "dictatorship of numbers", where a fanatic group of individuals "conspire" ("To join or act together; combine") to influence the content of wikipedia to pander the (in this case religious) pov of the users involved. This would be a violation of several key tenets of wikipedia. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Update 1: two more keep votes on the cfd, of Hégésippe Cormier and Christopher Parham. Hégésippe Cormier was informed of this cfd by Pitchka, Christopher Parham was not. This means that of the 16 keep votes currently cast, 15 are from what I call "Pitchka's group" (consisting of the aforementioned users Pitchka, Chooserr, Anti-Anonymex2, AnnH, Dominick, Jakes18, Elliskev, jgofborg, Avalon, Merovingian, Patsw, Eoghanacht, Getcrunk and Shanedidona, and Hégésippe Cormier) and 1 is from a non-related user. Aecis ^praatpaal 10:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Update 2: User:Chooserr has today notified 6 users (Pitchka, Speculative catholic, GreatGatsby, Thomas Aquinas, Dominick and Jgofborg) of the AfD on Student LifeNet. Most of them had also been notified of the aforementioned cfd, afd (on gay rights in Iraq) or both. The users have one thing in common: they are categorized as Roman Catholic Wikipedians. So the behaviour to canvas carefully selected users hoping that their voting will influence the outcome of deletion votes continues, albeit not as seriously as Pitchka's 57 notices. Aecis ^praatpaal 19:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Update 3: User:Shanedidona has suggested to Chooserr to "start a Catholic Alliance in wikipedia" in order to "gather votes to defend pro-life articles and similar items." And he/she has proceeded in doing so by creating Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia, "a pro-life group" and "an organization for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion." This is another proof of a concerted effort to skew deletion votes and fix wikipedia content along religious pov lines. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Update 4: And when I nominated Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia for deletion, Shanedidona left notices of this on 50+ talk pages, explicitly telling them: "Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia." Shanedidona described the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia to Darthgriz98 (talk · contribs) as "a CAtholic organization for the preservation of conservative values, basically, CAoW is a redily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened. ... Vote Pro-Life!" [1] This is getting out of hand... Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

while I don't approve of this sort of campaiging, this is one of the primary purposes of user categories. It's not really relevant why they found out about the vote, it's relevant if they are members of the Wikipedia community. I recognize most of the names you mention (indeed, 2 [Merovingian and Ann] are admins), and I would count them if they I were closing a vote. It's unfortunate (and as I say, I disapprove of this sort of thing), but it's no reason to discount their votes.--Sean|Black 01:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's perhaps no reason to discount their votes, but it is imo behaviour that needs to be monitored, to prevent it from getting out of control. Aecis ^praatpaal 01:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• A related and perhaps more troubling incident is the AfD vote for Gay rights in Iraq. The same users nominated the article and canvassed for votes. Several deletion votes resulted that accused the article of problems it never possessed. I doubt these editors read the piece. Other than these individuals, the consensus was to keep. Please read the discussion. I find this disturbing. Gay rights and abortion are contentious issues. I hope this doesn't grow to the point where editors on both sides form activist coalitions. Editors are supposed to base their decisions on enclopedic merit and site policy. In respecting these principles I often edit contrary to my personal politics. When I discovered these efforts to push a discussion - as an honest editor I feel my trust betrayed. Durova 01:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable. We cannot judge consensus if editors set out deliberately and maliciously to sabotage the process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• While I agree that it's unacceptable, similar behavior has been going on for over half a year and there no feasible way has been suggested for preventing it. If the people involved were acting reasonable and rational, an RFC on the subject would work. But vote stacking generally occurs on controversial issues that people feel strongly about emotionally, so talking it out has not been very constructive in the past. Radiant_>|< 21:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Radiant_>|< has a good point- if he, or anyone else, could develop a workable solution to the sort of activities which Aecis outlined above, he would be rich. The same problems happen in America, especially during presidential elections. ::shrug:: One would think that in an electronic medium, it would be easier to regulate ill behaviour... but not always.
  • → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_18#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics. — Jeandré, 2005-12-23t11:36z

Lamenting that there isn't a "workable solution" is missing the point. The "solution" is for Wikipedia editors to stop campaigning using anti-consensual methods like this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Still NOT amused

Same bug is acting up. I log on, then the site says I have not. I log on as Martial Law, only something like "123.145.090.14" keeps comming up. This mess could lead not only myself to be falsely accused AS a sockpuppeteer, this could happen to someone else as well. Cookies are active, caches are cleaned out. What is it with this bug ?Martial Law 09:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC) :(

I thought I had stepped on it.Martial Law 10:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC) :)

Oh if anyone calls you a sock, just tell him to stop being silly. It doesn't make any difference if you're logged in or not, you're still allowed to edit the wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Most likely it's your browser's cache. After you log in, the browser is serving the page from its cache rather than fetching a new one from the server. That's why it doesn't look as if you've logged in. howcheng {chat} 20:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ApeAndPig (talk · contribs)

I've just blocked this charming fellow indefinitely as I believe he's EnviroKainKabongTheScion's latest account. Witness the same choice of topics, the same abusive edit summaries and talk page posts (including the trademark accusation that anyone who disagrees with him is an "Islamist" or an "Islamist wannabe"), and the general bad manners. Comments? —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work. Phil Sandifer 22:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Even if this person isn't Enviroknot (unlikely, but someone could with CheckUser access could see if the IP resolves to the University of Houston), it's unacceptable behavior.--Sean|Black 22:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. As Sean says, even if he's not Enviroknot, he was clearly up to no good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

He's in IRC right now, telling us what a sack of Muslim bastards we all are. And yes, his IP address resolves to a Roadrunner account in Houston. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 22:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it does seem to be Enviroknot. Unfortunately, Robchurch has unblocked the ApeAndPig account and unprotected the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My initial suspicions were correct. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

EnviroKainKabongTheScionAmouse seems incapable of realising that if he edits like a dickhead in a particular way, people will spot the edit pattern unerringly. It's like watching a retarded hamster headbutting its wheel - David Gerard 12:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite this users rantings I decided to investigate the block at his request and I see strong evidence that either it's an Enviro sock or that it's just another troll and possibly a sock of any of a dozen other malcontents who have been perm banned. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Fortune Lounge Group article deleted

Hi

I would like to understand better why the Fortune Lounge Group article keeps on being deleted, as I have tried as much as possible to re-edit the article so that it is less promotional. It would be nice for the Group to feature in the Wiki and I do not mind re-editing the material once again, but I do not understand the grounds for deletion.

I see you have a number of online casinos and poker rooms listed in the Wikipedia and these articles have external links so if this is not ideally the factor for deletion - please could you give me some tips as to how we can feature in the wiki without breaking the editorial rules per se.

I'd really like some feedback and will await a timeous response.

Regards Lil

PS- Please could you reply >>email removed<< instead of the email address given above, as this is an urgent matter. Thanks

• WP:DRV is the place to ask this. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Just got his message today. WP:BITE springs to mind in this case. lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the email address to save you from spam. 86.133.53.111 16:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter McConaughey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assuming good faith, here are the ones that I found. Caveat: I wasn't going near any of the talk pages, the POV pages (like American terrorism or conspiracy theory), or the Wikipedia namespace. [2] [3] [4] [5] (Maybe)[6] (Maybe too)[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] So, all in all, maybe 25-30 possible "good" edits. However, for every one good edit, there are a couple of edits, maybe not so good. I'm just sayin' is all. Phew... good thing I don't do this for a living, but it might come in handy if an RfAr is ever filed. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pigsonthewing

24 hours for disruptive obnoxiousness and his continued stalking campaign against Karmafist. I've also suggested to the AC an injunction confining him to his AC case pages and his user talk page - David Gerard 16:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What good would that do? I'd like him to at least be free to do some constructive editing, whether he choose to or not. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Find some evidence first that he has ever done constructive editing. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Snappy line, but pointless on its face. How could someone who hasn't ever done constructive editing possibly amass over 19,000 edits without being blocked? Not good enough? Well, here are some difflinks from the evidence against him in the ArbCom case... [29] [30] [31] [32] all of which look like constructive editing to me... and those were identified as some of his bad ones. :] If you still think there's some question here I could dig up a few dozen of the articles he started... --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of "not getting blocked"...Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The good it would do is having him not try to drive his opponents off the wiki. He appears to be under the impression that Usenet flamewar-style interaction is the way to go. Good actions don't make up for unacceptable ones - David Gerard 08:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ranting time

Whoa whoa whoa. Wait a minute. This just hit me not thirty seconds ago.

As much as I'm all for forgiving and reforming abusive users, there has got to be some type of line that we've got to draw. Andy is taking us for a ride with this crap. Look:

1. Refuses to acknowledge/participate in RfC regarding his disputed behavior
   • Including ignoring talk page notice not just once but twice
2. Refuses to acknowledge/participate in RFAr regarding his disputed behavior

Look. Anyone who refuses to abide by established and accepted Wikipedia policies (not guidelines, but policies) is not a martyr but a troll. If someone doesn't like the established policy, they have every right to contest it, but no right to hold them in contempt.

Andy frequently removes what he considers to be personal attacks on his user talk page. However, according to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which happens to be an official policy page...

If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, follow the dispute resolution process instead.

According to Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes (an official policy page)...

If the issue is decided by Arbitration, you will be expected to abide by the result.

And, my favorite (bold emphasis added by myself)...

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. ...Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies. For additional ideas, see Wikipedia:Negotiation.

Do I really need to go any further? Has my rant made any impact? If Andy is unwilling to go through with our established dispute resolution policies as well as hold the ArbCom in contempt, then why, pray tell, are we still debating about what to do with him? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And yet, since he was banned from this page he has abided by that ban.... despite you and several others taking the opportunity to "rant" and malign him extensively here while he is forbidden from responding. Gee... what possible reason could he have for complaining so much? What has he really done wrong since the ArbCom case? Make a couple of extra reverts after someone followed him around to block his edits? Complained (extensively) about that and the other ongoing viciousness against him? He has honored every single page ban placed on him. He has shown a willingness to apologize for mistakes while those attacking him have not (the one exception being Nandesuka apologizing for her most recent mistaken block). If he is so irredeemable and unwilling to follow the rules as you clain why does he apologize? Why does he abide by bans? Why does he accept blocks he could get around? And still the abuse continues. Anyone here ever read WP:NPA#A_misguided_notion: "Kicking_them_while_they_are_down"? Can anyone here actually claim to have been the subject of negative comments from Pigsonthewing without having first made such about him? Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe he wouldn't complain so much if he weren't constantly being insulted? Has anyone bothered to count up the number of times this guy has been blocked against policy with no apology forthcoming (again save Nandesuka's most recent)? Wouldn't you be ticked off under such circumstances? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose that all further discussion please move to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation or its accompanying Talk page, to prevent further forest fires appearing all over the wiki, and as Andy is allowed to comment there, but not here at the moment. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed ban

I propose that Pigsonthewing be banned from Karmafists User and Talk space, and all subpages, per the recent ArbCom ruling placing Andy on probation. Please see this for discussion, and I would welcome your input there. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has a history of taking advantage of loopholes in these and other restrictions, even while under injunction, to carry out the same activity without technically violating the rules. For example, he will stir up trouble on karmafist's talk page, and when karmafist tries to ignore him, Pigsonthewing forces the issue by repeating the same charges in public (such as on this page or the village pump). That makes it extremely difficult for any kind of peace to be kept, and I suggest we ban Pigsonthewing from stalking behavior, which behavior to be defined in the judgment of any uninvolved administrator. Demi ^T/_C 18:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I support that wholeheartedly. I suggest that motion be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation, and all future discussion be relocated there, so that we don't have forest fires cropping up all over the Wiki. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sock check

Can we get a sock check on User:RachelBrown as compared to User:Poetlister, who was blocked indefinitely by User:Mindspillage as a "suspected sock puppet of RachelBrown" with apparently no evidence of this, and indeed RachelBrown has not been banned so I query whether that is an automated ban anyway. This has happened in the middle of a request for mediation in relation to edit warring with another user which involved these 2 users and a 3rd user. The mediation was refused by the person who was requested to deal with it, thus meaning that a request for comment is in order. Due process has been disrupted by this block. I ask for a sock check to prove that these two are indeed the same person, as there seems to be circumstantial evidence that they could not be the same person and WP:POINT may apply in relation to this block. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We already got a sockcheck, which showed that they were likely to be the same user, which is the reason for the block. No mediation is taking place, nor is a request for comment taking place. Note that the main RachelBrown account is not blocked: only the likely sockpuppets being used to stack debates. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an evidence field in the {{sockpuppet}} template for a reason, please fill it in. If it has been proven by a sockcheck (aren't these supposed to be logged somewhere? If so you should link to it as evidence) then use the {{SockpuppetProven}} template instead, again with evidence. Thryduulf 01:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How has this been "proven"? You say "likely", but it was established elsewhere that the two are real-life friends... Are ALL edits from the same IP or just a few? It could just be that maybe some edits were made while round the same house, college, university or workplace.... --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'm not familiar with the technical evidence, but there has already been a suspicion of sock puppetry in relation to the RachelBrown account. She violated 3RR together with 81.153.41.72 (talk · contribs) at List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, but one of them said the IP address was not RachelBrown but her flatmate "Lisa." But if you look at the edit summaries, at one point RachelBrown says: "Why do these childish people keep deleting my edits?" [33] and less than an hour later "Lisa" reverts to RachelBrown's version with: "As i said, why do these childish people keep deleting my edits?" [34] RachelBrown, "Lisa", Poetlister, and one other than I know of, Londoneye (talk · contribs), all have the same "voice," make the same types of edits to the same articles, and now apparently there is technical evidence to link them to each other, and to Newport (talk · contribs) and Taxwoman (talk · contribs). The accounts add names to various List of Jewish xxx articles, but refuse to supply sources, and it has happened so much, it has become a problem. For example, Londoneye added Laurence Baxter to a list, saying he was Jewish. I couldn't find anything online about this, so I removed it and asked for a source. She wouldn't supply one and reinstated the name, saying in the edit summary that it was "obvious" from his Wikipedia article that he was a Jew. And it is obvious. The only problem (apart from the fact that we're not allowed to use WP articles as sole sources) is that Londoneye wrote the Wikipedia article on Baxter, also using no sources there. This is the the same behavior other editors have experienced with RachelBrown and Poetlister. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of thing supposed to work through solid evidence (like any other "conviction") rather than amateur personality-profiling and a bit of sheer guesswork, though? --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is, and Mindspillage wrote above that she blocked them based on the technical evidence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding SlimVirgin's evidence above, RachelBrown did not violate 3RR, her flatmate did who was not aware of Wikipedia rules at that time. She did make one edit under Rachel's account when Rachel had not logged out, see [35]. Regarding the four blocked users, these people are friends from the UK who have supported each other on some disputes or voted the same way on some vfds but otherwise have different interests. I think that is quite normal for close friends to want to support each other and should not merit a block. If it is considered not advisable for friends to support each other in disputes or vfds a warning should be placed on the relevant user pages before blocking. Arniep 04:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is this Arbitration Committee ruling? I was not aware of an Arbitration Committee action against Poetlister or anyone else. This seems most unusual. I wasn't aware that you could be permanently banned because of using sock puppets to try to influence an AFD, especially because AFDs are not "votes". I thought that such a case, if it was true, would warrant a warning only. Why a permanent ban in this case? There also seems to be quite a lot of evidence that they are not sock puppets. It seems extraordinarily odd to suggest that on 22 December 2005 Poetlister acted as a sock puppet for RachelBrown, when RachelBrown's last edit was 10 December 2005, and last regular one was 3 December 2005. Surely that is the antecedent of sock puppetry - as in, not theoretically possible to be true. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• You don't get permabanned for that, but your sockpuppets usually are. Note that there's generally no way to distinguish sockpuppets (duplicate accounts by the same person) from meatpuppets (getting your friends into Wikipedia for voting purposes only), and hence both can be blocked for that reason. It is not acceptable to get additional new accounts for voting, and whether they are self-made or made by your friends is irrelevant. Radiant_>|< 12:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. Accounts that act like a sockpuppet can be treated like one. --Deathphoenix 14:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

but the accounts were clearly not created for support or voting purposes only, they all have different interests and edit articles on different subjects. User:RachelBrown joined on April 14th, 2005, most of her edits are on Jewish related articles. User:Londoneye joined on Sept.28th, 2005, most of her edits are on London related articles. User:Taxwoman joined on Aug.9th, 2005, most of her edits are on fetish related articles. User:Poetlister joined on July 11th, 2005, most of her edits are literary subjects, although she has joined in editing Jewish pages since they began to be disrupted and nominated for deletion by User:Antidote in November, whose in now subject of an rfc at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote. I feel I am in some way responsible for this as I have asked 3 of these users to vote or comment on vfds, but I did not know that was against the rules. Arniep 20:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked the socks indefinitely and User:Rachel Brown for a week. Wikipedia is ridiculously tolerant, but we're not actually stupid. See below. - David Gerard 17:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletions and disruptions of Holodomor article sections by User:Kuban kazak

User:Kuban kazak has repeatedly deleted sections of the article. E.g. see [36], [37], [38]. He also removed quotes, references, and old photos. He then repeatedly posted his own text that lacks references and is factually wrong. E.g., see [39], where he wrote, "Although in 1918-1920 it /the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church/, along with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) was subject to many repressions". The former church wasn't created until 1921. Unfortunately, this disruptive behavior prevents normal work. Instead of improving the reference scope, there is a war to keep the article from disintegrating into a pile of personal comments and historical science fiction. Please help.--Andrew Alexander 04:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Kuban kazak continues re-inserting bogus history of the events, personal comments in his recent edits: [40], [41]. For instance, he re-inserted the bogus historical fact mentioned above, adding some new ones as well.--Andrew Alexander 02:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Enochlau

While it is unfortunate that it has to come to this, I feel compelled to point out that I was mildly shocked to discover moments ago that the above user was actually an admin. My experiences with him when it comes to content disputes in Talk:Chinese New Years greetings/Talk:Kung hei fat choi/Move Discussion which led to his attempt to what I deem as an abuse of the arbcom process above [42] (and which a fellow admin felt appears to be "an attempt to smear someone without having to follow the certification requirements at WP:RFC"), and his behavior in Talk:MTR/Move discussion, which led to quite a shocking exclaimation in [43] of "revert: yes i am an admin, check for yourself. you are the only who voted in favour. the consensus is definitely to NOT MOVE. DO NOT REVERT." leaves me wondering if he is capable of exercising restraint and displaying maturity and impartiality when he is involved in content disputes himself.

It appears from his self-nomation Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enochlau, that there is little evidence of his ability when it comes to resolving disputes. Rather, they have been centered on his factual contributions to wikipedia. I am of the impression that admins are here mainly to help mediate and carry out duties for this site. Not a badge awarded to massive content contributors alone. The above experiences with him leaves me wondering if he truly understood what being an admin is, and if he worthy of remaining as one.--Huaiwei 06:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Err. You really are making a fuss out of nothing. The result of the Requested Move was definitely a "no move". You were the only one to vote support. My comment was motivated by your misunderstanding of the Requested Move procedures. Once the discussion has been closed, you don't go and add it back to the talk page! I admit I should not have used capital letters, but I was quite surprised at why anyone would want to undo a standard administrative procedure. enochlau (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And as noted, this does not belong here. All of this discussion belongs on RfC. I will move it there when I get time this evening, otherwise you may do so yourself. enochlau (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Frivolous complaint, waste of noticeboard space. Enochlau is to be commended for not flaunting his adminship in the naming dispute on the article talk page. I note that Huaiwei brought up his assumption that enochlau therefore couldn't be an admin in a sarcastic manner ("enochlau, if you have just become an admin, let me know"); that Enochlau's "shocking exclamation" in response would fail to shock most readers, especially if put in the company of Huaiwei's own pugnacity and personal attacks on the article talk page; and that Huaiwei (scraping the bottom of the barrel) seeems to want to suggest above that there's something negatively noteworthy about an RFA candidate self-nominating. No, there isn't. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

His failure to state his adminsthip can either be interpreted as a case of "humility" in your books, or a case of "nonchalance" in mine. I think we have room for alternative views here, and no one should be in the position to chastise others for their "wastage of space" just because of these disagreements. You are free to speculate over the intentions behind my behavior. However, I would just like to remind, that as stated in WP:RFA, "Some people apply higher standards to self-nominations, while others view them more favorably as showing initiative and desire to serve the community." You choose to consider his move as showing initiative or what have you. I choose to see it as someone who considers himself worthy for adminship purely based on his efforts in adding content to wikipedia, and not based on his abilities in dispute resolution. You are entitled to your views, and so am I.--Huaiwei 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That section of WP:RFA is referencing applying higher standards to the vote to make someone an administrator, not their actions afterward. Self-nominated administrators who have successfully passed RFA are not held to a "higher standard" or put on "Administrative probation" or whatever you wish to call it. I haven't seen anything that Enochlau has done that is out of line; in fact, in everything I've seen, he's done exactly what's expected of him as an administrator. Your claim that it's a case of "nonchalance" (as though this is a bad thing) is ludicrous — where do you propose Enochlau inform you that he is an administrator? Had you bothered to spend less than 5 seconds checking whether he was an administrator, you would have seen that clearly stated in the first section of his user page. He isn't hiding it. Had Enochlau bragged about being an administrator, you likely would have filed a complaint about his lording it over you. What, exactly, is your complaint here? That he reverted your reversion of standard administrative fare? --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 16:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And true as you say, I was refering to the "higher standards" perculiar to the voting process, which I note as lacking in discussions over his ability to handle disputes, especially those he was personally involved in. If I may remind, I posted this complaint over his poor dispute management, and not over his failure to declare his adminship status. My illustration of my shock over his behavior when it came to light that he was actually an admin demonstrates my point. How do my failure in checking his position (and why should I do that, unless, perhaps, I am looking to be personal against him?) absolve him of his behavior? My complaint is well documented above (and below). You have every liberty to take 5 seconds or more to read it.--Huaiwei 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

For those who are interested, this discussion was continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei as suggested. enochlau (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The comment Bishohen quote underscores my point over the suitability of the above as an admin. "enochlau, if you have just become an admin, let me know", is precisely how I felt at that point, for I did not even realise he was one, for if he was, he certainly didnt give me the impression he was. Enochlau's dismissive attitude is certainly a cause for concern, and he appears to miss the point behind my complaint. I am concerned over his overall conduct, his inability to keep this cool when under stress, his inability in being inpartial when he is involved in a dispute (Such as requesting for a page protection in a dispute he is involved in when its purpose is debatable), and his apparant lack of initiative in helping to resolve disputes. These are qualities are deemed very important for every admin, and I see none of these qualities in him by his behavior thus far.

The opening paragraphs of this article clearly states, that "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both. Please try to discuss things with the admin before bringing the issue here." This is precisely why I am choosing to post it here. I am not demanding an RFC, for I dont think the misbehavior thus described has reached that magnitude. But I do see a need to remind, that a self-nominated admin is not immune from the same expectations applied to all admins, if not more.--Huaiwei 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A need to remind that a self-nominated admin is not immune from the same expectations...? Huaiwei, your original complaint wasn't well-considered, and your posts slide steeply into utter unreasonableness. A little well-meant advice: the smart thing would be to stop arguing. You're the subject of a recently opened RFC, and that's not a well-chosen time to make yourself a laughing-stock on the admins' noticeboard. A lot of people read it. Bishonen | talk 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

An RFC seemingly done more because its nominators cant decide for themselves which is the best way to win a content dispute rather then a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute is of little cause of concern to me. If I will be laughing stock, so be it. I time my comment based on what has just occured, independently from what others wish to do with me. I do wonder if your advise is well-intentioned anyhow, or it is more reflective of (or bears similarity to) collective bullying by a group of wikipedians from the same geographical area (or in some way or other related to it) against anyone who dared speak up against their continued persistance in introducing bias into wikipedia. If my comments are not "well-considered" or "slide steeply into utter unreasonableness", tells us why. They arent so simply because you say so.--Huaiwei 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If more than one person are starting to consider your comments ill-considered or unreasonable, perhaps you might like to take a step back and think about whether they could be right for once. Other people can be right, you know? enochlau (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be delighted to know that I am fully aware of the likelihood of others being correct. Your statement above somehow demonstrates to me your tendency in assuming that others are being stubborn, hardly a demonstration of assuming good faith. I would like to see how you could actually mediate when you cant do that, or fail to recognise the need for impartiality and to consciously rid oneself of prejudice when handling disputes (such as in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei)?.--Huaiwei 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley 14

William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Sea level rise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• Reverted to:

Revision as of 02:04, 20 December 2005

• Violation:

09:17, 21 December 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv to Vsmith, losing all SEW's changes. May have time to go back and see what they were)

• User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. Although AN/I states 3RR should not be reported here, it has been stated that such parole violations should be reported here. (SEWilco 06:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Supplied talk page comment does not cite nor request a source, merely states deletion of content and reference material and asks for changes; the changes which he just deleted. (SEWilco 06:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

"I've rm'd:

Over the last million years the sea level has changed by tens of meters many times, while many fewer variations of as much as 100 meters have taken place. Although during the past million years the sea level has generally been lower than it presently is, over geologic time scales the sea level has often been 100-200 meters higher than in recent times.

I don't think this belongs in the intro of the page as it stands. Maybe it belongs in the split up version as per DF's idea.

SEW: I don't know what you've done to improve the refs. But whatever you do will all be lost if you persist in pushing against what everyone else wants. I certainly don't have the patience to go checking through a pile of minor changes. How about listing whatever cleanup the refs need, that would actually be a useful service. William M. Connolley 09:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)."(diff)

• Um, is this part of SEW's edit war with WMC over citation styles? That seems to be the major change reverted, aside from the article content which WMC did describe in his talk page comment. I thought there had beem some sort of ceasefire on cites—was I mistaken? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco is still trying to nail WMC on absolutely anything he can come up with . WP:ANI is of course absolutely the place for this - David Gerard 08:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still trying to nail violators, yes. I happened to notice this one because someone added incorrect information (diff) to the article. I corrected (diff) the information and added citations, as required by WP:CITE and WP:V. As a major contributor to the article, I then also invited a peer review (review) to help further. Rather than also help improve the article, WMC deleted the changes because he doesn't have time to participate in Wikipedia. I don't see that listed as an acceptable reason for reversion. (SEWilco 14:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

• My two cents. I do not believe that it is violation of WMC's parole. His edit and the accompanying talk page note suggest that he deleted the paragraph out of a concern of the structure of the article. He did not express a desire to remove the content from public view; he just wanted to place it elsewhere. That does not need a reference in my opinion. enochlau (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • He also refers to his deletion of references. Look at the above violation diff for the deletion of 42 citations at the end of the diff because he doesn't "have the patience to go checking through a pile of minor changes". Apparently he owns the article and changes require his approval when he has time. (SEWilco 03:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC))
    • Um, it appears that WMC reverted the references back to inline citations, undoing SEW's conversion to footnotes. A brief glance at the diff would seem to suggest that no references were deleted outright; rather it that their style was changed. Correct me if I am mistaken. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes that looks like the case, another part of their constant battle with references. Did the ArbCom rule on citation format? If not, there's really nothing we can do... enochlau (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You are mistaken, TenOfAllTrades. The deleted citations contained more information than only a URL. Try to find a replacement for a 404 link with only the URL. As WP:CITE repeatedly states, full citations are needed. The style (numbered links) was the same, but additional citation content existed before the deletion. (SEWilco 19:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

The Arbcom closed the case see ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 WMC parole lifted, SEWilco placed on probation. SEWilco seems to have been blocked for something - although I haven't been able yet to determine just what. See his talk page. Vsmith 18:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Being a dick, whatever form the manifestation took - David Gerard 23:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems SEWilco created a new bot User:RefBot which was blocked by Curps as a precaution. Now the question: is this new bot an attempt to bypass the arbcom decision? 3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert citation styles on any articles.[44]. Vsmith 01:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Conditions are per person, not per username. Using a bot to do the edits is a ban evasion and eminently blockable upon - David Gerard 18:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet needs attention

Missionary is a sockpuppet of Retcon. This was recently proven, as outlined on the following page I created: User:Tommstein/Retcon-Missionary Sockpuppet Evidence. Shortly after I created that page, Retcon admitted to this fact Missionary's user page, although it has since been moved to the talk page. I have already slapped the Sockpuppet tag on Missionary's pages, but the SockpuppetProven tag seems more appropriate, seeing as only one of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Sock puppet#Tagging identified sock puppets is necessary and this case already meets two of the three (and we can make a request for arbitration if we want to go for the perfect trifecta). The problem is, the SockpuppetProven tag expands into text that reads, in part, "and has been blocked indefinitely." I asked on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppet about who to report this to in order for the sockpuppet to be blocked, and I was told that this was the place to bring it. Can someone please apply said block, both to rid ourselves of this pest and to legitimize the appropriate SockpuppetProven tag?

As a related question, I wish to ask, can anything be done about Retcon to convey to him that this isn't an OK thing that will just get the sockpuppets blocked and have no consequences for him as he creates another army of sockpuppets? We already have very strong suspicions about new sockpuppets, which I am trying to have verified by someone with CheckUser powers.Tommstein 11:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done a sockcheck and discovered that Retcon has a small army of socks; see my talk page for more details. I would like an uninvolved admin to look specifically at Tommstein vs. Tomnstein and IP Law Girl vs. IP law girl, as it appears to me that there's some impersonation involved here. The junior account in both cases should probably be blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone wanna volunteer? Whoever does, please don't find me to be impersonating Tomnstein, pretty please.Tommstein 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The Tommstein/Tomnstein case is pretty clear to me; it's the IP Law Girl/IP law girl case that is unclear. The senior account is the sock and has far fewer edits than the junior account, which is exactly backwards of the usual pattern for an impersonation. This suggests that this is not a normal impersonation; I tend to suspect that the first account is a meatpuppet, perhaps a relative or acquaintance of Retcon's, who forgot her password upon returning home and instead created a new account. (Of course, this is entirely supposition.) Kelly Martin (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody? Is this considered an inglorious aspect of being an administrator or something? Do I have to go and start asking specific administrators?Tommstein 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked User:Tomnstein since that one seems a clear-cut case of impersonation as well as sockpuppetry. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Various anonymous IPs attacking Latex article

Resources:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latex&action=history
• Talk:Latex
  • Special:Contributions/208.176.61.219
    • User_talk:208.176.61.219
  • Special:Contributions/69.216.131.22
    • User_talk:69.216.131.22
  • Special:Contributions/68.159.82.23
    • User_talk:68.159.82.23
  • Special:Contributions/65.184.55.76
    • User_talk:65.184.55.76
  • Special:Contributions/199.248.185.2
    • User_talk:199.248.185.2

Anonymous IPs with no contributions previously keep appearing out of nowhere to remove the picture - As I said on Talk:Latex it seems very likely these are the same person. The other IPs have been warned before but they refuse to discuss and just keep deleting the image using different account/IP sockpuppet each time... I would have listed this on vandalism in progress but the problem is more complex than that - there are several different IPs being used and the vandal seems to know how to change theirs again and again --Mistress Selina Kyle 17:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder evading block

See User talk:Jesustoldme. The user claims to be Maoririder who "forgot his password." Maoririder is blocked until Dec 28. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take care of this. Thanks for letting me know! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

212.18.228.53 and 195.82.106.xxx

This guy has been blocked[45] by Woohookitty in the past for making personal attacks, vandalism, and edit warring. He operates under 212.18.228.XXX and 195.82.106.XXX ip addresses, which all originate at the same Amsterdam-based ISP. We are certain that it is the same person posting in all instances.[46] He is back again, and up to his usual behavior: rapid reverting and insulting edit summaries,[47] personal attacks,[48] and wikistalking.[49]0 Can someone do something about this? Thanks, Skinwalker 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Communism

Please check out User:Commtesting and the one edit to GWB. I think we may have a sock/copy cat. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and it looks like WisC has just confirmed that the "new user" part of semi-protection doesn't quite work yet. --Deathphoenix 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Indef. blocked by both me and Curps. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Brion has confirmed on wikitech-l that he made a typo :-) The semiprotection should work ok now - David Gerard 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

2005 New York City transit strike

• The anonymous user 205.188.116.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly making POV edits in the article, and personal attacks against other users. - Mike Rosoft 20:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dammit, it's an AOL IP address. From my understanding, blocking it won't help because AOL traffic goes through proxies that change every time? enochlau (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's correct...you have to block the range...not something to do without careful consideration, and should probably only be done for a hour or two.--MONGO 03:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • IIRC, AOLol blocks should last about 10-15 minutes, but even then, expect for the blocking admin to get emails of users getting nailed by autoblocks. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

More proxy vandals

This one is a little tricky since it's in a SBC range I believe to be dynamic. However, all the edits from this IP are program vandalism, so I'm going to block it anyhow.

• 68.122.239.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Commtesting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Wwwiiiccc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jake the Snake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • VAANDALTRON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Good Game (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • WIC wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Muevelocito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jarrodthesurfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • GALLIANS BACK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jingle on Bells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Golbez in Heels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kelly Martin (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Could somebody take care of these, please? Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

152.163.100.204

The anon just erased an entire article[50], not once but twice [51]

He also vandilized the following: [52] [53] This anon has been warned before (see User_talk:152.163.100.204), please block him. Travb 23:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't. This is an AOL IP. Just revert. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, you should use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for requests like this. -- SCZenz 23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Eve Plumb

Could someone please delete the edit in the history which contains her address and phone number? Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

Done. The history looks a bit strange but I have to leave the reversions in even if what they're reverting has gone, just in case they changed anything else at the same time as reverting an edit. -- Francs2000 00:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Francs. The idiot keeps coming back with various anons and logged in accounts. I've protected it for now, but he's apparently been doing this for months. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There are still some versions of the article, stored in the history, that contain that personal information. Should we wipe the page and start a new? Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

An admin can delete the article then go back and undelete all edits which do not contain the offending information. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

My first undeletion! I deleted the revisions with personal information. I would appreciate it if another admin could go look and make sure I didn't screw anything up. Hermione1980 16:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything looks good Hermione, good job. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems the delete/restore wiped the protection out and he re-added it. I deleted that revision - does it look right now, or did I leave some of the historical ones still in? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 02:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm on it now. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 02:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User RK

RK is currently under several restrictions for 12 months following Apr 7 2005, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies These restrictions include “RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of twelve months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the twelve-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators." Another restriction he is under is "RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for twelve months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the twelve month period shall be reset.".

He is fully aware of these limitations see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RK&diff=prev&oldid=12148085

Unfortunately, he has not kept to the terms of his RFA and has repeatedly violated them. I am asking for enforcement of the ArbCom decision an for them to take appropriate action, which based upon the Remedy would seem to be a 1 week ban and a resetting of his 12 months of restrictions. The following is evidence of his violations.

Violations of Revert limit:

• He violated the 3rr rule and got blocked for 24 hours. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive7#User:RK That is 4 reverts which is 3 more than what he is allowed.
• In the Tzadik article he has violates his 1rr limitation He has reverted to his version which is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&oldid=30128298

First revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&diff=31891268&oldid=30951309

2cd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&diff=31899916&oldid=31891623

• In the chabad article besides for the 3rr violation listed above, RK has a version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&oldid=29942559

1st revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31891037&oldid=31870263

2cd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31899609&oldid=31891606

3rd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31907630&oldid=31907508

4th revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31907906&oldid=31907778

Violations of his Personal attack parole:

• “Eliezer is a bald-faced liar, and his non-stop personal attacks leave me no choice but to request that he be banned for bad behaviour.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChabad_Lubavitch&diff=29941161&oldid=29940993 This was in response to my writing that he was using a sockpuppet to evade his limits on reverting. In his 3rr block above he and the ip address posting was found to be the same person.
• He has repeatedly accused me and other users of personal attacks when no personal attacks were made.

--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)--

User:RK blocked for parole violations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyking parole violation

Would someone look at [54] and decide if that counts as commentary on non-editorial actions, and if so block according to EK's parole? Thanks. Phil Sandifer 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no provision for a block that I recall, even if you accept that it's a personal attack (I would call it a bit of an impolite nudge intended to prod him into answering me, not quite a personal attack). Everyking 05:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

When paroles are announced without an enforcement, they are assumed to be enforcable by a 24 hour block. Phil Sandifer 05:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can assume that. Is that policy? If the ArbCom intended that they would need to say so. Everyking 06:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps I should make a request for clarification then. Phil Sandifer 06:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems more reasonable than taking it here and asking someone to block me, I'll grant you that much. Everyking 06:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. And Neutrality has now replied confirming that I was, in fact, right. I repeat, would someone please actually enforce this parole so that it provides some semblence of its intended purpose of relieving me of the constant harassment Everyking seems to feel it is his duty to subject me to? (A duty that he has, astonishingly, undertaken with even more zeal since the arbcom told him to stop) Phil Sandifer 06:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24 hours for violating the parole. If you repeatedly nudge the electric fence, you shouldn't be overly surprised when you get zapped. Ambi 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Lox

Lox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just marked a bunch of template talk pages with {{db|It's blank and not useful}}. Could an admin clean this up and then spank him? ^BlankVerse 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Brazil4Linux is violating his ban

User:Brazil4Linux is avoiding his one week ban through the use of sockpuppets. He was banned for using his sockpuppet User:Quackshot to avoid the 3RR. Now he is avoiding his ban with User:GroundZero. GroundZero is most likely a sockpuppet of User:Brazil4Linux because:

• Same distinct linguistical traits
• Contributes at the same time as Brazil4Linux did
• First edits were pages Brazil4Linux contributed on
• Same views as Brazil4Linuz in Talk:Ken Kutaragi
• Appeared as soon as Brazil4Linux and sockpuppet User:Quackshot were banned
• IP address coming from Brazil just like Brazil4Linux
• Same Internet Provider as Quackshot
• Vast knowledge of Wikipedia for a new user
  • Example: Joining in edit discussion, requesting users for comment and the use of edit summaries

Jedi6 02:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

(Not to be confused with the admin User:Ground Zero, who has a space in his username.) FreplySpang (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Another reason this user should be banned. It is too close to an existing one. Jedi6 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone help with GroundZero. He has really gotten bad on Talk:Ken Kutaragi and has made personal attacks on people. Jedi6 06:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Following up on this, it appears the user got blocked for being too close to the admin's username. Ral315 (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Yuber (talk · contribs) and myself CltFn (talk · contribs) have both violated the 3RR rule in page Islam in the United States. We should therefore both be blocked according to Wikipedia policy.--CltFn 06:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Everyking and User:MarkGallagher

Everyking (talk · contribs) has agreed to a stricter period of parole over the next two(ish) days, in return for being unblocked. He has agreed to suffer a 48-hour block if he does not maintain absolute silence on the subject of Phil Sandifer. The agreement expires Christmas Day. Please see User:MarkGallagher/everyking for details. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

While I greatly appreciate the received two days of silence, I will admit to finding Everyking's continued treatment of his parole as an opportunity to play a great big game of Let's Make a Deal disheartening. Phil Sandifer 15:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You refer to the idea of making deals with scorn, I note. Everyking 17:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible sock of User:JackSarfatti

Hi, I am concerned by recent edits of John Baez and Jack Sarfatti by 71.139.97.67 which suggest this may be a sock. Note tha the IP appears to correspond to dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net; apparently this anon is using a DSL line operated by Pac Bell in the San Francisco area. (Compare an email addy recently used by Sarfatti in recent UseNet posts). I have noticed a consistent pattern of WP:NPOV edits expressing views favored by Sarfatti from IP addies registered to this ISP. The recent edits to Jack Sarfatti mostly speak for themselves. The edit to John Carlos Baez repeats almost verbatim a mischaracterization (the alleged surpisingly candid comment) which has been made by Jack Sarfatti in an UseNet posting (sorry, don't have the link for that, but you can Google for it). AFAIK, User:JackSarfatti has been blocked indefinitely for misbehavior. The edits I have noticed so far seem to be non-NPOV, not vandalism, but I am concerned. (I reverted the changes to John Carlos Baez, but I leave it to others to try to keep Jack Sarfatti protected from partisan edits.) ---CH 09:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I\'m User:JackSarfatti under a new name

I\'m back and I just edited Jack Sarfatti to WoW under the sockpuppet User:Galzaga AKA JackSarfatti. I will continue using sockpuppets full stop. User:JackSarfatti signing on as JackLaesMyres 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Indef. blocked as per policy regarding sockpuppets by indefinitely banned users. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 15:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone do a checkuser on that account? From my experience, whenever a edit replaces all instances of ' with \' it's because of a misconfigured PHP cgi proxy (magic_quotes_gpc is enabled but the script is not unescaping). If so, it should be indefinitely blocked as an open proxy (before it causes more quote damage). --cesarb 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

advertisemsent of possibly controversial block / rollbacks

GourangaUK (talk · contribs) has shown extremely erratic behaviour on Hare Krishna and Gouranga. His edits are borderline to however, and I did consider rolling them back to be 3RR-exempt. He will argue a single point, which would make for a valid content dispute, and change ten other points. These articles were so far below par that I didn't expect anybody to be watching them, let along consider them in some sort finished or adequate. I do recognize now that this person is serious, and I am unsure how to address this. From his editing behaviour, the user is borderline to troll and/or vandal. From his talk behaviour, he is just extremely clueless in both WP matters, and the subject matter (non-ISKCON Hinduism). If his edits improve to at least correspond to the point he makes on talk, I will consider him bona fide, even if his demands for an ISKCON-only pov are still totally unacceptable. If he continues his erratic behaviour, I will think it admissible to issue short warning blocks. If you get to look into the case, please advise. dab (ᛏ) 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

IP

Can you tell me please the IP of user:ßonaparte? He vandalized my user page. -- Bonaparte talk 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that goes against Wikipedia:Privacy policy, but this user is certainly blockable as a Wikipedia:Doppelganger account an impersonator. --Deathphoenix 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte has listed the same request on AN as well, it is against the privacy policy and checkuser policy for the IP address to be revealed. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

user:ßonaparte has been blocked indefinitively for impersonation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I know but I need to find out from what area is the IP of user:ßonaparte! I guess I know who it is but I need proof. Bonaparte talk 19:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we will not supply that proof I'm afraid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Rtkat3

Rtkat3 (talk · contribs) has contacted me by e-mail indicating s/he has been inadvertently blocked, likely part of an AOL range block. This seems to have happened before to Rtkat3, reading their talk page. I'm unfamiliar with unblocking a specific user in these circumstances, so if someone more familiar with range blocks would look into this, I'm sure Rtkat3 would appreciate it. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a way to unblock Rtkat3 (talk · contribs) IP address. If it is an AOL IP, hpefully admins would have blocked only for short periods. You may want to advise the user to ask User:David Gerard if the block is not lifted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Dzonatas

This user violated the three revert rule today on Joan of Arc. He also created a fictitious artcle Forward-looking statement and three nonsense templates based on the fictitious article. He has been attempting to use the United States Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as a usage manual for copyediting medieval history. Durova 19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

He's reverted a fourth time. Durova 01:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

TV.com

Could somebody deal with the edit warriors and 3RR violators on TV.com? Thanks. Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

Another open proxy

Another one. This one shows the same badly written PHP proxy bug:

• 209.120.239.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Galzaga AKA JackSarfatti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jodew9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • K8Whitaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • DickWrighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And here's a second one, just because:

• 67.18.52.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • JackLaesMyres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Gobbiozi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kelly Martin (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Piecraft

Has blanked several pages after several of his articles got placed on AfD yesterday. Has also made numerous personal attacks, both to those warning him about the blanking (see his talk page) and to others on the talk pages of "his" articles. Due to his not taking any warnings in, I've gave him a final warning. If he blanks another page or makes another personal attack anytime soon, he should be blocked. He's had plenty of warnings. Hedley 03:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Piecraft was eventually blocked. Hedley 15:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert war at Islam in the United States

There's currently a revert war between two anons, 24.7.290.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.156.143.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at Islam in the United States. 70.156 claims on the talk page that 24.7 is actually blocked vandal Yuber. Kurt Weber 04:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page, and blocked the two IPs involved for 3RR violations. --bainer (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

and I have warned blocked vandal CltFn, that his behavior at the WP:3RR is totally unacceptable--172.142.133.250 04:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Wheel War

Can some uninvolved admin try some mediation here with regard to OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood (whether this is red or blue right now) see [55] and Wikipedia:Deletion review#OGTV2_-_From_Tha_Hood_to_Hollywood. I'm afraid it looks like 'Tony Sidaway vs WP:DRV' again. --Doc ^ask? 10:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

They insist on keeping a Snoop Dogg album deleted because of "process"? What the fucking fucker fuckery? I have undeleted again. This is too stupid to put up with - David Gerard 11:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine - and that's (hopefully) the end of that. There is plenty crap for those who like to delete stuff without worrying about this. I suppose the only reason to defend process is that it should (?) come to the right conclusion in the end (if it don't than it's broke) and without some form of process we end up with arbitrary decisions and wheel wars. But then, I suppose that argument doesn't hold up when process causes the wheel war in the first place. (I do sometimes think, we could save a lot of time if we deleted WP:DRV and redirected the page to User talk:Tony Sidaway - but now I am being a troll). Merry Christmas. --Doc ^ask? 11:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it did fail an AFD as a fraud of an album (maybe it's a bootleg?) but undeleting is probably best if we have an album cover... Redwolf24 (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The album is listed by HMV Japan and waa produced by Snoop Dogg. We do not delete articles about the works of Snoop Dogg, even bootlegs, without a very, very good reason. It doesn't matter what AfD says, it doesn't matter what DRV says, we're running a serious encyclopedia, not a chatroom, and we never let broken processes kill good content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it be so bad to leave good content inaccesible for a few days, while things got sorted out, rather than fighting a wheel war? If there was new information, than WP:DRV would've sorted this out without intervention. -- SCZenz 17:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

In this case, I would say it would be better to block admins who engage in deletion wars. I agree with Tony Sidaway: Snoop Dogg albums don't get deleted. If AFD (temporarily/permanently) lost its mind and decided they should be deleted, I can't say I care. This is an encyclopedia. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Turns out that that particular bootleg was produced by Daddy V, who seems like some dude that sells mixtapes from the back of his van. Tony, I'm as tired as everyone else is of your campaign against WP:V. Pilatus 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not good to repeatedly misstate the known facts in this manner. Please stop, or at least keep the falsehoods off this talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon! In a nutshell, events were like this: The article was deleted last month as an inconsequential bootleg (note that the nomination was made by User:FuriousFreddy, whose judgement on rap one can trust). It went to DRV a few days ago, was summarily restored by Tony who trusts neither AfD nor DRV (and has no notion about rap to boot), deleted, restored by Tony and deleted (each time by a different admin) a few times more, and finally restored by David, who thought is was a legit Snoop Dogg album. It is now on AfD again, where it will likely end up deleted. All heat and no light. Pilatus 03:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Expertise, claimed or otherwise, on rap or anything else is not a deletion criterion. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, except if it's expertise on webcomics. Nandesuka 03:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Good one, Nandesuka. Tony Sidaway has a long history of defying consensus and undeleting willy nilly whatever he in his infinite wisdom feels needs to be here, despite AfD and VfU. This was just one more example. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as people are willing to take the position that process always trumps content and the actual rules, actions like Tony's will be necessary. Phil Sandifer 03:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"I am an expert on rap, and I say this article should be deleted, so it should be deleted" doesn't fly here. Sorry. If you want to claim that something meets a deletion criterion or two, you need actual evidence, not your own determination, or an appeal to the authority of another editor you claim to be an expert. And that applies to everyone. Again, if AfD lost its mind and decided to defer to claimed expertise rather than find out for themselves, then Tony Sidaway was and always will be absolutely right to override the vote and undelete the article. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Tony was dead right to undelete this one, and it's emblematic of the increasingly shitty research that goes into AfDs. That an album does not appear on AllMusic shows nothing except that it is not a U.S. release. Not being a U.S. release is not, in fact, a deletion criterion, nor will it ever be. In the face of an album cover and a link to HMV Japan, one needs to actually do one's homework before arguing for deletion. People who make delete votes without doing basic research should expect to be ignored by the first admin with a lick of common sense to come along. If you want to show that an article should be deleted, be prepared to actually spend more than two minutes searching on a single website. Phil Sandifer 03:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't, as it turns out, expect community consensus to be ignored by any admin, whether or not that admin has a lick of common sense. I do expect an admin who regularly arrogates and overturns community consensus to eventually lose his status. It's happened before, and it will happen again. If you can't implement (or at least accept) consensus, even when it goes against your own desires, you're on the wrong wiki. Nandesuka 03:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason we allow ourselves to be governed by community consensus is that we assume that the community is going to be reasoned, do their homework, and act in accordance with pre-defined principles of what Wikipedia is. When the community fails to do these things, then Wikipedia's basic premise has been violated. Put another way, the community is empowered to make decisions, but the community is not empowered to completely and totally fuck up the project. Phil Sandifer 03:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Garbage, Phil. If DRV had been allowed to run its proper course it would have determined that the album in question was a random mixtape. Now it's back on AfD, and the only thing that has been achieved is that a fair number of people are pissed at the waste of time and the disregard for process that actually works. Time for a finger-wagging and an encouragement to stay away from deletion-related things for a while. Pilatus 03:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to take DRV remotely seriously when there are people who regularly vote with no regard to content whatsoever, and when it routinely feels the need to send every article it undeletes, no matter how wrong the original deletion, to AfD to double check. The original AfD was done on bad research, and anyone who trusts DRV to actually do fact-checking and additional research has never actually read DRV. If you want the deletion process to be taken seriously by people, you need to behave seriously, and stop the playing-to-win bullshit that permiates all of these discussions. It seems as though more people here care about whether this is finally their chance to "get" Tony than actually have any investment in the article. Phil Sandifer 03:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe DRV was wrong, but at that point you have the option of creating a new article, not based on the old one, that demonstrates notability, verifiability, etc... Simply restoring the old article and letting sit there gives the impression that you're more interested in bucking consensus than improving the encyclopedia (note, however, that it's perfectly okay to override speedies if you think that they were invalid- I did it today).--Sean|Black 03:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If the issue is "The article is fine, people just didn't entertain the concept that it might be a Japan-only album," though, there's not really anything to change - this seems to be a case where AfD just didn't do its homework, leading to serious doubt. That the doubt turned out to be unfounded, and the album turned out to be non-notable is beside the point - it should never have been deleted until the research had been done. Phil Sandifer 03:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that the voters were "wrong" doesn't invalidate the vote- it does, however, help your case at Deletion Review immensly. It's unwise to overturn a vote like that.--Sean|Black 04:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"It seems as though more people here care about whether this is finally their chance to "get" Tony than actually have any investment in the article." Oh please. Calling Tony out on yet another disruption of the consensus-forming process isn't "playing to win," it's called "discussing administrative moves that some of us think are stupid", with a dash of "forming consensus." If we were "playing to win," a phrase you seem to love to use, we would engage in different tactics. Just to pick an example of one such tactic, perhaps we'd start an RFArb against him without trying to reach consensus first, either through conversation, mediation, or an RfC. That, it seems to me, is a textbook example of this "playing to win" you seem to be such an expert on. Nandesuka 04:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who used the phrase "playing to win" here. I think this has less to do with winning and more to do with the fact that you assume bad faith in Tony, leading you to find him at fault even when it's AfD, not him, that fucked it up. Phil Sandifer 05:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Either you're drawing some subtle distinction between "playing to win" and "playing-to-win" that is unworthy of you, or you've simply forgotten this edit, less than an hour before my comment, where you talked about "the playing-to-win bullshit that permiates all of these discussions." And I tell you what. Find me another admin who regularly arrogates and overturns consensus on AfD and Deletion Review, and I'll publically say that when she or he does it, she or he is being stupid, too. I don't have to "assume bad faith" to think that when Tony regularly overturns consensus, he's doing a stupid thing. Good or bad faith ain't got nothing to do with it. We have consensus mechanisms to make these decisions, and by cutting them off before they have reached their end he is, in my opinion, committing an offense against the consensus-building process, and insulting everyone who participated in it. His motives could be as pure as the driven snow, and it would still be wrong. We should expect more of our admins than we get from him, when he acts like this. Nandesuka 13:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Gee Snowspinner, that sounds like you're dismissing AfD. Is anyone allowed to do that, or just you? - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Gojistomp - Repeated copyvios

Gojistomp has repeatedly posted copyrighted material to articles, despite warnings on his talk page. He added copyrighted content to Giant Monster Varan, Akki Kumo, and The Mysterians, and was subsequently warned for each. Recently he reposted copyrighted material to Giant Monster Varan, despite the article having been deleted the first time he posted it. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

He was blocked for 18 hours last week after creating a string of articles all copied from the same website (which I went through one by one confirming their status before flagging them for speedy deletion). I have left several messages about copyright violation on his talk page but I'm not sure he has read them, let only understood them, and he certainly hasn't taken notice so far. I expect him to create another flood of new copyvios soon. --Whouk (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian again...

[56]
[57]

Here, Gibraltarian (as 212.120.225.93) says he attacks Ecemaml simply because "he is [a troll]". He doesn't even list any diffs to support his claim. He even calls Woohookitty "unworthy for adminship" (once again, not showing any "meat" to back up his claim). He even goes a step further in defacing Ecemaml's user page [58]. I think he has just proved to us that he shows absolutely *no* respect whatsoever to whomever he disagrees with, and it's about time a *long* range block be implemented. --TML1988 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

SpongeBob Hoaxer

68.74.10.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user has a quite impressive history of adding completely bogus information to articles. He has been blocked repeatedly, but he's up to it again. Please block this user immediately to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. --Apostrophe 20:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

67.38.10.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ...Again. --Apostrophe 05:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

68.248.82.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ...Again. --Apostrophe 21:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Kwanzaa

It being That Time of Year again, multiple users, some registered, some IPs (and some in both modes) are pursuing their assault upon Kwanzaa, some just enjoying gross and/or racist vandalism, others insistant on rampant POVification. I've used up my three reverts for this lovely task; someone else please help out. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's now on my watchlist. -- SCZenz 23:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Kwanzaa really is under blatant attack from anonymous POV warriors. I don't think it's possibly to hold them back within the rules, but there are extremely blatant problems with their edits. I request a previously uninvolved admin to take a look and asses the situation. -- SCZenz 01:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I had to revert blatant vandalism when I first got to the article then after reviewing the page history I sprotected the article temporarily. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin (I came across this page--and dispute--on RC patrol), and I've said as much on SCZenz's talk page, but: While many of the anons' edits are clearly blatant vandalism, simply adding a link to a site critical of Kwanzaa does not constitute "POV-pushing". In fact, given the article's total neglect of the small but non-negligible anti-Kwanzaa "movement" (not sure of a better word for it), it helps move the article closer to NPOV. Kurt Weber 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The situation is difficult, because the way the links were added was inappropriate. One was liked as "the TRUTH about Kwanzaa" while another's title referred to it as a "Holiday from Hell". Either could have been liked as "an article critical of Kwanzaa," but was not. I admit I was getting frustrated towards the end of my efforts to deal with the page, which is why I stopped and called for an uninvolved admin to take a look. -- SCZenz 02:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Where possible, we should try to synthesize and summarize significant and verifiable arguments held by a non-trivial minority of people, in preference to just providing external links. It is not our responsibility to provide a link to every kook with a website, and doing so degrades the quality of our articles. Nandesuka 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the backup, folks. I guess you can see how I was rather frustrated, though of course I shouldn't have acted alone. Regarding the anon POV warriors, part of the problem is that one of the anon POV warriors is also a registered user (User:TurtleTurtle); that's why sprotect didn't help at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Deletion

Sir. My carefully constructed contribution to the topic of Subd have not merely been delteed, i have not had them returned-in order to edit or adjust them

It is necessary, in any situation, to analyse as well as document the subject. My experiences, which contain the evidence for a critique of a Subud failing, are a vital part of the history of Subud, and do not merely conern myself-just becasue I was involved. The problem of discord in Subd is a theme which is an undercurrent that needs to be addressed publicly, and there is a place in an encyclopedic volume to cover it, with appropriate neutral reporting and observation. Removing ALL of my comment was not EDIING of the topic. It was removal, or sanitising, of a vital factor which has a need to be included in any documentation of Subud.

You do not want personal stories-the "I did this" here, despite several people naming themselves as they edited their Wikipedia contribution. At this time, I do not wan to be the character in the story either. Just the story-or factor, or problem, is al that matter in th Subd topic. Bronte Grivell

This is not the place to bring up content disputes. Nevertheless, looking at your contributions to Subud, you should have made those comments at Talk:Subud, not in the article itself. Commentary written in the first person belongs in the discussion page, not in the article page. -- Curps 23:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas trouble

Today there have been a couple of disturbing (to me at least) happenings on the Christmas article. Firstly, there is a developing edit war on whether dates that consist of only the day/month should be linked (see Talk:Christmas)--some editors are de-linking repeat occurrences on the basis that this clutters that article with links, others have restored the links because removing them breaks date format preferences. Secondly, the article has been semi-protected. I think that semi-protection is a bad idea because this article will get a lot of visits in the next 24 hours and, as for the main page featured article, I think that protection of any sort shoudl be avoided. JeremyA 02:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention, the FARC process for this article is also continuing, so we might have to replace this as the FA for the day. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 02:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that that has been done already. JeremyA 02:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked and the FARC is still going on, and Christmas was removed from the front page, replaced by Ido. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 05:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the Christmas Article should be reinstated on the main page. It got there by merrit and its removal was just censorship. If it doesn't belong there oughtn't be any mention of Kwanzaa, or Haunuka hereonout. Chooserr 05:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe it was done by censorship, but based at [59]. The person who made the call was Raul654, the main co-ordinator of the FA process and articles. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 05:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not know Raul654, or his edit history, but will say inspite of this that ANYONE can abuse power. Chooserr 05:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You can see the actual edit at [60] I do not think this is an abuse of admin powers, since he is the one that can select which articles to appear on the front page and he can change it if there are significant concerns. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 05:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you even read the Christmas article? There's no way it's in good enough shape to be on the Main Page, let alone featured anymore. It has *NOTHING* to do with censorship. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 05:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Administrator abuse????

Administrator mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had blocked me illegal for so-called vandalism. Actually he's doing vandalism with his buddy Node ue. Someone can unblock me to defend myself and to ask de-adminiship of mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? -- Bonaparte talk 08:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Next block

Blocked for 1 week for persistent and fully aware distortion and deletion of official info, e.g., in Republic of Moldova, Tighina and in other places. This is considered persistent and malicious vandalism. Persistent removal of Cyrillic spelling of moldovan toponyms is an intolerable censorship of information. mikka (t) 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Read here very careful mikka: I was just reverting Node's edits which are considered persistent and malicious vandalism. So you have to block Node, not me! And your persistent adding of Cyrillic spelling of Moldovans toponyms is also persistent and malicious vandalism. Moldovan (Romanian)'s official spelling is in LATIN ALPHABET. So, block yourself! Bonaparte talk 08:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me - this is a content dispute not vandalism. Please do not use blocks when dealing with content disputes. Mikka is clearly has a conflict of interest, by blocking Bonaparte for edits to a page in which he is actively involved in editing, and he is also involved in a content dispute with Bonaparte at this same page. At Tighina, there seems to be a dispute between including the Moldovan Cyrillic version of the text. Again, this is a content dispute. Please take this to the talk page. Mikka has a very valid rationale for including this Cyrillic text, but Bonaparte can also make his argument. It is the same at Republic of Moldova. They are not cases of simple vandalism. If the 3RR is broken, the Bonaparte can be blocked, but not for one week. I hope he is unblocked now. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm, for future references, please place a notice, either AN or ANI; duplication in both is excessive. El_C 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The China wars

Administrators may note the edit-warring occuring between me and instantnood in various pages such as

• Thomson Road
• List of railways in China
• Hong Kong Central Library
• Districts of Hong Kong
• Template:Asia

National dish is also becoming a tripatite war between the above and User:Yuje.

For your information and neccesary action in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2.--Huaiwei 10:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I think peace is needed here. I'm the cause of it, like the Singapore Changi Airport, I restarted the table and it became controversial. This table would be hiding, if not for me putting the Asia template in many articles of Asian countries (it was not used in many country articles before I putting in the template). I'm sorry. :( --Terence Ong ^Talk 10:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

These can better be handled by RfC/Huaiwei for the time being. — Instantnood 11:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood and I have been agreeing to disagree here: [61] Should I start another poll? >.< enochlau (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Resolved for now. Please see Enoch's and my user talk page. :-) — Instantnood 09:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia

I have deleted the project page Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia as "Not remotely compatible with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality." The project was specifically "intended to nurture and keep wikipedia's pro-life/pro-catholic articles and categories." Needless to say, if any such articles exist they must also be made neutral or deleted if this is not possible. Any project with similar partisan aims, as far as I am concerned, must be deleted on sight. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That was the edited version. This text was edited only after the mfd started. The original text, the one I nominated for deletion, simply mentioned "an organization for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion." Or, as Shanedidona described the alliance to Darthgriz98, "a CAtholic organization for the preservation of conservative values, basically, CAoW is a redily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened. ... Vote Pro-Life!" Anything they say about intending to nurture is just a disguise for pov pushing to me. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to show me that policy, Tony. Probably the closest in regards to deletion is CSD A6. Basically all that you've done is become what you chided me for being here[62]. The only difference is that I bully those who bully or abuse the trust of others, you bully those who disagree with you. karmafist 21:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of bullying anyone. I deleted that page because there is absolutely no possibility of this project ever being acceptable on Wikipedia. Such pages must be deleted on sight. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was right to delete it (twice) while the vote was taking place. It looks very much as if the consensus is going to be for delete, but it would be more respectful of the community not to anticipate the result. I have no wish to keep it, but I can't see that it's going to do any harm to Wikipedia while the vote is coming to a close. However, deleting it a third time could be harmful in the sense of causing bad feeling and frustration. AnnH ^(talk) 15:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection on Kwanzaa

Kwanzaa is listed as semi-protected, but was just vandalized by an anonymous editor (63.19.128.24). What's wrong? Firebug 15:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure when, but the protection log shows an unprotection earlier today and then a reprotection a few hours later. Perhaps the vandalism was at that time. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Rachel Brown sockpuppet army blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan, the accounts weren't voting against each other; quite the reverse. RachelBrown voted to keep List of Jewish jurists at 20:57 Nov 18 [63]; Poetlister voted to keep at 09:38 Nov 19. [64] RachelBrown then checked her mind at 17:53 Nov 19 and voted delete "due to the weird attitude of Mr. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters" [65]; Poetlister promptly changed her mind too and voted delete 17 minutes later at 18:10 Nov 19. [66] Londoneye then voted delete at 08:56 Nov 20. [67] Then RachelBrown changed her mind again and voted to keep at 22:52 Nov 21. [68] Perhaps she forgot to change the other votes back again, or didn't want to draw attention to them, or more likely realized they'd make no difference to the outcome. Given that the technical evidence shows they all edited from the same IP address(es), the above is a violation of WP:SOCK. Whether the end result was actually influenced is irrelevant. The person operating the accounts appears to have tried to influence it and that's all that matters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The so-called collusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obesity is semi-protected

Why is the article semi-protected?? The idea is just ludicrous on the obesity article! --Sunseeking Jay 18:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Looking at the page history, it would appear that there's been a bit of a vandalism spree the past few days. I would assume that whoever protected it will be unprotecting it relatively shortly. JYolkowski // talk 18:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering the high amount of vandalism it's been getting recently, including some from User:Sunseeking Jay himself, it's a very good idea. --Angr (t·c) 18:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Bulgarian Ben

This user put a {{WoW}} template on his own user page: [69]. He isn't actually blocked, though; nor has he done anything blockable yet (though he does seem interested in moving pages in the future). --Angr (t·c) 18:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him as a troll. He is either Willy or someone pretending to be Willy. Either way he is trying to disrupt. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, taste the corn indeed...............yep that was a totally pointless insertion. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply that I can't spell? I'm offended! It's Korn! not corn. The fer ack t the hat eye can knot speel is an otter mat her. Eye wrung ever three think threw a spill cheque two make shore fist. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nah I just wanted to insert a random statement here :) Merri ykrismas Tireesa — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

So your signature is advocating tasting Sam Korn...? :-) Dmcdevit·t 10:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes! He stated on my talk page that he wouldn't let anyone taste him, I informed him that we'll just have to hold him down. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Date format warrior

I've come across a date format warrior, Hmains (talk · contribs). I tried explaining to him that dates are linked to allow formatting by user preference, but he continues to remove links around dates. He's also changing BC/BCE. I know there was some discussion and perhaps an arbitration case on something similar in the past. Can anybody point me to the appropriate policy/Arbcom rullings? --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2. --cesarb 19:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg was adamant that we address this in our climate dispute 2 case -- Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for no other purpose than to convert them to their preferred style. - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 Raul654 20:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've recently been involved in some minor edit warring concerning BC/BCE/AD/CE. The "fighting parties" are now working towards consensus, compromise and resolution at Wikipedia talk:Eras. It is possible that Hmains has been inspired by that issue. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 20:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, the prefered style is not to link dates anyway. Martin 20:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You're flatly wrong there. Adding square brackets "DATE" to full dates allows date preferences to work. Editors are not required to link full dates, but most full dates in Wikipedia are linked so that each user's date-formatting preference appears in the text. - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Raul654 20:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, that applies only to full dates, whre date preferences will work. I think it would be better if some form of wiki-markup other than a link were used to activate date prefernces but that is anotehr issue. DES ^(talk) 20:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It was the removal of links from full dates that originally attracted my attention. I only noticed the BC/BCE changes after I had left him a message about why full dates were linked. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt mean that specifically, its difficult to refer to that page as it seems to be changing frequently, but I was referring to So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it., which it doesnt say anymore. Martin 20:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, it says it again now ;) Martin 20:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Regforafd

I've indef blocked Regforafd (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry. He voted on a slew of afd votes(thus the name, short for "Registered for AFD") right after starting the account. Yawn. Now I suppose I gotta go clean up all those votes. Sigh. karmafist 21:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the plot thickens. Mailer diablo (talk · contribs) welcomed Regforafd [70], and then closed a bunch of the afds he voted on [71],[72],[73],[74],[75], just for starters. I'm blocking Mailer indef now, and asking for a checkuser to see if it should be permanent. karmafist 21:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I just informed Mailer[76], and indef blocked until I can get a checkuser just to be safe, he seems fairly active on afd. karmafist 21:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems a tad premature. I'll unblock him so he can reply to these accusations. If there are indications of sock puppetry, use RFAR. If he was indeed doing what you accuse him of, he clearly won't be able to continue it now, so the block serves no purpose . Zocky 21:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hang on a minute. If I were going to try and use socks to change the outcome of a afd vote, i would not use a sock with that name, i would not welcome that sock, I would not close an afd so quickly. I am fiendishly clever mwhaah! ( good job I'm not evil) perhaps Mailer diablo (talk · contribs) is not so sneaky as me, or perhaps he is innocent and you are reading too much into things? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am innocent - I created no sockpuppetry, and I have not even nominated a VfD for weeks! Please check your email. I invite a checkuser on me to prove my innocence. I have nothing to hide. - Mailer Diablo 21:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

December 6th, Regforafd nominated 9 related articles for AFD. Mailer Diablo closed 63 total articles that day.

December 8th, Regforafd nominated 1 article for AFD. Mailer Diablo closed 35 total articles that day.

December 14th, Regforafd nominated 6 articles for AFD. Mailer Diablo has, so far, closed 13 total articles for that day. None of the articles he's closed have been an article nominated by Regforafd. All 6 Regforafd nominations were closed by someone else.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the accusation that Regforafd is Mailer Diablo, to say nothing of blocking Mailer Diablo, is wildly premature. Mailer Diablo is one of our most active AFD closers, and is therefore likely to intersect with AFD sockpuppets by sheer happenstance. The evidence does not support the accusation.

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 21:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well put. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• If it can be proven he's using sockpuppets to manipulate AFD, he should be blocked, obviously. But I find blocking him before an sockcheck has been done far too premature. His closures can be reviewed if need be. Blocks should be done with proof or community support. If he's not unblocked yet, I will. Extreme Unction's assertion above is quite right. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks guys. I've been now unblocked by Zocky. - Mailer Diablo 22:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• If someone is using sockpuppets to manipulate AfD, it should go to ArbCom or get community consensus. The notion of one admin perma-blocking another based on his own analysis of the evidence, even if far more ironclad than this evidence was, is just plain bizzare. Here, I don't think there's even a reason to do a sock check. -- SCZenz 22:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• (after editr conflict) A block on an admin for closing AfD's some of which turn out to include votes by a user who may be a sockpuippet of someone, with no indication that the admin was in any way aware of said sockpuppetry (assuming that there was sockpupetry, which seems not unlikely but is unproved AFAIK) seems to be a violation of WP:AGF. I think User:Karmafist was rather too fast on the triger on this one. As for Regforafd (talk · contribs) having a separate ID for AfD votes is not against policy, but if this is legit, that user should IMO disclsoe his other wikipedia identity, if any. But unless he actually used this ID to cast multiple votes from different IDs on some AfD, this user has not actually violated policy. Is there any evidence that this has in fact happened? DES ^(talk) 22:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Karmafist blocked, I unblocked, nobody reblocked. End of story. Kiss and make up and go do useful stuff. Zocky 22:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I just looked up Regforafd. It ain't Mailer diablo, it appears to be someone playing silly buggers over at least the last month. See block log for more in a short while. And Karmafist, this block was on crack; run ones of this standard past ANI first for a sanity check, 'cos this one fails it - David Gerard 22:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Names are Fixbeforeigo, Regforafd, Creativenamehere, Waterguy and (most of the edits) IP 24.17.48.241. I'm sure if they want to stop messing about they'll be in touch by email and can pick a name - David Gerard 22:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I will not pursue this matter further. I sincerely hope that karmafist will learn something from this incident. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, thanks for clearing this up. Mailer's a good editor, so it was a preventative matter until it was settled and it looks like it's settled. Sorry for any consternation. karmafist 23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • GF or not, I don't think it's a "preventative matter" you should have been doing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User W00811 has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:W00811 has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 22:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, it's Willy again... Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Interesting side effects when two admins simultaneously revert a page move... All cleaned-up now, in either case. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hehehe, I guess that's what happens for a sysop who's cleaning WoW the first time. :P - Mailer Diablo 22:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Confirmed WoW. - Mailer Diablo 22:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

202.152.162.216

The anonymous IP 202.152.162.216(talk) has been warned several times and is almost always reverted. It has been given a severe "final" warning by an admin and yet it went ahead a day later in two different periods and did it again. It continually changes categories and adds unneeded and unwanted new categories for fictional animals that are too specific. I think it needs a longer block than usual, say perhaps a week. Hu 15:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It is also using IP 202.152.162.215(talk) Hu 16:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked both for 3 hours. This seems to be a misguided user who simply doesn't understand how categories work. However, as he is noncommunicative, there's no point in trying to reason or educate him, regrettably. Hopefully, this short block will get his attention. As this is a first block of a user with some valid edits, I'm reluctant to apply a longer block. Let me know if he continues in the same pattern when the block expires. Owen× ☎ 16:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a dynamic IP address from an Indonesian ISP. So, longer blocks may not be suitable. Rather a note to the ISP's abuse contact (spam and abuse report : abuse@indosat.com, abuse@palapanet.com) may be a better option, if the vandalism persists. --Ragib 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

GMB (talk · contribs)

The user GMB is making several politically-motivated remarks toward users on his talk page. Regardless of his arguments, he has ignored two warnings to stop, and is now on a third and final warning. On December 24 he was blocked for 24 hours through 3RR, with 12 hours added to that for his personal attacks then. Most of these attacks are aimed at User:Natalinasmpf. The continued personal attacks mean that, if he makes any further attacks, he will be blocked for another 36 hour period. Hedley 23:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:GMB indefinitely, because of his continued disruption, particularly his refusal to stop making particularly pointed personal attacks. Could someone with more experience than I please review. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

From the contribution at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GMB&diff=prev&oldid=32837411, GMB has called someone a Holocaust denier, which is a crime in some nations. I have looked at this block and I deem it to be fair. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That's enough to get someone blocked? In some countries, it's probably illegal for women to show their faces in public or to access Wikipedia, but damn, having to follow every law of every country, contradictory ones even, is pretty hardcore.Tommstein 09:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While we mainly have to follow US law here, IIRC, but I wanted to point that fact out to those who are not from the USA that something like this could get someone in trouble. And, with all of the recent problems we have been having for the past few weeks, something as serious as this remark should be taken seriously by the administrators of Wikipedia. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for calling someone a holocaust denier. He was blocked for persistent disruption, which including POV-pushing and hurling abuse at other users. When informed of such policies as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:DICK and WP:AGF, he declared that he could never follow them, because that would just be giving the Communists what they want. WP:NPOV is a leftist conspiracy to prevent accuracy. When informed of his block for WP:3RR on $SOMEARTICLEOROTHER, he declared that User:Natalinasmpf was a "Communist child". He decided that, when User:Hedley warned him for incivility, Hedley was also part of the hard leftist conspiracy on Wikipedia (it's like the Jewish Cabal, only we have to worship Marx instead of God!). When FrancisTyers waded in, he accused him (?), for no reason that I or anyone else could see, of being equivalent to a "holocaust denier" because he hadn't instantly declared "adequate disgust" with the "Communists". And all that's before I mention his disruption to other pages on Wikipedia. So, no, it wasn't because he used the words "holocaust denier" — that was just the last straw. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The holocaust denier thing isn't quite like it sounds, but a rhetorical flourish of commie-hatred: it's Stalin's "holocaust" GMB is accusing somone of neglecting or denying. If that makes a difference. Anyway, there's nothing unfair about the block, as the article editing is terrible and the talkpage worse, and people certainly have tried with him. But in keeping with Wikipedia's proud tradition of ridiculous tolerance for very new users (GMB only started editing on Christmas Eve) I still think a week-long block might be tried first, with a clear warning that indefinite blocking will follow on its heels if he goes on in the same way when it expires. It doesn't look, from the talkpage, as if he really took the block warnings seriously: he seems quite but-I'm-the-GOOD-guy incredulous about them. Also, nobody mentioned "indefinite", and the reasonable reading of the warnings he was given was probably that he might face another 36-hour block at worst. The difference, psychologically, between a week and indefinite would—optimistically—be that the week might make him see that we mean it, without imposing the hurdle of a potentially humiliating promise to "behave". And it would be very simple to re-block indefinitely if he comes back shouting, there would be no need for any further warnings or blandishings. Bishonen | talk 07:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He just started a few days ago and started all of this? Wow. While I think that he still should be punished for what he has said, if you wish to reduce the block, you will have no objections from me either. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 07:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI -- nobody on Wikipedia has the authority to "punish" anyone for anything. You will not find the word "punish" in any of its forms in the blocking policy, nor is punishment given as one of the duties of Wikipedia administrators. The purpose of blocking is to prevent specific kinds of harm to the project; it is not to reform the person, or to work retribution upon him.

This is an encyclopedia project and not a prison, army, or for that matter a BDSM club. People who are interested in punishing others should consider signing up for those instead. --FOo 08:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What other word should I have used: sanction? forced vacation? Regardless, I still think that GMB should get the message that he is not allowed to attack anyone personally or use remarks as he has used before. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not a matter of what words to use. If you're thinking "punish" I hope you will write "punish" ... rather than hide your intention behind some kind of political correctness. But if your goal is to punish people for saying the wrong thing, you aren't doing Wikipedia any favors. We've seen enough of folks setting themselves up as tin-pot authorities and sitting in personal judgment of other people's virtue. That kind of thing does a lot of damage to the project.

If someone is disrupting the project, then administrators can block them to prevent that disruption. But the purpose of blocking isn't punishment; it's to directly prevent the continuation of the disruption. In this case, there's an account that isn't being used for anything but disruption, so blocking makes sense -- there isn't a real contributor here. (Because of that, "punishment" would be ironic in the extreme -- this isn't a contributor with an interest in being here other than to be a jerk; so what exactly would he be deprived of -- jerkspace?) --FOo 11:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I just received the following from him, by email:

Hurry up and unblock me Gallagher. I'm not going to let small children, communists, tax eaters and the more generally ignorant get away with this.

I'd like to respectfully suggest that, if unblocked, he would probably continue to cause disruption. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I was maybe thinking an indefinite block is too harsh, as he's not a 'vandal', but that sort of makes me more certain it's right. Hedley 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mandy Moore uber-vandals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:66.225.247.182

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

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

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

Anybody home?

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

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

Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

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

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

Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes

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

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

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

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

As a result of the failure of the quality control process in Wikipedia a prolific and competent editor has left the project. [77] Pilatus 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Pilatus 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)