Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anittas (talk | contribs) at 07:10, 26 January 2006 (→‎About removing warnings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    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



    Revealing personal information

    About a month ago, Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) revealed personal information (name, workplace and position held at that workplace) about another user, a registered wikipedian, as discussed above. This obviously needs to be deleted from the archives of wikipedia, and I have given her the chance to report it here. She hasn't done that in the few hours since I posted the {{Pinfo4}} template on her talk page, which couldn't be expected from her in such short notice. However, I don't want to wait any longer. She also claims to have told the other wikipedian's employer that he is using the company's computer and internet connection to edit wikipedia. What needs to be done about her? A block might be in order, although I'm not sure it still is an option a month after the offence. But if she needs to be blocked, for how long? 24 hours? 1 week? 1 month? Indefinitely? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the point in blocking a month after the fact? Blocks are remedial, not punitive. However, WP:BP#Personal attacks which place users in danger is clear enough that a block may be imposed immediately such an attack is discovered; I rather suppose the policy has in mind that the block still be pertinent to the fact. -Splashtalk 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand; What remediation is ever provided by imposing a block after personal information has been posted? Surley blocks in these circumstances are, if not "punitive," at least meant to discourage the behavior. Tom Harrison Talk 23:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A block will prevent the editor from adding the information again. The editor having not apparently done so, a block wouldn't be stopping anything. There is a case, sometimes, for 'electric fence' blocks, but there's really no case for much at all a month after the fact. -Splashtalk 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) has edited wikipedia since I posted the warning on her talk page, so she must have seen the "You've got a new message" box. I presume she has and I presume she has viewed her talk page and seen the template. She has not requested the deletion of the edit from the archives, as instructed by the template ("If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia."), so I will do it on her behalf. The edit concerned is this one, the comment can currently be found here. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I have now become a bit too involved, so I won't do it myself, but I think that what Tina has said on that talk page ("... his superiors are being informed about his Vandalism! I highly doubt that he is going to consider this very funny after his system is inspected!") is consistent with {{threatban}}: "Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or work-related, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user, are immediately blocked." Aecis Mr. Mojo risin'
    I emailed the victim of the attack, after I posted here, and he advised that T. Barber did indeed contact his superiors and also posted his name/work info on her own personal forums requesting those participants also contact his employer.
    At the time she did this, a number of Wiki editors posted on the talk page asking T. Barber why she did this and telling her it was against Wiki policy and that an apology was in order, but she didn't offer one or remove her post.
    Us being new users to Wikipedia, we didn't know what/if further action could be taken. It took a little time before I found this site to ask about this.
    This caused considerable grief for the editor she "outed", but since the administrators didn't take any further action, he thought acts like that must be allowed by Wiki, so he hasn't posted since.
    Will there be any further action taken? Once the person gets the Pino4 template, is there follow-up or does it just become inert if she doesn't respond to that template?
    Because someone also tracked my IP address (again, being new, I sometimes was forgetting to "sign in" to Wiki)and posted my name on the page also, after that one. I don't know if that were her also or not. They used the name "Aslan" (shows IP address 70.35.67.56 03:33 before name), but I've since learned about "sock puppets", so maybe it was her and she figured nobody stopped her before so why not do it again. When it happened to me, that moderator didn't say anything about it, so again, I figured it was alright with Wiki too. I don't know if they have been able to track my employer yet.
    I hope somebody can help us with these incidents because if this continues, editors are going to be pretty worried that their personal info is vulnerable if they post here.

    MilesD. 02:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have wondered if maybe a technical solution might help. It seems that right now when these incidents happen there is a tension between on the one hand keeping the edit history as intact as possible for a number of reasons, not least of which is to preserve evidence that the offending editor did this thing, and on the other hand to preserve the privacy and thus the safety of the victim.
    I wonder, what would be the practicality of the following procedure: when there is a reported attempt to "out" personal information, the page in question is temporarily pulled; the portions which represent the sensitive information are processed with one of the common hashing/checksum algorithms, and replaced with a template expression giving the length and checksum of the redacted personal information? This would preserve as much evidence as possible but still preserve the editor's privacy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now requested a sock check to see if Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) is 70.35.67.56 (talk · contribs). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 10:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it's happening again. Another post today, with just an IP address, showing a link to Tina Barber's personal website listing the personal names and information of people who may not even be on Wiki or are on Wiki but not using their "real" names. The post is as follows:
    "In response to the "others" statement that over 50% of the existing ISSR breeders left in '97-98, at Tina's request, I have reviewed the database and put it into a live web page that can be shared with the entire Shiloh fancy. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/otherBreeders.htm.
    "I am also preparing other documented data pages that will clearly dispell the objections that have been raised by the "other" "editors".
    207.200.116.133 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)"
    Also, if possible, could you please check these potential sock puppet IP addresses 70.35.67.56 (as already noted by Aecis) and 207.200.116.133 (yesterday's poster) and name "Aslan" (the "name" of the poster who revealed my personal info) to both Tina Barber and also poster "TrillHill", as I do think there is a chance one or the other, or both are using these IPs and/or names to reveal personal information, as TrillHill will sometimes place posts saying Tina Barber has asked her to post (I don't know if maybe Tina Barber was blocked during those times). I'm sorry for this obvious hassle in trying to stop this, but I don't know where else to turn and it's getting really bad. Thank you very much for helping. MilesD. 06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the request to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser, so that those with m:CheckUser privileges can check on these users. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, again, this poster, T. Barber (who also signs as MaShiloh and who knows how many sockpuppets), has placed 3 new posts today on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog page, revealing two personal names.
    Here is the link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog#Reply_to_New_Draft
    The two posts are as follows:
    "I have put a lot of time into preparing a reply page that would clarify a LOT of the BS that has been presented via the "objections" proposed by <name snip> I certainly hope that the editors here will take the time to visit this link & read the FACTS!!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/numbers.htm MaShiloh 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)"
    More BS ... <name snip>, you were there when Gary announced his *new* registry ... do I have to get others to sign statements to that effect?? That's when I brought the SSDCA, Inc. back into the picture ... not after the Grand Island standoff when I left *his* club .. but after I found out that he was starting a registry!! Granted, he didn't publish it till Feb .. but I have proof that the plan was in the works as of Nov. 97!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    "Oh <name snip>, give it up!! If everyone that walks on this earth, joins a club, visits a show, or even joins a school is called a *breeder* then everyone's stat's are way off!! I have 1087 members on our forum .. should I call all of *them* "breeders"??? I think that if you check the Wiki .. some place it's got to clearly show that only a person that BRED a litter --is a *breeder* What about the folks that go to a car lot to test drive a new car?? How many of them buy it?? Can you call all of them "buyers"?? Some are just "potential" buyers!!! Same with our LB's .. some may never breed a litter ... but they signed up to get licensed & will stay there till they leave ... period!!!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but this is ridiculous and something more immediate needs to be done. These numerous personal names are all sitting out there on these Wiki pages, this poster has ignored the warning to remove them, has contacted at least one person's employer, has encouraged others to contact an employer, our administrator(s) haven't stopped it, and frankly, we want our personal info off these pages and for this person to be stopped from using them freely and obviously, without any concern that they will be stopped. Please, I am asking for someone to please take some definitive action ....enough is enough, already.

    Thank you. MilesD. 03:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    :Wikipedia Admin,Please Read Today, January 25th on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog discussion page, Under "Original Research vs. third party":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog
    In a post that ShenandoahShilohs wrote, a "Tina M. Barber" not only broke up the article but referred to the poster twice by their personal name.


    Revision as of 22:23, January 25, 2006 Tina M. Barber (Talk | contribs) New history draft

    "Oh <name snip>, give it up!! I....."

    "More BS ... <name snip>, you were there....."

    This has become a common practice for Tina M. Barber in multiple replies and no one is taking action. It seems that there have been warnings issued on December 28, 2005 and December 30, 2005, followed by a serious warning of an unknown date. It would appear that the protection of other editors continues to be threatened as she continues to disregard Wikipedia admin. warnings and continues to use personal names in her posts and threaten editors work arena by contacting editors places of work.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tina_M._Barber
    Tina M. Barber is getting more and more hostile and the continued use of personal names is extremely disturbing. She has crossed serious Wikipedia rules by doing this and contacting editors work arenas in attempts to get editors fired from their jobs. Are the policies truly considered serious if people can continue to break them on Wikipedia over and over and over again? If these are truly serious breeches of the Wikipedia rules and policies, can someone tell me and the other editors, why she has not been banned?
    Concerned Editor,

    --iamgateway 04:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate page move protection by User:Radiant!

    Radiant! (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) recently has been moving Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates to Wikipedia:No meta-templates, a name that has not been proposed on the talk page and one that I specifically disagreed with. Regardless of what page name is best, and their are several alternate suggestions on the talk page by many users, what matters more is that Radiant! moved the page at 23:40, and then immediately protected it from page moves. -- Netoholic @ 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    On the talk page, Netoholic had proposed that "Avoid using meta-templates" be renamed to a stronger term, e.g. not using the word "avoid". Recently, I've done just that, making it "No meta-templates" (which also conforms nicely with other policy page names) and updated the many redirects. Netoholic is apparently angry with me (see Talk:Leet for the dispute) and has reverted this (breaking the redirects in the progress) on grounds that it "wasn't proposed on the talk page". Now 1) a good-faith rename needn't be discussed, and 2) he was the one that proposed this in the first place. Since he didn't respond to my question why, I've protected the page from moving for a short while, because moving back-and-forth is a bit pointless. Of course it's now in m:the wrong version. I'm just posting the notification here, this is verging on the WP:LAME. Radiant_>|< 23:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please point to anywhere I said "No meta-templates" was good name (never have). And besides, I've obviously recently said I disagree with that name, and so have others. But really, how AT ALL does that warrant you page move warring then the PROTECTING the page? The first time I reverted your rename was on 1/16 before the discussion began about Leet. I didn't break any redirects, because you only just now changed them. It is your recent actions that seem to indicate bad-faith vindictiveness. -- Netoholic @ 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point protection is warranted so that the various issues can be discussed. This morning I actually advocated re-writing the policy entirely because it currently defines "meta-templates" in a way which excludes 90% of the templates which are being held to fall under the policy and concentrates exclusively on 'meta' templates while those are really only one aspect of the real problems. There are alot of different ideas which need to be worked out. --CBD ☎ ✉ 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Radiant!. Netoholic has just been making a real nuisance of himself all over this policy. If a page is moved a few times in quick succession, it seems reasonable to protect it from moves until consensus is achieved. I think most people working on that policy have almost exhausted their patience with Netoholic. --Gareth Hughes 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse this block to sort it out in calm. Move wars are bad. Netoholic seems to quickly feel personally attacked by the slightest disagreement with him. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I get that right? Radiant! Gets into an edit war with Netoholic, and then Radiant! protects the page at his prefered version! Since the edit war is continuing, I have now reprotected the page. Sort it out the pair of you, please. --Doc ask? 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it needs full protection, or even move protection, as long as Radiant! respects the fact that he's currently the only one that wants that specific name. We've got many suggestions on talk, and even discussion about a page overhaul. It was just premature to move it, and of course, improper for Radiant! to protect it. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The disagreement between Radiant and Netoholic emerged about Leet (a whole different page) and then went over to a move war on WP:AUM. WP:LAME indeed on both sides to varying degree. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but after Radiant! got involved with Leet, and I chastised him for inserting unsourced information, that he moved this page again today in an act I can only interpret as spite. He knows how to push people's buttons, for sure. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please. You claim someone acting in bad faith against you every time someone pushes Save page.
    Other admins, Netoholic is currently in violation of:
    Doesn't this warrant a block yet? — Omegatron 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say this warrants a block. But the question is what this would help. This is a wiki. We do have to learn how to integrate the good sides of Netoholic. And, believe it or not, the timining of the move that Radiant did on WP:AUM couldn't have barely be worser (in so far I must agree with Neto as per "knowing how to push Neto's button", the thing is this button is so prominent on Neto's surface that it takes an extreme amount of self control not to touch it). The tricky thing is that Netoholic has sound technical knowledge but cannot accept opposition to any of his edits. The worst thing Netoholic did in the past was at template:language where the people around that (Garzo and others) have clearly stated that they are about to implement WP:AUM but Netoholic constantly pushes his own "Netoholic way" of how to implement that. For Neto, speed of implementing WP:AUM seems to go over anything else. Maybe a block for a week or two would be in order, but do not expect that Neto will change his mind by that. This would at least give the people at template language time to implement their solution without interruption by Netoholic. Sorry for my long post but this Neto thing his very delicate. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it true that restrictions placed on Netoholic by ArbCom are actually in place?

    2.1) Netoholic is banned from editing in the Wikipeedia and template namespaces for twelve months, and restricted to one revert per page per day. This remedy is suspended while the mentorship in remedy 3 is in effect, and may be cancelled if the mentors consider the mentorship has been successful. The twelve months is counted from the date of the arbitration committee decision.

    Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

    This remedy was suspended while Netoholic was under mentorship. However, the update clearly states that the mentorship failed and the above ban is in effect. There is no notice to say otherwise, so I believe that Netoholic has been in contravention of this ban since July. I would like clear opinion on this statement, as this user has been particularly rude and disruptive of late and there seems to have been no remedy for his actions. --Gareth Hughes 12:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is a somewhat complex situation. Yes, he is banned from Wikipedia and Template namespaces, and that is technically in force ever since the mentorship failed. About amonth ago he made a request on RFAr that this ban be lifted. The ArbCom has not responded to that, except for a short remark by Raul654 that "several arbitrators (myself and David Gerard in particular) have expressed approval of what Netoholic has been doing vis-a-vis killing metatemplates and possibly creating some sort of exception for that." The point is really that Neto is doing a good job on templates, but doing it in an overly abrasive way. Also, he's been doing some things not related to templates (e.g. Leet) that are something less than a good job.
      • The easiest solution would be to simply enforce the ban as imposed, until and unless the ArbCom sees fit to change that.
      • A more productive solution would be to allow him to continue to do good work on templates, but have someone watch him to for instance impose a zero-revert rule and a personal attack parole. That would be somewhat akin to his earlier mentorship. However, it is quite possible that such a watcher would find himself between a rock and a hard place.
      • And of course the third solution would be to ignore it as we have now, and hope the incivility doesn't get out of hand.
    • Radiant_>|< 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I will unblock instantly if anyone blocks Netoholic over this. He's enforcing an oft-disregarded policy and taking the time to do it properly, and a majority of members of the arbitration committee have given him their explicit consent to do so - preventing this sort of activity was not what anyone had in mind with the original ban. Trying to bring this here is a blatant way of trying to override Wikipedia policy by having the messenger banned, and that simply will not stand. Ambi 15:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are interested I can provide you with a lot of edits which can clearly not be referred to as "He's enforcing an oft-disregarded policy". I would rather say he is often enforcing his way to implement WP:AUM, ignoring other ideas and threatening people with his edit warring and wikilawyering. It seems to me you are applying here WP:IAR, but this at a very high cost. By the way, we do not need Netoholic to implement WP:AUM. He is not the only one who does and is able to implement it. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Newest example: [1]. Others on request. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which actions of Netoholic has the ArbCom explicity given their consent to? I'm not questioning the truth of your statement, but I am interested in exactly what the ArbCom consented to. Carbonite | Talk 15:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find Ambi's comment unhelpful. It gives Netoholic blanket approval to be as disruptive as he likes. The key word is enforcement: it is not Netoholic's job to enforce any policy. In fact, giving a user who has a history of uncivil conduct such powers is bound to cause problems. If the ArbCom are serious about lifting the ban, they should do so on the relevant page. The consensus here is growing that we need tools to control Netoholic's consistent incivility. Giving him unblockable status in this way will make the situation worse: he already seems to think he can do anything. --Gareth Hughes 15:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ambi, please read my previous post again and what I said about a more productive solution? While Neto is certainly working on an oft-disregarded policy, there is substantial doubt on whether he is doing it properly. If you don't believe me, check his contribs log for the last few days and count the amount of revert wars and personal attacks. There has been a request by him on the RFAr page to rescind his probation for over a month now, that only a single arbiter has responded to. It is a longstanding tradition that good edits do not by themselves excuse bad edits, and if in upholding one policy (AUM) he is breaking several others (CIV/NPA/AGF, WP:POINT and the spirit of 3RR) he is not doing a good job. Radiant_>|< 16:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ambi, please read through the relevant discussions, the ArbCom, and Netoholic's actions before making such statements. Wheel warring isn't helpful.
    Netoholic is enforcing his interpretation of WP:AUM, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's doing it correctly or in a way that the developers would approve of. If you read WP:AUM and Jamesday's comments again, you'll see that constant editing of templates is just as bad for server load as templates within templates, and Netoholic's constant revert warring of templates is actually a violation of WP:AUM.

    preventing this sort of activity was not what anyone had in mind with the original ban.

    Actually, it is. "Netoholic was arguably completely technically correct — but he interacted so negatively with others that he actually convinced people he was not." In spite of him being correct about templates, he was banned by the ArbCom because of his behavior, which hasn't improved a bit.

    Trying to bring this here is a blatant way of trying to override Wikipedia policy by having the messenger banned, and that simply will not stand.

    This has nothing to do with the developer-mandated policy. It has to do with his behavior, which hasn't changed at all since the ban or mentorship. We can handle the policy without his "help". No one appointed him as the enforcer of WP:AUM. (And if they did, he's doing a bad job at it, anyway; ignoring the parts that are inconvenient for him.) — Omegatron 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really disappointing to see my efforts being mischaracterized like this. I have recieved several compliments on my template conversions, and in fact, that conversion has inspired many creative uses for templates. In the months that my ban was fully in force, I stayed away, happily. I was drawn back by people contacting me about templates, and specifically the abominations that are the "conditional templates". Unfortunately, because of the nature of how wide-spread my work is in template-land, I have a much higher chance of running into the occasional cliques and OWNers. I can do nothing more than provide the alternative and point to the justification (WP:AUM). Often, I will try convincing them for a few days, even providing fully working replacements for them, and then leave it be for a few days. Everyone speaking negatively of me in this thread (except Radiant!, oddly) is someome that has had one of their templates challenged by me. I am still "completely technically correct", but that just makes egos bruised even more because they think I'm implying, by fixing or challenging their use of templates, that they've done bad work. All I want is to do is make things better. -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone speaking negatively of me in this thread (except Radiant!, oddly) is someome that has had one of their templates challenged by me.
    And me.
    All I want is to do is make things better.
    How many times are you going to say that without acting on it? You must be aware of the problems many many editors have with your behavior, so why do you persist in it? Do you seriously believe that you're doing the right thing when everyone tells you that you're not? Do you just enjoy pissing people off? Your behavior is not justified by this or any other policy. — Omegatron 19:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you too. I don't have problems with "many many editors", only a couple quite vocal ones who've decided I'm ruining their wikilife by trying to make their templates better. How can you say "everyone" tells me I'm not doing the right thing when at least 4 arbitrators in just the last week have concurred that I'm doing the right thing? My behavior has been exemplary, and my patience has been abundant. For months, Omegatron, you have had a specific agenda against me, one that borders on harassment. You and I never interact any more, so really shouldn't have any comment. Yet, when someone mentions my name, you join right in and flame the shit out of me, just like always. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Prettytable?? The one where I agreed that it was unnecessary and helped turn it into a css class? — Omegatron 03:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you don't have a problem with "many many editors" but you do seem to have a problem with most editors you interact with. Apparently everyone that has had one of their templates challenged by you is someone that speaks negatively of you. The pattern is pretty obvious. Radiant_>|< 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've got your logic reversed... the people here complaining have had there templates challenged by me. I make a ton of edits in the template space, of which the smallest fraction turn into problems. When "standardisers working in good faith clash with those working on articles", it's probably impossible to expect that every interaction will work out perfectly. I do try and respect the aims of those others, and try to present alternatives in good faith. What's happening here, especially with Garzo, Omegatron, and Adrian Buehlmann, is a pile on attack. They see weakness in an adversary, and go for it. I don't want anyone to think, for one second, that their very vocal presence represents the entirety of my experience here on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 20:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you can point people to some examples of where your work has been appreciated (and note here that just because nobody noticed your unilateral changes and didn't complain doesn't mean it met with approval). And in any event, it's your behavior and attitude when you are confronted with objections that really convinces me you shouldn't be enforcing WP:AUM (let alone violating the ArbCom ban against you). Instead of working with people (or accepting that they don't like your "solutions"), you accuse them of being WP:OWNers and/or cliques (see above), when in fact it's more likely they're actually a consensus. I also like your underhanded tactic of forcing the issue with people by nominating meta-templates they rely upon at WP:TFD (see: Template:Language). So you couldn't convince them at their templates talk page, so let's try and screw them over entirely by pulling the rug out from underneath them. Bravo! *rollseyes* —Locke Cole • t • c 09:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Netoholic and I don't agree on alot of things (like... say, which way is 'up'), but his hard work has certainly been appreciated by many people. I recall seeing thanks for his work on the 'warbox' (now 'Infobox Military campaign' or something like that), 'Infobox City', something with dog breeds, and several others... just from what I've seen in floating around the same areas. No, compromise and dealing with conflict aren't his strongest suits, but where those issues don't arise he has done a tremendous amount of very beneficial work. His conversion of the 'taxobox' template was a major accomplishment that is now being used extensively. The 'pulling the rug out' analogy isn't inaccurate, but it is usually possible to be standing by with a new rug for the nice people and little harm done. --CBD ☎ ✉ 19:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not really interacted with Netoholic that much during this meta template brou-ha-ha, but I have done so a little. I find the user's attitude to be unhelpful, unnecessarily confrontational, and prone to unilateral actions without so much as letting people know what is going on. A prime example of this is Template:Ship table. It was previously a hodge-podge of template code, extremely complicated and prone to breaking if people did not follow complex instructions exactly. I then switched it over to the IF and then QIF templates because they were an elegant solution to the problem of optional rows. This, of course, is part of the series of actions that have provoked howls from the devs about server load. A few days ago I was alerted by another member of the Wikiproject Ships that Netoholic had unilaterally declared my template to be deprecated due to the crusade against meta templates. Netoholic had also developed a 'replacement' that used the CSS trick for hiding rows. Other users had tried to turn Ship table into a version without QIF by using the CSS trick and had nearly succeeded. There were three or four examples of QIF that needing expunging. When I found out what was going on I got rid of the last examples of QIF from the template since the really wanted functionality, ie hidden optional rows in a table, is now available in a way that does not overload the servers. I did this in a manner which did not break existing tables using the template at all. If I could do that in less than an hour why did Netoholic not post a message on my talk page about the possible solutions to the meta template situation? Why did Netoholic not work with me to fix the Ship table template? Why was it someone else who alerted me to what was going on? It is because Netoholic is behaving like a bull in a china shop and is consequently being very disruptive to Wikipedia's smooth running. I see no reason for relaxing the ArbCom ruling, and if it has been relaxed it should go back into effect fully. The negative contributions of Netoholic to Wikipedia are vastly outweighing the positive at the moment. David Newton 01:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is clear that a number of users find Netoholic difficult to work with, particularly when working on templates. It is also clear that ArbCom has found against Netoholic and has issued a ban against editing templates. The revoking of this ban has not been clearly set out. --Gareth Hughes 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Netoholic's request for clarification about his ban is here.

    The "policy" that Netoholic is enforcing was written by himself in February 2005, in response to a comment in January that he didn't have the authority to say "calling one template from another is a bad practice". It was originally his interpretation of developer Jamesday's comments about Sister Project templates, though it has been warred over perpetually since then.

    He persisted in trying to make it a guideline, which was heavily disputed. It was eventually declared policy and his ban violations ignored, strictly because of the connections to "lead developer" Jamesday and the server load issue. Recently, the claims about server load and the consensus of the developers were largely invalidated by lead developer Brion Vibber. His comments on the issue were, of course, immediately removed by Netoholic, and guideline status re-imposed.

    So, basically, he wrote up his own policy and used its status as an excuse for all kinds of abusive behavior, knowing that admins like Ambi have his back no matter how disruptive he is.

    Funny... he was accused of doing the exact same thing two years ago on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television).

    Do you see improvement in his behavior? I don't. — Omegatron 20:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I especially find him whinging about WP:OWN hilarious when you realise he's in the middle of this particular little shtstrm. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Disrespect of community opinion from an admin

    Jimbo just closed the CFD on Category:Living people against 88% delete — three times. ZOMG DISRESPECT FOR TEH COMMUNITY!! I fully expect some idiot to block him for "disruption" - David Gerard 21:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    -) The issue here, if we want to wax philosophical for a moment, is the knee jerk taking of things to CfD (or AfD) lacking any sort of discussion. The category was created this morning by Danny and amost immediately placed on CfD, and then a bunch of votes came pouring in with absolutely zero acknowledgement of the reasons the category was created in the first place.
    Thoughtful consensus requires us to elevated reasoned slow discussion over kneejerk proceduralism.--Jimbo Wales 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ROTFL. Ok. I've had my laugh for the day. You had me going for a moment. I was about to edit with an instinctive "That's no Admin, that's the boss" type response, until I looked again at who the comment was from. Good one. :) - TexasAndroid 22:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, blocked. You just spend that time thinkihng about what consensus means, OK? --Celestianpower háblame 22:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple; it's a crap idea. If you want something like this, I could make a list in minutes of articles that have a birth category but no death category, that way we won't have to go to the effort of adding another category to multiple 100,000 articles, and wont have the extra category clogging up our already over categorised articles. Martin 22:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of dead people don't have a death date - David Gerard 22:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Another positive side effect. We can add them. Martin 22:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, ANI gets far to full, can we take any content debate elsewhere (like [2]). Comment on the process if you like. Me, I think the debate is somewhat over. --Doc ask? 22:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, lots of people don't have a birth date either... but we can definitely say if they're alive. Shimgray | talk | 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How many have this new category though? I think possibly a lot less. Martin 22:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This diff comment is priceless. [3] Hall Monitor 22:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    is this a test to see if we have any guts? If we blindly follow like sheep and start categorizing under Living people, do we fail that test?--Alhutch 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If I assume good faith on that comment, it comes out remarkably dumb. So I'll assume you're being subtly witty - David Gerard 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    please disregard my comment.--Alhutch 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What is with people's antipathy towards this? This feels to me like people rebelling because their precious community isn't quite as important as they thought. Don't worry, you don't have to categorise anything if you don't want to. [[Sam Korn]] 23:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have yet to hear rationaly how having these in a category will make wikipedia better in any way. The idea that it helps to NPOV them is not based in reality. It will just waste the time of good editors. Martin 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is simply another examle of an fair-to-average idea that, since it wasn't explained or discussed with the "community" first, goes over like a lead zeppelin. Smashing dissent is bad, but "knee-jerk" reactions can often be avoided by a little prose beforehand. Was this talked about on the pump or signpost before its creation? As to the actual cat, it's poorly executed, but an ok concept. We shouldn't be using categories for meta-data, but having a tag of some description that allows us to identify articles that are potential "problems" is good sense. This category actually worked. While mocking it for being the dumbest thing ever (prior to its purpose being explained on IRC) I looked at the only article in the category at that time. Here's the result: [4]. Is there some reason that we are all thumbs when it comes to this sort of change? - brenneman(t)(c) 23:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussing is fine, but a wiki doesn't require people to make an argument for creation. Remember the all-important phrase: If in doubt, don't delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea has been kicked around on wikien-l before, in the post-Seigenthaler debate; I recognised it when it was announced, certainly. Shimgray | talk | 00:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    wikien-l != wikipedia - brenneman(t)(c) 01:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    agree.--Alhutch 01:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again those of us not on wikien-l or IRC are left behind. -- nae'blis (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not prohibited from joining. [[Sam Korn]] 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not, but I didn't come here with the understanding that I would be required to be in three places to get the full picture. If the discussion page of the Category itself had been used to explain the rationale here, as Aaron Brenneman says, a lot of this could have been avoided. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears this is not in fact the case, and a lot gets decided there. WP:ANI isn't all of Wikipedia either. - David Gerard 14:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo is right. David is right. If the procedures are so moribund that they're needlessly killing good stuff, we should rely on administrators to use their brains and look behind the numbers. Any administrator should feel proud to refuse to delete an article or other organizational component of the encyclopedia if he isn't happy that an argument has been made for its deletion. The article can always be deleted another day if it's really so bad. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    But the procedure being moribund should not be an excuse for revert wars or wheel wars. As you said yourself, use your brains (and I would add, instead of your admin tools). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence of wheel warring here. In fact I see no deletions or undeletions at all on this category. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all a bit besides the point, but don't you think it is a bit of a stretch to jump from "Jimbo's word is law" to "Any andmin can do whatever he pleases, as long as he's called Tony" (which, with all due respect, seems to be your opinion on a lot of things lately) ? -- Ferkelparade π 13:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    How on earth did we get 88% delete on a necessary maintainence category? Was there confusion about what it was for? -- SCZenz 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Err, yes? That's exactly the problem. It wasn't clear what this was for, it wasn't widely discussed, and in the absence of that, asking for it to be deleted wasn't unreasonable. Looking back at ads on the wiki, then on to user boxes, and now this, it begins to appear that someone is trying to make a point. In every one of these cases, having some modicum of respect for the peons and taking a week or two to talk about it and explain it first would have been the smart thing to do. Why are things continuing to be done the hardest way possible, followed by cheers from some quarters of "Hooray for us! Stick it to 'em!" ?? - brenneman(t)(c) 02:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking for clarification would have been even less unreasonable. [[Sam Korn]] 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Explaining on-wiki the need for a new administrative supercategory might have been even more reasonable. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The reasons they gave for keeping the category were adbrupt and unclear - that and the fact that someone (in this case jimbo himself) blanked the page several times throughout the debate... plus the "delete voters" had several rather valid points either way they were hard to ignore. WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Clucking and shaking your heard about this won't do. Just use your head. Categories and articles should not be needlessly deleted. Take note of the clear message and act accordingly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again and again I ask: Why chose the most disruptive method? It's all very well to say the first ten or fifteen times "why waste time with the process, I'll just do the right thing". Eventually it must become clear that more time will be wasted by acting unilaterally. At that point, if the disruptive behavior continues, surely reasonable people can ask, "Is there some other motivation"?
    brenneman(t)(c) 08:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact in this case nothing was deleted, and no discontinuity occurred. A few people who couldn't imagine that a category of living people could serve a useful purpose in the wake of the Seigenthaler affair came away disappointed that they didn't get to watch another category go into the memory hole, but I'm sure they'll get over it. The use of the word "disruption" here is somewhat wide of the mark.
    As for your continual personal sniping, surely you recognise that Jimbo Wales and Tony Sidaway are two quite separate individuals inhabiting different continents and with quite distinct opinions, that he cannot be held responsible for my actions and I cannot be held responsible for his. Speculation that we may have a common motive for choosing a course of action of which you, personally, may disapprove and believe to be disruptive is isn't really going to help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing everyone who opposed this in CfD as deletionist maniacs isn't helpful, Tony. The fact is that a lot of the discussion (not a vote?) on CfD was about alternatives such as Persondata or using birth dates/death dates to accomplish this same goal without the need to tag thousands of articles by hand. Truth is it was already a discussion, albeit lacking certain information, when it got cut-off by our fearless leader. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if you got the impression from the above that I think those involved in the discussion were "deletionist maniacs" (not the kind of language I use), and I apologise if I inadvertently permitted you to think that I think any such thing. My point pertained to people who, in deletion discussions, seem to treat them as some kind of silly game and Wikipedia something more closely resembling a school playground than a very large encyclopedia that requires maintainance. This does not give a good picture of Wikipedia decision-making; frankly the facile and unhelpful comments make me sick to my stomach. It's not about deletionism, it's about a comprehensive failure to engage with the project in a constructive manner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I see a different message than Tony sees: When Jimbo speaks, listen.
    What the situation looks like to me (from the history; I was not involved) is that the category was nominated, and Jimbo said stop. He was ignored; that was inappropriate, regardless of what objections were used to justify it. Every contributor is free to disagree with Jimbo, but they are not free to act in defiance of his authority. To make matters worse, when the vote was continued in defiance of his request that the discussion be moved, he clarified himself that the vote was to end immediately, and was ignored a second time. If that was not disrespectful enough, when he closed the CfD, he was reverted. At that point, a less patient individual would have blocked the reverter and dared anyone to think about overturning it, but he did not do that.
    It is unfortunate that this situation happened, but it is an opportunity for all of us to remember that Jimbo is the boss. When he gives orders, it is our obligation to abide by them. We are free to voice our concerns and objections, and to refuse to participate in them, but we may not act in defiance to them. In this situation, if individuals object to the category, do as you are asked and voice your objections on the talk page. If the matter is not settled to your satisfaction, then decline to participate: don't add articles to the category, and don't watch the articles in the category. But, do not act in open defiance by insisting on deleting the category; to do so is disrespectful to Jimbo, without whom we would not have this project, and is disruptive to the orderly function of the site. It has been argued that discussions such as this CfD are the operation of the rules and processes that keep the site running; however, continuing this particular CfD in opposition to Jimbo's direct orders is a disruption of the most central rule to the orderly function of Wikipedia: The final decision on any matter is reserved to Jimbo, and there is no appeal of his decision. When we forget that, then we have forgotten that which is most central to Wikipedia. Essjay Talk • Contact 08:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is the boss of human knowledge. Jimbo's intervention here should be heeded, moreso than the intervention of any other user, but ultimately Jimbo has no real authority here. The only legal or moral power Jimbo has is to temporarily force us to relocate it to a server he doesn't control. I respect Jimbo a great deal—more than almost any other living human—and I agree we should listen to Jimbo and respect his wishes. But Wikipedia is not an autocracy and Jimbo is not the benevolent dictator of human knowledge. He makes no attempt to be, either—he said so himself on C-SPAN a few months ago, and this is one of the prime reasons he is worthy of our respect. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 08:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Being a somewhat frequenter from the C2 and MeatBall wikis I see sort of where he is coming from on the CfD thing... basically that all they are is a content management system available to the public. In reality though they are terrible discussion mechanisms due to interface problems etc., plus wikis at least originally were never designed to deal with spam and if someone wanted a page they generally got it. Oh, and in the name of wikis everywhere, I just deleted the category, because I think, at the very least in its current incarnation is really bad idea - which I think may result in good discussion (for everyone except myself, of course :)). To be honest I sort of envy the nastigrams Zoe gets, so here's to some of them on my talk page! (As well as an RfC, RfAr, Immediate de-adminship what have you). At the least it is an interesting experiment and I can say that I had real BALLS! WhiteNight T | @ | C 09:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever Jimbo thinks, but this category is teh dumbest thing ever. In fact, every category that could contain >100,000 articles is pretty dumb.  Grue  09:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, that category sucks. Jimbo controls Wikipedia and what he says has to be done, but that doesn't make this category any less stupid. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 09:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, I am a bit divided here. THere are two very good arguments on both sides. For deletion: The category is ridiculous and will most certainly be horridly overpopulated if kept. For inclusion: Jimbo disagrees with the previous argument and he has the power to issue decrees. I see that RN deleted the category, since that is contrary to Jimbo's clearly expressed will I have decided to restore it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Does he though? I can't off hand recall the board vote that gave him such powers. Incedentaly how are the french and german versions of this going down?Geni 09:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he can. As I understand it, Jimbo controlls 60% of the board seats; he has one, and Michael Davis and Tim Shell were appointed by him, as will be thier successors when they leave the Board. Two memebers (Angela and Anthere) are elected. Essjay Talk • Contact 10:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How does appointing members mean you control them? They do not have to vote the same way as Jimbo. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got reservations about this category (although I'm willing to be convinced), but I agree with Essjay. Of course, no one is 'the boss of human knowledge', so you are entitled to take your human knowledge and fork off. Actually, in the end, for better and for worse, Wikipedia is an autocracy. Thankfully, the autocrat appears willing to have a discussion - so go discuss it with him. --Doc ask? 09:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Imho, the category is stupid, but if Jimbo likes it, let him have it (is this a category designed for a sort of "Living People patrol", because vandalism to LP is considered more harmful? You still need people agreeing with this, and doing it, Siegenthaler or no Siegenthaler). We have lots of stupid categories, and while there are reasons to walk away from Wikipedia in a huff, this is not one. (We could have a template "deleted but for the grace of Jimbo" or something but maybe that would be disruptive). dab (ᛏ) 10:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's slightly inaccurate. Tim and Michael rarely vote on Board issues, and Jimbo has undertaken never to vote against Angela and Anthere when they agree. [[Sam Korn]] 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, both are completely inaccurate. I do not control the board. I do not control Tim and Michael. Tim and Michael always vote on board issues. In terms of actual votes, nearly all of our actual votes have been unanimous but that's because we discuss and find consensus about what to do. In general, it is not true that Tim and Michael agree with me about everything, all the members of the board are intelligent and independent voices. Don't be misled by trolling on the encyclopedia article about me. :-)
    My special powers within the community have nothing to do with the discussion about this category, but it is probably worthwhile to discuss where they come from: the community itself. Why do we have explicit exemptions written into virtually every policy in Wikipedia? Because of overwhelming support within the community for the notion that we are freer to explore procedures for decision making under conditions of ambiguity and consensus when we also have a safety valve. It is not my intention to be the benevolent dictator of anything, but it is my intention to protect our communities core purpose against irrational rules-bound processes.--Jimbo Wales 21:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So what...it's one thing in a million...Wikipedia is not paper! It's good to be the king!--MONGO 10:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Stupidly alrge numbers of catigories don't look too good in certian skins.Geni 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    well, if 88% of people are going to refuse to use it, it'll just sit there gathering dust... dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a feeling that number is exaggerated by the number of people who can't wait to rebel against any kind of wiki authority. [[Sam Korn]] 14:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I rebel against the tyranny of the majority?--Doc ask? 14:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And can somebody please explain what this is about to those of us who don't use the IRC channel? Leithp 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One last note about all this from Jimbo: I'm the absolute first to say that things should be discussed with the community first. That is, indeed, what my big beef is about the current dysfunction of AfD/CfD. Rather than *discuss* concerns about the category (some of which are of course valid, and yes, we should discuss them), on either Danny's talk page, or on the category talk page, it was immediately put up for a deletion vote without asking questions. And then when I tried to stop the vote and hold a discussion, there was a lot of bitching and moaning as if somehow I was trying to stop the discussion! --Jimbo Wales 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh yeah, the discussion about the deletion of the thing seems to happen on the AfD/CfD page. I think this is better than on the talk pages. Why do you not agree? cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (after edit conflict): As I understand it, the proposal is for a category that would in theory apply to every biographical article for a person currently living. This would be a quite large category, albiet not the largest we have. It would surely be large enoughj not to be useful for navigation. As I understand it, the arguemnt is that it could and would be used for various mantanence tasks -- for example, via "related changes" it could allow what amounts to a special version of the recent changes page specifically for biographical articles about living people. This will only work if at lest most such articles are indeed included in the category. There may be better ways to accomplish these objectives -- at least some in the various discussions have so asserted. The category does have the advantage that it does not require and code changes to MediWiki software. And it has been endorsed by Jimbo. It seems to me that setting up a project with the defined goal of monitering biographical articles and avoiding vandalism, libel, and false info there; and discussing technical methods at such a project would have been wiser. But that isn't what the people involved chose to do. The category has been created. Jimbo has intervened agaisnt its deletion. Why not now set up such a wiki-project? The project could be a place to discuss how to use the category, and what other tools might (right away or eventually) supplement or replace the category. If the project members, including Jimbo, finally agree that the category in unneeded, its delation will probably be uncontoversial. As long as such a project is finding or considering ways to make good use of the category, I don't see why anyone ought to be intent on trying to delete it. DES (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like a crazy idea to me. But when this guy said 'what about an encyclopedia anyone can edit?' most probably thought that was a crazy idea too. So this guy (even if he wasn't the boss) should be given a lot of latitude to try out his crazy ideas. Certainly don't try to snuff them out at first sight.--Doc ask? 10:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes if we could go back to focusing on the matter at hand that would be nice. I posted this at WP:AN but I'll post it here again. This is probably the most broad category ever made on Wikipedia. Do you know how much of a hassle it's going to be to list EVERY single person who's alive. That's a pretty useless, if you ask me. I don't think we need a category to help us divide the people who are alive. I think Categories should group people/things that are unique. Unique in bieng able to list a few people/things into a category of something specific that not everyone has. Something that broad like if their alive or not is hardly useful. Navigation-wise it won't help at all, it lists basically everyone! IMHO, I think this should be put up for deletion. SWD316 talk to me 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dead people can't sue you for defamation of character. Live people can. Preventive measures with this in mind might call for the existence of the category. If Wikipedia were viewed as worth sustaining. 207.172.134.175 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Miguel de Icaza attacks me

    Hi, I'm editing the wikipedia page on Mono. User Miguel.de.Icaza is always attacking me and he calls me a DotGNU advocate. He cannot be objective at all. It is like if Bill Gates would edit the wikipedia page on Windows. Can anyone limit his access to edit the wikipedia page on Mono, so that his limit to edit he page is limited to *strictly factual*?

    My contact email is : krokas@email.su -- krokas

    Unless you stop removing comments from Talk:Mono development platform, there really isn't much to talk about. If you cannot engage in dialogue with someone there is no way to resolve your dispute. Removing comments is against Wikipedia policies, and it could lead to you losing your editing privileges. Rhobite 04:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why you don't just make everyone register before any editing and stick this to the top. If this is not allowed at all just remove this possibility. So being said this is very strange from wikipedia admins. [krokas]
    Well, please start thinking about this policy now, because it's very important. Articles are written on article pages. Comments about articles are written on talkpages. You're allowed to edit text posted by other people on article pages, that's what being a wiki means. You're not allowed to make any changes in signed comments posted by other people on talkpages, or to delete any part of them. Doing that is against policy, is dishonest (making others appear to say, and sign, something they never did say, making them appear to not have replied although they did, etc, etc), and makes dialogue impossible. Therefore, as Rhobite says, desist immediately from changing or removing other people's comments on talkpages, or there's nothing to talk about. I hope this clears things up. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    User Miguel.de.Icaza tells absolutely wrong things about me that are false. Wikipedia is not his blog and he tells non-sense. He has written false things about me in the Talk|page, and they look to have the only purpose to not allow me add my opinion, as he didn't address me. And if an opinion of anyone is different to the opinion of User Miguel.de.Icaza it doesn't mean to be a wrong one. Very indicative is that user Kesla did agree with the existence of the term. And User Miguel.de.Icaza only attacked me about the frase "Portable .NET doesn't have any problem with patents" by saying to copy/past his email to User Kesla in the Wikipedia page. Only then he started to attack me because of the term "proprietary open source", which in fact does exist, and which was used on the wikipedia page already for 2 months, before user Miguel.de.Icaza didn't start his attack to me.
    User David Björklund says in the Talk:Mono development platform "...i wrote the history-section, not de Icaza. I used this source for this (it's in the reference section on the main page)..." Yes, it just shows another time that I was right to edit the history section. An internet maillist cannot be considered as a source of verifiable information [5]:
    "...Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher..." I ask the Wikipedia administration to remove the editing possibility to user David Björklund untill the time he shows a possibility to follow the Wikipedia Policies and guidelines. [krokas]
    The source of the information for the Mono wikipedia page that is refered is [6] and specifically the sample chapter [7] which only says that Miguel de Icaza has really started the Mono project. I ask that all the extra information that was added to the history section is removed. Untill other sources of verifiable information than maillist are found please remove too the sections "Mono and Microsoft's patents" and "Software developed with Mono". Thanks. [krokas]

    Harassment - Jonah Ayers/Biff Rose

    This user, Jonah Ayers (talk · contribs), along with possible sock puppet Maslow (talk · contribs), seems to be creating articles about non-notable people for the sole purpose of harassment, in retaliation for administrative work connected to his editing. Two editors report having received menacing phone calls, apparently from Ayers. I ask whether the recent creations are possibly speedy deletions candidates. Ayers, with Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jonah Ayers, is engaging in unacceptable and disruptive behavior. Is this blatant enough or do we have to go to the ArbCom to get relief from his mischief? -Will Beback 10:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    How has he got their phone numbers? Secretlondon 11:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He has their names. -Will Beback 15:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I might add, on one occasion he posted a phone number with a request that people call to harass an editor. [8] (The actual info has been deleted). -Will Beback 16:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    nope. meant to post my number, but it's one digit off by mistake, and then was told that wasn't a good idea, for what are now obvious reasons...Jonah Ayers 18:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, if that had been the case you would not have been blocked for one week for divulging personal information. Is there any help available from admins? -Will Beback 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look at it, Will. I've noticed Maslow doing this once or twice, but I'm not familar with the background. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there is any harrassment going on here, it's much like the case of brandt, and wiki watch, etc... you're really just falling into a category of people who will be included on the encycolpedia... much as slimvirgin does not warrant an entry, or will beback, in slimvirgin's case it doesn't seem like she does much for her community other than online wikipedian work, so her information wouldn't need to be placed online, but as for Will mcWhinney, this is a person whose father is worthy of an entry, and who also works in the community, and was involved in an interesting skirmish in the ranks of the sierra club, so for that alone his article has merit, and isn't worth deletionJonah Ayers

    For the record: there is an AFD ongoing · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've speedied it because it was created as part of this dispute, which seems to have involved harassment, and if editors are being telephoned at home, it's obviously quite serious. I won't wheel war over it, so if someone else restores, I won't delete again, but I hope no one else will. I've also asked Jonah to email me, because I'm quite willing to try to help resolve the dispute if he'll allow me. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was clearly created in bad faith, I doubt anyone will disagree with you there. But the contents itself I don't think quite met the speedy criteria; that being said, I think it was a smelly enough move that it ought to be left well enough alone. It would've been deleted anyway. I certainly won't restore it. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Being called at home, or having one's phone number published with an admonition for others to call, is harassment, plain and simple. Revealing the private information of editors is harassment. Defacing pages is vandalism, impersonating editors is harassment, violating the 3RR is prohibited, etc. This is not like the Brandt case, unless you're referring to his calling an editor's emplyer. -Will Beback 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what you mean baout getting called at home, and the impersonation of editors waS started by biff rose who was editing his article as sojambi pinola, and then pinela, etc... all of whom we're banned, by you I believe. This case is similar to the brandt case in that people have been messing with edits and creating a hostile place to edit, i.e., you Willmcw aka Will Beback and its interesting to note that you were according to your posts not going to use the Willmcw as your administrator any longer, but function solely as Will Beback, you said that you would not do that, that Willmcw would end in 2005, yet as recent as january 10th you used both identities to enforce Administrative blocks and votes etc.... making one, your pick therefore a sockpuppet... So you see, it's your own behavior that is suspect, and you keep trying to turn the tables and say it is others...Jonah Ayers

    Regarding your charge of using two accounts, I used my old account solely for the purpose of ArbCom voting because of a special requirement that voters must have accounts registered prior to October, and I gave both names to prevent confusion. -Will Beback 06:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't that against the rules? I think you should work it out so you have one identity, and dont' seem to be some kind of sockpuppet. Please advise, I won't make anymore trouble with this one. Just have one of the administrators say that what you're doing is ok, and not being a sockpuppet, exercising admin rights via two different users, controlled by the same person.. if that is allowed, because voting in arbcom decisions is an admin duty, and theere is a consensus among admins that this is not in fact a punishable situation, then I will back off, smells fishy, but I want to see the honest standards of wiki enforced, because you seem to have a double standrad, blocking some people for 3rr violations, and not others, and then this...Jonah Ayers 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Having multiple accounts is not against Wikipedia's policies, so long as they are not used to a) be disruptive, b) evade a block or manipulate consensus, or c) violate Wikipedia's other policies. Besides which, he clearly identified himself. It isn't as if he was trying to vote twice. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To confirm: My actual name is Steve Espinola. My username is Sojambi Pinola. User:Jonah Ayers has created several sockpuppets which are variations on either my name or my username, for the purposes of confusion. He also created a username Biffrose and used it to write libel about singer/songwriter/comedian Biff Rose. Biff Rose has not contributed to Wikipedia. He has expressed thanks to me that I removed libel about him from the article, including claims of kidnapping [9] and child molestation [10].
    "Jonah" also created a username which is my home phone number. He got the number from my webpage, where I had naively included it for the sake of gig bookings. The username was deleted, but I believe admins can still access the evidence. This username posted on the Biff Rose page at 00:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC). He has called my house five or six times, one of those times at 1:40 am. Two of the times he left obscene messages. One time, right after I had left a response to his writing on his talk page, the phone message was "Stay off my talk page." That strongly implies, to me, that it was him. Hard to prove, of course.
    Again: Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Jonah_Ayers
    Jonah often posts as anonymous IPs. Here's a sequence of messages he left on User:Derex's page where he spells out much of his MO: [11]].
    One of these IPs also posted on Biff Rose's message board and threatened harm to Mr. Rose at an upcoming LA show.
    It may be worthwhile to check out the user contributions of User:Steve espinola. [12] Again, that is not me, but it is the same user as User: Jonah Ayers, indulging in pretty outrageous vandalism. He created that username specifically to harrass me.
    --Sojambi Pinola 15:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the Jonah Ayers account indefinitely, because he continued posting personal details after being warned by two admins that he risked the account being blocked indefinitely. There has also been multiple sockpuppetry and possibly telephone calls to people's homes, so it has gone far enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Question

    Jonah was just blocked indefinitely by SlimVirgin. Are we sure that User:Maslow is a sock of Jonah? If so, that account should also be blocked. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly seems like a sock puppet to me. Blocked.--Sean|Black 06:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, everybody, for the help handling this problem. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has returned several times with sock puppets, and further administrative actions will probably be required in the future. He once again has created a username with an editor's phone number in it, and used it to edit Biff Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please be on the watch for harassment from this editors. Thanks, -Will Beback 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, Biff Rose watchlisted, will keep on the lookout.--Sean|Black 10:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Aladin (magician)

    Not sure if this is the right place for it, but I'd like to have other admins' input on it. A huge revert war is going on right now, with both sides claiming consensus and/or the recent AfD I closed favours their position. I'm tempted to block DreamGuy or protect the page, but I won't do either for now (unless someone violates the 3RR). Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have called that afd as delete. The strongest argument in favour of keeping was that he was an advisor to the cabinet - he was actually vice chair of a Greater London Authority working group. No-one is arguing that the working group is worthy of an article.. There's been a sockpuppet check which indicated vote stacking previously. I think we are being used for PR purposes. Secretlondon 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can I just point out that firstly none of the sockpuppets took part in the 2nd AFD. Only 4 sockpuppets took part in the first AFD and the result was 19-5, thus without sockpuppets it would have been 15-5. However, I understand that some of the comments by the sockpuppets could have possibly influenced peoples minds…although it was vigorously pointed out that there were sockpuppets in it by Peter_S. and DreamGuy, thus people were less likely to be influenced by them as they were made aware. There’s also a TV show about aladin’s daughter and family on the National Geographic Channel called Running For Freedom: Roxanna's Story and he’s been on a radio station called The Family Tech Show. So it’s not just like he’s been the vice chair of a Greater London Authority working group. However, I do believe that aladin was originally over hyped and this has lead to the articles contravestoy. Englishrose 13:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the 3RR doesn't imply a right to revert three times a day. It's the reverting without waiting for consensus to emerge that is the disruptive behavior. I'll say this till I'm blue in the face, there are few edits so urgently needed that they can't wait until consensus emerges. - Taxman Talk 16:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: there has been a related revert war at Aladdin (disambiguation) over whether this page should include a link to Aladin (magician) or not. It seems clear to me that if the Aladin (magician) article is to be retained, and particularly if Aladin is to redirect to the dab page (as it now does) then the dab page should include an entry for the magician, while if the page for the magician is to exist only in the histroy for the redir, or is to be deleted compeltely, then there is no reason for an entry on the dab page. Anyone watching this should probably watch the dab page also. DES (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But the article isn't going to be retained (as the vote clearly said to get rid of it) so the mention there isn't needed. DreamGuy 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the summary on what happened with this page:

    1) A group of now proven sockpuppets created the article at aladin claiming that such and such articles in such and such papers said such and such about the guy, which turned out to be false.

    2) First AfD: The sockpuppetws were voting and a number of editors just took them at their word that these sources said what the sockpuppet (apparently "aladin" himself) claimed they did. Delete failed.

    3) Page was updated to only include facts that could be verified and to remove all false claims. Turns out there wasn't much of anything there any more, nothing worth having a Wikipedia article about. A number of editors agreed the article had to go, but we wanted to preserve the talk page and history to prove the hoax and the sockpuppeting should the guy come back later.

    4) I redirected the page, as there was nothing left. One editor complained that redirecting wsa the same as deleting so we should have a vote. AfD part 2... But those of us who exposed the hoax didn't want the proof of the hoax deleted, so we voted "KEEP BUT REDIRECT". Keep article on Wikipedia was small minority of votes, overwhelmingly reject by the outright deletes and redirect.

    5) AfD 2 ends without it being outright deleted but with the clear consensus to either delete or redirect without preserving contents. So I redirect.

    6) Now we have a person comlaining that the vote was "keep" so that it therefore can;t be redirected... OK, so, the argument I guess is if you want the page to stay, consensus to redirect isn;t enough, and then voting to redirect isn;t enough either, in fact apparently there is no way to redirect at all. I ignored this person as clearly not understanding how things work and trying to wikilawyer the results to do what only a tiny minority wanted.

    7) Then some uninformed outside person came out of nowhere and decided to move the entire article to aladin (magician) and redirect aladin, which ignores the whole point that the redirect was intended to get rid of the article but preserve the history and talk. Now we have people arguing there that it can;t be redirected because nobody looking for the magician would be looking to be redirected to Aladdin, except the only reason that's even there in the first place is someone jumped in and overruled everyone who voted.

    8) So, basically, we have a couple of people clearly ignoring the wishes of the majority of people who voted, demanding that redirects can never happen without a vote and then ignoring the vote when it happens, and edit warring to overrule clear consensus... and then *I* get blocked for not violating any rules or policies whatsoever? Very, very poor form. Radiant, for future reference, when you screw up and miscount a 3RR violation, the proper thing to do when your error is pointed out to you is to undo the block, not let it stand just because you are grumpy. If you wanted to protect the page, then protect it. If you want to go beyond policy and start blocking people for edit warring, there is a long list of people you should have alsoblocked at the same time.

    I think what needs to be done to restore sanity on this page is to move aladin (magician) back to aladin to preserve the comments and history there, then redirect like was originally agreed upon but that some people ignoring policy and common sense keep trying to get around. Creating the new article served no purpose whatsoever other than to try to keep an article the vote didn;t want kept and was only there in the first place from a series of hoax sources from a group of sockpuppets to be used for self-promotional purposes for this "aladin" person. Furthermore, now that we have IDed these sockpuppets, a team of editors should go through and check all of their contribution histories with the goal of undoing other spam and probably hoaxes placed elsewhere. Running around wikilawyering and so forth and letting these spammers get away with it is absolutely the wrong answer. DreamGuy 03:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Solution Here's an alternative solution, how about DreamGuy get's his head out of the sand and leave things be for once? I don't claim to be an angel here, rather much I'm quite happy being one of those users who just points out the blatant obvious and the blatant obvious in this case to me is that DreamGuyis being stubborn to the point of idiocity. The vote was no consenous; keep, rather than no consenous; re-direct, the margin for the re-direct vote was so minor in fact the re-direct vote if counted properly is only touching a one or two lead, add to the fact that the article wasn't even allowed time to breathe and be verified or written correctly and Dreamguy's constant reverting Incorrectly in my opinion to a mere Aladdin alternate spelling page (at least that's how it more or less looked to me) doesn't actually help.
    Further to this, DreamGuy has been acting in rather bad faith calling anyone and everyone who disagrees with him a sockpuppet. In addition he is calling all verifiable sources a hoax, an extreme accuassion. Rather than present his arguement in a dignified manner which would allow for neutral users to vote properly he hypes up the sock-puppet incidents, accusses in bad faith every single other user who comes along and revert wars the page. This is more than enough evidence in my personal opinion to result in blocking said user from even touching the article, regardless of whenever he is "right" or "wrong" since when was it for HIM to decide on a whim when a vote may be declared re-direct or Keep. My point is, the vote was so close people can interpretate it in different ways, of course DreamGuy believes that anyone with an opinion that isn't to his high god glorified standards is Wrong!
    Further to this, why is it that various users have managed over MSN to present me with not just one but EIGHT verifiable links of distruptive, bad faith behaviour from DreamGuy of which, SEVEN are up and around on wikipedia. Seriously, I would think that people would take this into account, since after all we would be suspicious of a guy living next door with a criminal record as long as our arms, shouldn't we therefore be suspicious of this indiviual for his stained record on wikipedia, some of which has very dubious results coming out. What makes me wonder is why there are allegations of politics at work here. Regardless, you can take my comments how you will, make an example out of me if you so must, but this has gone to extremities this isn't a community debate it's pratically several users against DreamGuy of course, you can claim he's the victim here of mass hounding, hell we all know what he thinks don't we?
    • Summary, why not just stay away from the article instead of continuing your little ego parade regardless of whenever it is in good or bad faith and just allow for those who wish to present a verifiable page do so. Then if you don't like it nominate it for a fourth, fith, sixth, seventh deletion, seeing your behaviour so far I'd theorise it'll go on to twenty five AFD votes until you finally get so many lies in a tangled web that people will finally delete it for you. Then maybe you can get back to your wonderful life outside of wikipedia? I sure would like to go back to mine! =) --RBlowes 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But the guy is still utterly non-notable, and farcing around with procedural stuff doesn't change that. Secretlondon 20:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Summary: Look like RBlowes is making incoherent and deceptive statements solely for personal attacks and is outright lying about the results of the second deletion vote. You and yer buddies on MSN can say whatever you want, but I have no stained record here: I have an exemplary record of stopping spammers, hoaxers, sockpuppets and POV-pushers... which of course means every spammer, hoaxer, sockpuppet-user and POV-pusher who didn't get his way is all pissed off.DreamGuy 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth noting that User:RBlowes's first edits to Wikipedia were only on Jan. 2, 2006, when he immediately started voting on articles for deletion... and was already talking to USer:Englishrose (who posted the fraudulent info with fake sources that turned out to be wrong and thus derailed the first vote for deletion) as old friends. I smell a sock. Certainly this person's view is extremely biased and uninformed, as he/she either is brand new and taking the word of a person who largely contributed to the hoax/spam/free advertising or a longtime user under a new account trying to make it appear like his/her side has more support than it really does. Considering the proven sockpuppets in the first vote and the creationof the article, I would recommend sock check on all these "new" users who showed up to go on the attack over this issue. DreamGuy 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's funny, bring up my edit history, yeah I guess it's "suspect" but then I'm sure anyone who is declared new is. You're just getting paranoid here, so I'll say it again, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a normal human being, they are NOT always going to be sockpuppets, meatpuppets, chickenpuppets, twitpuppets or blatant twiddlytwinkers!

    Now that's out of the way, continue to write your blurb on anything with the word "puppet" in it, I'll make it clear though that all that convinced me to join in the aladin debate was just watching the comments roll off and my eyes roll to the other side of my head due to the sheer non-sense from said comments. Beside a no-consenous;keep > your opinion anyway. Feel free to compare me to EnglishRose in the future, although you'll find the two of us are on opposite ends of the spectrum and this is one rare case of which I find myself agreeing with him. --RBlowes 18:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I smell an idiot. Just for the record I've requested a sock-puppet check on me and Rblowes just to shut you up. I'm sure the evidence from the last sock check would have said that I'm from Leeds instead of the Indian magician from London that you acussed me of. Englishrose 10:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read and follow WP:NPA - and sockpuppet checks don't catch meatpuppets, of which we definitely have a bunch popping up. DreamGuy 11:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You wouldn't guess it from his confrontational style but there's actually a lot of truth in DreamGuy's boasting. I don't know the particulars of this case or why DG seems to think it's so important but he does have an impressive record of stopping spam and non-sense. - Haukur 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that there is ample evidence of DreamGuy's behavior being decidedly anti-social, such as repeatedly redirecting the Aladin (magician) page in violation of consensus, making personal attacks at Talk:Eenasul Fateh and other locations around Wikipedia, calling people's contributions "garbage", name-calling people as "obnoxious", and frequently accusing people of lying. Elonka 02:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When people say outright "Keep but only to redirect and preserve the history", claiming that the vote was to "keep as is and don't you dare redirect it" is nothing but a lie. Sorry if that offends you, but to be blunt, only someone trying to twist facts can deny that. Furthermore, it's clear from Englishrose's actions that he/she was involved from the start in quoting sources that turned out to be fraudulent, claiming that he/she had seen the sources in question and that they said something which, upon checking, turned out to be 100% wrong. I don't know why you showed up out of nowhere and how you think you are justified in making the rather intense claims that you are, but when the article in question has been demonstrated to be part of a hoax publicty campaign by someone lying about sources and posting under a huge number of proven sockpuppets, the more you try to raise a fuss the more suspicious the whole thing looks... especially with you and Englishrose and RBlowes making extremely uncivil remarks and strangely timed accusations. DreamGuy 11:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Englishrose's actions that he/she was involved from the start in quoting sources that turned out to be fraudulent, claiming that he/she had seen the sources in question and that they said something which, upon checking, turned out to be 100% wrong. That's absolute rubbish and you know it. You're the one who's trying to spin a web of deciet and lies. Fact- I wasn't involved from the start. The start of what? The article? The AFD discussion? As for qouting fraudulent sources that's also a decietful comment. The only thing I said that turned out to be unproveable was the "Internation Magician of the Year", which I took in good faith from the article. Upon research...I believe that the award does exist and is hosted at a place called Magic Castle. Quite a few magicians have claimed the won the award. As for the "claiming that he/she had seen the sources in question" that's even more lies from you, cause I've never claimed that I've seen anything without giving links to the relevant sources. You are creating a web of lies in order to fulfil ur dying obsession of trying to make the article out to be false. Just like you were wrong when you claimed that British Press releases are hoaxes. Englishrose 18:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Río de la Plata

    A renaming poll was held on WP:RM and the consensus was to KEEP. Apparently, some editors didn't agree with the outcome of that poll and decided to reopen it, less than a week after it was finished and without listing in wp:rm. This is a blatant violation of WP rules and will prompt any editor that doesn't like the result to immediately keep reopening discussions until he gets his way. I urge fellow admins to assist in this matter and I plan to oppose the outcome of this pall by whatever means possible, even if it means protecting against moves. I hope it doesn't get that far. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry but that really does make you sound bad. This poll is listed on WP:RM and has been created because the original one was not done in the most appropriate manner. If the result you want is really the right one then it will be chosen again. It just appears that you are worried that you won't get your way. Also, please can we have this discussion in one place rather than here, on that discussion page and on my own talk page. violet/riga (t) 18:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time I wrote this it wasn't. By the way, the initial poll was started by one supporting the "losing side", and it was done in a PERFECT manner. And not, we can't since you seem to try repeating votes until you get your way. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm neutral, so I don't have a way. The original poll was not correctly done because there was debate as to which way around it should've been conducted (the move should really have been undone before the WP:RM, with a no-consensus result thus having the opposite result). violet/riga (t) 18:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It spent a week on wP:RM, strange no "neutral" parties intervened then. Also, weird that you intervened "neturally" at the behest of a non-neutral party [19] AFTER the 1st poll concluded with a result against their desired. Also, a NEUTRAL admin closed that RM with proper procedure. I don't consider you neutral. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've performed hundreds of WP:RM requests, and ALoan knew that - he asked me to take a look and I did. I repeat, the first poll was badly done and I was trying to help out. Reread that sentence, or at least the end of it until you understand WP:AGF. violet/riga (t) 18:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange that you complain about it being "badly" done... I don't think you would've intervened if the first poll was won by "River Plate" proponents... who DID create that poll. Finally, if you wanted to do a "proper" RM, you should've discussed the options for the naming vote before opening the polls, since some people disagree with the choices that were arbitrarily given. Giving two options for "Rio de la Plata" (with and w/o diac) only confused readers, such as myself, and some may not have realized that they could vote for both. If you solve that problem, I would be more amenable to let the whole issue go and wait until the 2nd poll is over to make further comments regarding this RM. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have intervened - I wouldn't have known about it! I'm sorry that you didn't read the instructions that are really quite clear, and I did even link to the approval voting article for you. violet/riga (t) 19:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with violetriga on the need for a new poll (although I disagree with her opinion on the name itself); however, I do not agree that the original poll was "not correctly done" -- rather that it simply became an out-of-control mess. The move request discussion had degnerated into a morass of vitriol and ill-will, with accusations that the one or more earlier moves had been done inappropriately. While there was a majority voting to keep the name at Río de la Plata, that cannot accurately be described as a "consensus". At best, it can be said that there was no consensus to rename the article. But since several had questioned the validity of earlier moves, this all became rather convoluted, to say the least--thus the need for a new poll. BTW, you may not have looked hard enough for the entry on WP:RM, as the entry was added at 13:01, January 21, 2006 UTC, more than three hours before your note above. older ≠ wiser 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if it was, but the template in the talk page certainly wasn't there. Having said that, I've seen strange things with wikitime. I don't want my last sentence as an insinuation that that's what happened here, it's not (although I know it sounds like one and I apologize in advance). Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean this talk page template added 2 minutes after the poll? violet/riga (t) 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't characterize the discussion as an "out of control mess", but it was certainly going nowhere. That said, the poll itself wasn't conducted in the best manner possible, and I suspect intentionally, so that the losing/initiating side could fall back on the failure as an excuse to look for more hanging chads. As I said on the talk page there, I'm [still] not prepared to question violetriga's neutrality, although I do [continue to] question whether or not s/he read the discussion thoroughly. I'm not opposed to revoting, as long as the "losing" side (yes, in most cases, it really has degenerated to "sides") agrees to leave the issue rest for at least a year, regardless of which name prevails (and I'm the one who made the move!)... Given the resorting to sockpuppetry of at least one of the "River Plate" proponents, I'm not sure that wish will come true, but... In the future, violetriga, may I just suggest that more prominent notice of the WP:RM entry be given where the discussion is actually taking place, rather than just the template at the top of the article (to which nobody's paying any attention anymore). Also, whoever closes the poll, please summarily archive the talk page...I swear it's the longest single-issue talk page on all of en:WP. Tomertalk 09:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the poll needed to have a more prominent notice - there are plenty of votes there already, and those that have not voted this time but did last time will be notified shortly before the deadline date. As for my neutrality, I really have no interest in the name of some random river I'll never visit and have never heard of before, and am just trying to sort out what was a bad WP:RM situation. violet/riga (t) 12:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Boothy443 blocked

    I have blocked User:Boothy443 for 24 hours for violation of WP:NPA here. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    His one comment is not enough for a block, although it is borderline. If it was more severe or he was been doing this several times in a few hours, then a block is justified. If he was, then tell me. If you want to re-block instead, I will not block again, but I don't advise it.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly feel that it's enough to warrant a block especially since he knows that he can take advantage of attitudes like yours so he can continue his trolling, though I'm not going to reblock since I don't want to get into a wheel war over this and it would just be playing into his hand if we wheel warred over him. I strongly urge a 3rd party admin to reblock him. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reblocked. Boothy has more than earnt it, and a damn short leash is necessary in his case IMO - David Gerard 01:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had my way he would have been perm blocked a long time ago as a troll and a vandal but since many people are too thickheaded to see what he actually is I guess this will have to do. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jtkiefer, just because people disagree with you about permanent blocks doesn't mean they are "thickheaded" - I find that to be a personal attack against everyone who holds a different opinion. Boothy443 has made a number of good contributions and while his behaviour has by no means been impeccable, especially his votes on RFA pages in the past and the actions he took on his user page in July - which I blocked him for - people who contribute well shouldn't be permanently blocked. They should be watched, certainly, but not prevented from contributing. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I had removed my latest comment until you decided to reinsert it and reply to it so I feel no duty to respond to your criticisms of it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, what? All I did was reply to your comment. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the page history. I removed the comment before you replied to it specifically because I realized that people would probably interpret it as a personal attack. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I just replied and hit save page. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a bad idea for Voice of All to undo the block without discussion. That is seldom helpfu. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not necessarily a bad idea in principle but it was a bad idea that he reversed the block as the first thing after I posted notice of the block before anyone else could even comment, that seems to show disrespect towards my decision to block because it's pretty much saying I don't want to hear what other people think about the block I'm just going to reverse it and people can comment on it later. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad idea in principle. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Leave Boothy blocked, and consider blocking wheel-warring admins in the future. This is getting seriously out of hand. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Who the heck is wheel-warring? I said "If you want to re-block instead, I will not block again, but I don't advise it". So obviously nobody was going to wheelwar. I must point out that "Don't be dick" is the most childish idiotic, ad hominem, "policy" to site, and it is oxymoronic. When I said that Boothy may have trolled, people attacked me like I was evil, no everyone can casually say it know, even though little has changed. I don't like it when one personal attack to an implied personal attack gets someone blocked, maybe if it is like "FUCK YOU, I"M GONNA KILL YOU", then fine, but Boothy was more argumentative than insulting...If other admins want to block then fine, as I said, I am not going to wheelwar. I really think that Boothy needs to go to arbcom instead, to finally resolve this issue. Also, indefinitely blocking someone who still contributes by one admin is bad for Wikipedia, IMO.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a 24 hour block, not an indefinite block. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "If I had my way he would have been perm blocked a long time ago as a troll".Voice of AllT|@|ESP 21:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The point Oleg was trying to make, and I fully agree is that you shouldn't have undone another admin's action without discussing first. That is exactly what starts wheel wars and keeps them going. Unless an admin action was clearly wrong, leave it alone and discuss. If most people feel it was wrong then it will be quick and easy to get agreement to overturn it. But undoing an admin's action just because you wouldn't have done it is the problem. I don't understan why it is so hard for the people that start wheel wars to understand this. - Taxman Talk 14:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    People, please remember WP:AGF. VofA, JTK could've had his way and perm-block and didn't. OTOH, people may have come on to you way too hard, and I also understand your position. Just an outside view. Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No he couldn't have. Other admins undid his infinite block and the few others that tried to reistate it. If he wheelwarred it would have gone to arbcom. So he had to let boothy be unblocked, as other admins disagreed with unilaterial indefinte blocks of actual contributors (not vandals).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just trying to help, I'm not touching this one. Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    86.10.231.219

    Attacks on Talk:Mumps. Tedious. Probably something to do with Ombudsman by the pattern of other interventions by htat IP address. I'm unonvinced there is a meritorious one among them. Midgley 23:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I second this. A close look at Talk:Mumps and several other edits by 86.10.231.219 (talk · contribs) will reveal a series of personal attacks, clear deliberate POV editing and possibly a reincarnation of abusive troll 81.111.172.198 (talk · contribs) (who also edited mumps and got block for trying to publish personal details of myself on Wikipedia). JFW | T@lk 08:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    86.10.231.219 on Epidemiology This now seems to be a series of attacks on me, suggesting that as a BMA member I can't be trusted on medica matters (which is, I'd say, a somewhat unusual argument in the world) and mixed less than usefully with efforts to turn multiple pages into rehashes of a single very little accepted argument on immunisation.
    Could he be blocked please.Midgley 16:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be thrilled to block this troll myself, but I'm involved and hence will not. Could any other admin please have a look? JFW | T@lk 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block

    I have indefinitely blocked NONCENSORED_Popeye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user is a self-proclaimed Gay Nigger Association of America troll who has no useful contributions that I could find. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good riddance to bad GNAA rubbish. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain why you banned him? Being a member of GNAA isn't a bannable offense. At first glance nothing obviously comes to mind - plenty of his edits haven't been reverted. Secretlondon 09:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Check User talk:Timecop - these fuckwits are playing up again big time, particularly as we've started shooting their unusually obnoxious trolling userpage boxes - David Gerard 14:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In particular, have a look at the deleted templates User:Timecop/JEWSDIDWTC-2, User:Timecop/JEWSDIDWTC-1, User:Timecop/JEWSDIDWTC-0, User:Timecop/JEWSDIDWTC-4 for what I mean - David Gerard 16:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice comment on mad POV userboxes, were they used anywhere as they seem to be in someone's userspace. (I'm not suggesting that they were suitable for an encyclopedia before someone asks) Secretlondon 10:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding pictures of feces to people's userpages is model behavior [20]? (take my word for it, you might not want to click that link). --W.marsh 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's an article and it does fit - although it may be shocking for some people. I didn't suggest "model behaviour", I was questiioning life block. Secretlondon 10:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you like, you can go discuss it with him on his talk page, because it looks like he has something to say about this block [21]. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry at WP:AGF

    Some vandal is in the process of revert warring at WP:AGF, regarding the use of a nonsensical image to represent good faith. Even though dozens of editors have reverted the image away, the sockpuppets continue to re-add it until the page is semi-protected. Can we get a checkuser to identify and block the sockpuppets?

    Also, it might be a good idea to run checkuser on Cool Cat, seeing as he had the image in question created at his request, and engaged in a revert war a few weeks before all the socks started. Hexagonal 07:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is Hexagonal's 42nd edit, and Cool Cat is a trusted user. For Hexagonal (talk · contribs) to dive straight into Wikipedia: is more of a sign than not that he himself is a sockpuppet. NSLE (T+C) 07:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: Looking at Hexagonal's talk page, this user may have been stalking Cool Cat, thus his edits straight into the project space. Also harassing Cool Cat as seen from his talk page, who's asked him to stop. ("Excuse me can you please leave me alone? I do not know what your problem is and I frankly do not care. GO AWAY!") NSLE (T+C) 07:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF. And checkuser them both, though I doubt hat Cool Cat is behind this, he's been impersonated lots of times - looks more like someone is trying to frame him. But we should make sure. -- grm_wnr Esc 07:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also doubt Cool Cat is behind this, but I do believe a single individual is behind the repeated vandalism at WP:AGF (be it Cool Cat as alleged, or someone attempting to make him look bad). At least ten sock puppets have been blocked so far.. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who do you think I am... a vandal? I have freaking beter things to do than vandalise wikipedia. This is like suspecting Jimbo for vandalism and I spend hour after hour RC patroling for wikipedia... Pathetic... Hear User:NSLE a bit wont ya? --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lets look at the issue here, without any specific names:

    1. User A asks for an image to be created. 2. User A inserts said image into a policy page, without consensus. 3. User A engages in edit warring to keep said image in article. 4. Sockpuppets make identical edits to page, as done by User A. (there were no other supporters of this image)

    This is a situation for checkuser. If the socks can be shown to be coming from the same IP as Cool Cat, the issue can then be brought before the arbcom with evidence. If the socks can be shown to be coming from another contributor's IP, then that contributor can be reprimanded for impersonating and framing Cool Cat. If the socks can be shown to be coming from an open proxy, then that proxy can be blocked and any sleeper accounts ferreted out.

    Making an issue out of who I am only detracts from vandal fighting efforts. If I were Cool Cat, I would be asking for the checkuser to be run too, so that any socks can be found and linked to someone else. I don't know why he fought the checkuser request the last time the sockpuppets attacked the article, but I do find that suspicious. There is no way I'd approach Cool Cat otherwise, because he has a history of harassment and childish behavior leading up to an arbcom decision against him. Thus, I chose to use a non-disruptive role account, which is NOT prohibited by policy. Sorry, but I don't need one more person harassing me, I already get enough standing up against a systematic homophobic bias in other articles. Hexagonal 08:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Either way, something about that image gives me the weepy creeps (never mind it's not nearly simple and stark enough for a logo icon). Wyss 09:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks Christian, though I'm not sure why. It may be the halo type things. Secretlondon 09:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh nah its really ambigious. Very loosly based on Image:Goddess Relief Office.gif. One of the greatest mistakes I made was suggesting the introduction of that image to AGF. I was only trying to add an abstract art representing AGF, but everything I sugest must be bad... My idea was that people would assume good faith and welmcome the image which has no malicious intention. For that I have to deal with stuff like this. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In anycase. I feel it is likely Hexagonal and all those sockpuppets are MARMOT's creation. Furthermore Checkuser maybe inconclusive as MARMOT abused a wikimedia vunrability (User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report) allowing him to appear like any ip he wishes. Any evidence prior to the fix of the bug may be disgarded if it is indeed incrimnating me.
    I have not used a single sockpuppet to revert on that page. The level of impersonation I deal with is rather ridiclous, I do not care if anyone is believing me or not as I am feeling quite down already.
    In adition the users (Hexagonal (talk · contribs)) contribution must be reviewed. User is on a holy cause against the image or something like that. Users entier contribution was a campaign against the image. He tagged it speedy 3 times. See: [22]
    I find it striking that a new user with very few edits campaigning against me or at least attempting. Also same time MARMOT was harrasing me on IRC. Also striking is how a user with less than 50 edits with majority of his contribution to the "project" namespace. See: [23]--Cool CatTalk|@ 21:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hisroyalhighness_721 and User:213.130.122.51

    These two users seem to be the same user. If you look at their contributions (12), they are all juvenille attempts to hurt what seems to be a school classmate. The user has vandalized many articles over many months. The user has been warned. I consider Hisroyalhighness_721 and 213.130.122.51 to be the same user due to having the same target and using the same article (Qatar).

    I suggest a temporary block. It seems like a middle schooler who needs to learn that people pay attention and Wikipedia isn't the forum for insulting a peer. --Matt 16:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, but they haven't posted since your last warning. I'll keep an eye out and block at the next inappropriate edit. Though my gut feeling is that they're most likely cheerfully abusing away from a different sock account by now... Somebody remind me again why we ever bother to block anybody? Bishonen | talk 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Update: User:Hisroyalhighness 721 hasn't stirred since the warning, in fact from beginning to end he has only done two edits. User:213.130.122.51 has done a silly edit to Wassily Kandinsky but reverted her/himself eight minutes later. That's all, so there's not a blocking situation so far. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    More vandalism, this time to Brad Pitt's article. Weird pattern though. --Matt 07:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user Jmk56 is back

    I'm being trolled (and in effect, threatened) again by blocked user:Jmk56, here, from what I suppose is an AOL IP, user:207.200.116.138. Wyss 16:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gmaxwell

    (Copied from WP:AN/3RR, because there were edits that amounted to vandalism, as well as excessive reverting)

    He has reverted Template:User freedom seven times despite repeated calls to stop from multiple editors. The version he is reverting to is far different from what the creators and users intended it for. I consider these edits to be an act of vandalism.--God of War 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • 05:38, January 22, 2006 Sean Black blocked "User:Gmaxwell" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Lots of reverts at Template:User freedom-needs to cool off) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that I have protected the template. The then-standing version was Gmaxwell's, on which I protected without endorsement. However, since Gmaxwell is blocked, some other admin may wish to revert to before the whole 22nd Jan silliness. -Splashtalk 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reverted to the version from before the vandalism, and added noinclude tags to fix it on userpages. Mark1 12:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking over this page, it appears that a 3 hours block is slightly on the short side for edit warring? Noting of course, that we usually unblock if the person agrees to quit the behavior anyway. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes it is on the short side but you have to remember that blocks are not meant to be punitive. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you'll find that I am in fact the person who added that into the blocking policy. I do not see anything on either User talk:Gmaxwell or User talk:Sean Black that indicates that any discussion took place where Greg indicated that he would lay off. If we keep giving shorter blocks to cabal members (Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner, and now Gmaxwell) we should at least be honest and edit blocking policy to say "24 hours if for the little people". These are guys we should hold to a higher standard than normal. Giving them a slap on the wrist when they violate one of the siplest and most straight-forward policy we've got is very poor form. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm also surprised by the length of the block, because he was engaged in vandalism, not just edit warring. I'd block him myself but I was involved in a dispute with him over an image recently. Three examples of the edits I see as vandalism: he changed a box supporting the American military to one supporting the Iraqi insurgents. [32] He inserted an image of a woman "hogtied" and gagged into a box opposing fox hunting, and changed the fox hunting link to BDSM. [33] On Template:Wikiproject Terrorism, he replaced the image of a terrorist with one of a nuclear explosion. [34] SlimVirgin (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (start comments not pasted from 3rr)

    This is not a 3RR or vandalism, although its fair to say it is disruptive. It is however incredibly notable that Wikipedia policy in no way implies freedom of speech, and that Jimbo has left us all a polite message exhorting us to keep our political views off the project, as keeping them on the project may cause it harm. Any of you who think good faith is an adequate reason not to block someone should take note.--Tznkai 17:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If I can chime in here- Greg was upset. He needed to calm down, and I thought he would be able to do so after 3 hours. I was evidently wrong (see the header below), but I did what I thought was best.--Sean|Black 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You did just fine. 3 hours stops the current problem and is probably long enough to give time to discuss the need to extend it. - Taxman Talk 15:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alert to all admins. Gmaxwell is going around to every user page that displays any kind of thumbnail or flag from Wikipedia Commons and declaring them "copyright violation". He is then blanking the user page and putting up a copyright violation notice. Is there any justification for this? It seems to me there should be nothing wrong with displaying a picture on a user page so long as the picture itself is not a copyright violation. -Husnock 18:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted Gmaxwell's blanking of User:Karol Langner, which did not even have any fair use images on it. I don't understand the rationale here.--Alhutch 19:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall that there's an official policy somewheres (I think at WP:FU) that says fair-use images are not to be used in the user: namespace. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the policy from WP:FU: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)."--Alhutch 19:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (After edit conflict)
    Yes, I inadvertently fell foul of that a while ago. On that occasion, though, the person who alerted me merely removed the image and left me a polite note in explanation. Gmaxwell has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively with regard to image violations (real or occasionally imagined). Here, he's misapplying a rule about fair-use images to the use of public-domain images, and doing so in a heavy-handed manner. Judging by the comments on his Talk page, he's heading for an RfC. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The heavy-handedness is totally unncecessary. I agree with Mel Etitis, all you have to do is be polite and notify people if they have done something wrong, not go around unilaterally blanking people's user pages.--Alhutch 19:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've spoken to him several times about his aggression, since a dispute I had with him recently about an image (in which he called me "hysterical" and accused me of vandalism because I dared to revert his removal of it). What with this today and his behavior last night (see above), I'm unsure of the best way is to proceed, but something needs to happen. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    His behaviour is outrageous. Firstly, where fairuse images are wrongly on user pages it is invariably due to a misunderstanding, not an attempt to break the law. All he had to do was leave a message, not post a massive notice all but accusing the user of being a lawbreaker. Secondly, he is not removing the offending image, but all images, even those that can be displayed. Thirdly, blanking a user's page is grossly disrespectful to other users. Frankly, he is out of control at this stage. This bullying behavour of his has to stop. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am confused, the original poster (Husnock) says Gmaxwell is declaring user pages using Wikipedia Commons images copyvios, surely Husnock meant fair use images rather than Commons? The commons doesnt accept fair use images and Wikipedia Commons images can be used freely. Martin 19:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I move that all his edits be reverted and considered petty vandalism, and that the said user be blocked for a period of one week. We don't have time to entertain him or his dubious edits. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, his contribs list is beyond the pale. It's vandalism, pretty clearly. You just need to remove the image and leave a talk page message, and you don't need to blank others' userpages. It's behaviour I'd expect from an editor on a rampage, which, frankly, Gmaxwell is. Note in particular User:Carnildo/Unusual Files, which is merely a list of links to images, and contains no images at all. Evidently, Gmaxwell has blindly been applying his new policy without any thought. I've reverted all his edits (yes, with rollback), and yes, I know that exposes fair use images in userspace. Gmaxwell can jolly well go and remove them as appropriate by hand+talk page if he's that concerned about it. Further, he's been doing ridiculous things with userboxes very recently, and calling people assholes. He's now taking a 24 hour Wikibreak to reconsider his general behaviour. -Splashtalk 20:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with this course of action, as Gmaxwell definitely needs to cool down.--Alhutch 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Splash, but I'd have given him 72 hours at least. :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Start out with short blocks to get the message across and to have the block be remedial (now he can't continue his various crusades for a little while) rather than punitive. Imo, anyway. -Splashtalk 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The speed, systematic and indescriminate way this is being approached (Special:Contributions/Gmaxwell) really suggests to me that he is using at least a precompiled list, if not a bot, to do this. While it is in the interest of existing policy, the handling is clearly unnecessarily rough. Dragons flight 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is probably something like User:Gmaxwell/user fairuse. Do note the blind manner in which he has been carrying this out, as per the example in my previous post. -Splashtalk 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I note the fact that they all have identical edit summarries and content, are all marked as minor (the pywikipedia default) and are occurring at 30-60 second intervals (the pywikipedia default throttle). Also Gmaxwell is responsible for the Roomba bot. I am prepared to assert with near certainty that these edits were made by a pywikipedia bot. Dragons flight 20:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He blanked User:Karol Langner, which has an image which is not fair use, but rather public domain needing a tag update.--Alhutch 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey DF, long time no see! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of these edits seem a little odd. I see clear evidence of good faith efforts made by the blocking administrator and others to raise these edits with the user on his talk page, but no response.

    In particular I thought the blanking of User:Carnildo/Unusual Files looked odd because at first sight it contained no inlines. However on investigating I discovered that it contained "Image" links with no preceding colon--it's possible that Greg is interpreting these as inlines, although in practise the ogg files in question are presented as links. I interpret this as a good faith error, or at least an alternative interpretation of a borderline case, by Gmaxwell.

    On the blanking of the fair use pages, I think that's a very laudable objective, but the lack of interaction here is worrying. If one performs a lot of quite provocative edits--even if as here they're clearly reasonable and defensible, it's important to be responsive and available to discuss and defend them and to help repair damage caused by errors. Notices on talk pages explaining the issue and asking for the user in question to remove disputed fair use material would have been wise; I am looking but as yet see no evidence that this mass blanking was preceded by such efforts.

    I want to stress again that I regard the objective here as laudable, and I'm certain that "fair use" claims on inline uses of image file on user pages will one pretty soon become a thing of the past on Wikipedia; the legal exposure to the site is too great to ignore for long. This was not the way to advance towards that objective, however. The block was necessary to stop the user continuing his ongoing actions without discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: User:Majorityrule is going around doing the same thing now. 68.39.174.238 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked --pgk(talk) 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it not be much more sensible to post a templated message on user's talk pages notifying them that they have fair use images on their user pages which they should remove? Arniep 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    it certainly would.--Alhutch 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it be better to just address the fellow in English instead of templatese? This might promote a dialog in which the user could be educated about the liability issue with respect to use of images to which there is no free licence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the past when Greg has left notes he has been very confrontational, which causes the situation to flare up. In his case, using a template would be a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    On the evidence, it seems that Majorityrule was a sockpuppet of Gmaxwell. I have extended Maxwell's block to one week. Given his behaviour, if they are an admin perhaps a move should be made to have them desysoped. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow! Look what I started! As to my own userpage, are flags a violation of these strange rules and regulations? Displaying a country or city flag on a user page should not be a problem, but some of the flag images come up as fair use. As far as the original user blanking all these pages, it is vandalism as far as I'm concerned. Not the right way to do it. Back to the flags, if there is a problem with displaying them on user pages then we have an even bigger problem since hundreds of user pages probbaly display a flag or two. -Husnock 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The flag image issues is explained in detail at User_talk:Husnock#Flag_images_question. Brief version: the flags were tagged as a PD template, which I moved in late 2005 to one that makes flag images fair use/maybe PD. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence is there that this was a sock of Gmaxwell? How sure are you that an extension of the Gmaxwell block is justified? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He isn't an admin and supeficially performing exactly the same set of edits does suggest a sock puppet (my initial reaction), though of course it's possible that it is someone up to mischief. --pgk(talk) 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the original block is justified but the extension is not, I am going to reduce back to the original block time. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both Маjоrіtуrulе (talk · contribs) (cyrillic letter substitutes) and Minorityrule (talk · contribs) were recently created and blocked before editting on the presumption of being additional sockpuppets. Dragons flight 22:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser says: These appear not to be Gmaxwell at all, but a troll stirring up shit. They also created FіrеFох (talk · contribs) and Vаndаlbоt (talk · contribs) (both Cyrillic substitutions) and previously used Wikipedia is not evil. (talk · contribs) - all impersonation or near enough. Majorityrule (talk · contribs) is Greg, however. This appears to be Greg wanting to go out with a bang because he's sick of Wikipedia. Argh. - David Gerard 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that proves me right then in my choice to reduce the block back to original length. It's also a very bad idea to block for sockpuppetry without checking into whether they're actual sockpuppets or not. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not enitrely sure it does, reread "Majorityrule (talk · contribs) is Greg", that's the one which caused the block extension. --pgk(talk) 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That proves that Gmaxwell did engage in sockpuppetry which means it was right to extend the block.--Alhutch 00:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg obviously wants an indefinite block and I'm in favor of denying it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted, blocks on Greg have very high collateral damage. Specifically, they block Mindspillage. Phil Sandifer 07:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a big worry. If Mindspillage needs the editing priveleges returned every time Gmaxwell decides to be a jerk, she can always unblock the autoblocked IP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Something positive

    There's a lot of angry guys around, and talk of an RfC on Greg's talk page. I'm afraid to look at the RfC page, because I might see that it already exists, but surely that's the last thing that this situation calls for? There are a two possibilities: This user intends to return, or is trying to "go out with a bang".

    If it's the second, we should save ourselves the time and energy of a pointless and almost certainly damaging RfC where lots of people would probably say regrettable things. If it's the first and they've just gone nuts, surely something more along the lines of an intervention would be a better way to return him to the fold? Has anyone been able to just chat to him?

    brenneman(t)(c) 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest that talk of an RfC has been overtaken by events. He obviously wanted out and required some assistance in making the break. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Recent discussion on his talk page suggests that he doesn't want to leave after all. -- grm_wnr Esc 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree with brenneman's conclusions. Although I think Greg was very much out of line here, there's been enough of a pile-on regarding that. Greg should be given time to cool off, and any blocks (if they prove to be necessary) should be preventive, not punitive. Let's give him time to cool off. I don't think he's recovered from the Roomba image problem of last month, which appeared to upset him considerably. Johnleemk | Talk 01:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent statements on User:Gmaxwell's talk page

    All that being said, I'm still concerned about the edits he's making to his user page. If any other user said words to the effect of "you want to see damage to the encyclopedia, I can show you damage," we wouldnt be holding back. I ask again, is there anyone who's had a (real-time) chat with him? - brenneman(t)(c) 06:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg still has his tool server account, he's still a talented developer with a fairly good knowledge about how the site works, and he states quite honestly that if he truly had evil intent he could do a lot more damage than a few silly page blankings. I don't think there's serious cause for concern in the circumstances. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't, under normal circumstances, care if a person can actually follow through on their threats to "DESTORY WIKIP{EDIA!1!!", we care about the mindset behind those threats. My concern is for the future of an editor who had apparently made large contributions, when he'll regain his composure, and how much damage he's doing to himself as a Wikipedian in the meantime. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any evidence of malice here. He sounds bitter and disillusioned but really that is very well founded. As he sees it, some Wikipedia editors are jeopardising Wikipedia for reasons of selfishness and ignorance and his reasonable, patient attempts to protect the Foundation have been rebutted by people whose support he expected. Some of us are very buoyant and thickskinned, and that kind of nonsense is like so much water off a duck's back, while some of us are easily hurt and may sometimes overreact. Greg is of the latter persuaion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. He's not known for making "reasonable, patient attempts to protect the Foundation," unfortunately, but for acts of aggression that have led other users to leave the project. I'm concerned that, in his most recent statements, he has announced his intention to continue being disruptive, and has said he'll evade any blocks that are applied. That's a direct threat to the project, not an attempt to protect it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel the block on Gmaxwell ought to be extended so that he has a chance to reflect on whether he's able to edit within our policies. His behavior is frequently disruptive; this is far from being the first example of it. After being blocked yesterday for three hours for what was arguably vandalism, then for 24 hours for mass blanking of user pages and unapproved use of a bot, he carried on blanking pages using a sock puppet, User:Majorityrule, which check user confirmed was him. He frequently makes mistakes (e.g. wanting to delete supposedly orphaned images that are in fact being used in articles) leading to lots of time-consuming arguments during which he is very rude, with users having to undo his work, and people even leaving the project because of him. He also deletes posts from his talk page so that it's hard to keep track of all the disputes he's causing (says he's archiving, but then doesn't). [35]

    Today he seemed to indicate he has no intention of following our policies:

    • "Like I give a crap about being blocked, it doesn't even inhibit me from editing." [36]
    • "Man. You think I've stopped because I'm blocked? Please! Blocking doesn't actually stop anyone but twits!" [37]
    • "You're still wrong about me being blocked accomplishing *anything*, since I can still edit whenever I please... in fact, being blocked gives me far less incentive to be nice about it, in so far as there can be far less than nearly none at all." [38]
    • "I feel great because I can still do what I want, and I don't have to worry what rude jerks think about me ... I can continue to do whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking [sic] mass of people." [39]

    That's not even to mention the personal attacks. Users are frequently blocked for long periods for less than this. I think we need to show some consistency. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly! After this latest episode everyone should know now that claiming "fair use" for copyrighted images on one's userpage is against Foundation policy and increases the legal exposure of the project. So block everyone who restored their pictures or won't take them down. Pilatus 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those comments are very troubling. Anyone else making them would likely be facing a substantial block for that alone. There's only so much goodwill the community affords each of us, and GMaxwell was using up his prodigiously prior to making these comments. I'm concerned about someone making comments like that and still having access to the tool server. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately if we block Gmaxwell, a side-effect is that Mindspillage is also prevented from contributing. What do people suggest? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that's not correct. We can do a user-account block without blocking the IP address (block the account, then unblock the IP). SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    kinda. You could block the account but not the internet, but then he might just come back as a sockpuppet so yeah (although there's a possiblity that he might not do that also arguably you'd be better off knowing who is actually him) =| --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. That's... awkward. android79 22:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments by Gmaxwell show disrespect to the project and its participants ("rude jerks"). Gmaxwell's actions appear to have been disruptive and rude. This is seriously inappropriate behavior, and deserves a strong response from the community. -Will Beback 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignoring the strong reek of double standards emanating from some contributors here, it's odd that anyone should hesitate at the notion that Gmaxwell be blocked for any other than practical reasons, given the pile of evidence against him. Those reasons are also fairly minor, though, surely; just about anyone could edit through sockpuppets, and some do — our response isn't to agonise over whether blocking is a good idea, but to block the sockpuppets as and when they appear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Mel. Moreover, many WP policies are intended to protect the project from disruption. Editors feel insecure and unsure how to respond to problems when these policies aren't followed evenly (never mind they aren't, and would go far in stabilizing things around here if they were). Wyss 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I could make a comment here -- It seems to me that Gmaxwell's head has gotten extremely big. It's extremely frustrating to see him make so many rude comments and vandalous edits without reproach. "Double standard" is exactly what comes to mind. Anyone else who would've acted as he has would've been dealt with much more vigorously. As an administrator-hopeful, I find it absolutely disgraceful that someone such as Gmaxwell has been permitted to continue on as he has. Wikipedians agree to edit by consensus, and with his recent actions, he seems to think he is above policy. ~MDD4696 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope that some recent contributors to this discussion will reconsider their harsh, intemperate and accusatory words in the wake of this incident. This user has currently been unblocked for over thirty hours and has engaged in no further problematic behavior. I find it incredible that editors are seriously suggesting that "more vigorous" action would have been taken against other editors engaging in the blanking of pages containing unlicensed images. It simply isn't true of me, and I find it hard to imagine that Jimbo Wales would regard this as problematic behavior--upsetting though it may be for the copyright infringer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, that isn't the point. The point is that some (or many) or the users who are using these images have no idea what they're doing wrong, or may have some rationale for the image's status as something other than fair use. The issues here are someone being overly aggressive and unnecessarily rude.--Sean|Black 08:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh up to a point, I agree with you. But let's not pussyfoot, here. All of the images in question are clearly marked as unlicensed, nobody has any business using them anywhere on Wikipedia without a very, very good reason. We should be taking this a lot more seriously, and believing that you have a good excuse to put an unlicensed picture on your userpage is not a good excuse to risk jeopardising the Foundation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's pussyfoot? Like the First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? El_C 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I understand. But you don't have to be a dick about it, is all.--Sean Black 13:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're actually right for a change Tony - oh and ignore Sean Black, we all know that this is personal for him due to his close friendship with SlimVirgin and previous protectiveness of SlimVirgin's blatant disrespect of the rules about using fair use images on user pages - If people won't remove fair use images themselves someone else does need to do it.
    However I don't agree with his blanking of user pages, he should have simply remove the fair use images from them and left a talk page message. While Kelly Martin is against him, there are some very large parallels in his behaviour of destructively deleting things just because they have fair use images in them than constructively just simply removing them or replacing them with a free use/GFDL/public domain image. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible response to User:Gmaxwell

    Greg is obviously hurt and angry, and blocking him further now will deepen any feelings he has that Wikipedia has "turned against him", despite it looking like that's what he wants. I'm more worried about getting him to continue doing positive things in the future than I am about stopping him doing negative things right now.

    But something needs to be "seen to be done", or alienate people who are not in the cabal. This is the third example of high-profile violations getting a short block in the last few weeks. Last time, I looked over the previous 5000 or so blocks and only found four 3RR blocks of less than 24 hours, for example. Do we expect that we'll have happy Morlocks slaving away forever with this inequity?

    A possible (non-punative) measure is having ArbCom issue an injunction stating that Greg is on 0 revert, 0 attack, 0 bot (?) parole, etc etc, with a statement that he's welcome to continue contributing in a positive manner but that damage to Wikipedia won't be allowed. Sadly, this should be paired with an indefinite block of the IP until he promises not to blow shit up, as is standard. If his promise is by IRC, e-mail, or voice, a statement that it has been received should be placed somewhere public. No need for an apology or any of that nonsense, but a clear message that blocks will be applied, and an injunction means that no one has to hesitate to perform them.

    brenneman(t)(c) 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An indefinite block of Greg's IP would also be an indefinite block of an Arbitrator just elected to a three year term. Are you quite certain this would be a good idea? Kelly Martin (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It should not be difficult to help Mindspillage find a proxy that he can use for editing. True, Gmaxwell might be able to take advantage of that too, but that doesn't mean we should be paralyzed with fear. Nandesuka 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly, the block of the IP can be undone, leaving only the block of the user account. A block of Gmaxwell will not affect Mindspillage. 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)SlimVirgin (talk)
    There's no need to block the IP. Any sockpuppet causing trouble of the kind Greg has caused will be recognized pretty quickly and blocked. It's the Gmaxwell account that needs to be blocked for longer than 24 hours. I wouldn't say indefinitely, but I think the week-long block ought to be restored, to give him a chance to consider whether he wants to be part of the project, with all the frustrations that necessarily entails, and which he currently seems unable to handle. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm operating on the assumption that we'd treat this independant of whom it is that's acting up. I find it hard to credit that if a static IP has run a destructive bot from a username and again from a sockpuppet that we'd think for more than five seconds before we'd block the address until that person foreswore more bad behavior.
    brenneman(t)(c) 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm reminded of Wik. He was hardbanned for the same kind of thing. I appreciate Greg's concerns about copyright but I'm not sure that the right response to not getting your own way on day one is to start vandalising the place on day two. As he's noted on his talkpage, he's technically adept enough that banning him would not be sufficient to prevent him from carrying out further vandalism but it sure would give him a message.

    I think you have to separate the user -- bad -- from the agenda -- good -- and give him the message: you're banned until you turn the dial down and try to achieve your goals a bit more patiently. Grace Note 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there's anything more than we can or should do at present. Greg has developer rights on the toolserver, and his investment in the project as a whole is not in doubt. I think we should just wait for him to cool down as very little damage has been done except for hurt feelings.
    And honestly if anybody brings up "morlocks" and "little people" again I shall vomit. Greg is precisely that, not an administrator or an arbitrator, and by his hard work and talent he has made himself a great asset to the project. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. You read my mind! You know damned well that if someone you didn't like was doing this, you'd be leading the charge, Tony. It has nothing to do with "investment in the project". Lir made many good edits. So did Wik. Grace Note 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To be frank: While Greg is indeed neither an adminstrator nor an arbitrator, one needs only to scroll up a bit to discussions of "collateral damage" to see that he is politburo at the least. If we continue to give senior contributors free ride to wheel war, vandalise, run bad bots, and generally do whatever the hell they want, let's not be suprised that the peasants are revolting. I suppose we could just quote the ArbCom and tell them to fork off, but good luck maintaining 934,826 atricles without them.
    brenneman(t)(c) 05:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please tone it down? "Wheel war", "run bad bots", "vandalise", "peasant" and did I see somewhere in there a reference to the Cabal and the politburo? Aaron, you yourself must know from your own treatment that respected contributors (whether I regard them as personal friends or not--there is no issue with that) tend to attract more good faith and that the evaluation of a situation is not so blindly evenhanded as to, for instance, block a respected contributor who makes a gross misjudgement but does not seem to present an active risk. I think there is underlying this a suggestion of double standards, which I steadfastly refute. I do regularly (check my block log) reset and remove blocks where good faith can be inferred from email conversations, talk pages, or from reading this forum, and I have no doubt that this is a normal and regular operation carried out by all other conscientious administrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As much respect as I have for Greg, I have to agree with Brenneman. We can't tolerate this shit. It's one thing to gawk at punitive blocking. It's another to gawk at preventive blocking to prevent further crap from occurring. The practical problem, of course, is how to get Mindspillage to edit. Presumably she will have to use a proxy, or we'll have to disable the autoblocker for Greg's account, as the autoblocker will automatically block any IPs he has been using. Johnleemk | Talk 06:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    John, he is a technically adept user. He can easily circumvent any block. So it's pointless seeing a block as a way of actually preventing him from editing. But if his ID is blocked and his IP left untouched, he is given a message. Or we could just all purse our lips some more and tell ourselves how much we "respect" a user who respects other users by blanking their userpages rather than talk to them. Grace Note 10:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you getting at? I've already said I want him blocked as long as he continues to damage the encyclopedia. You're talking to the wrong person here. Johnleemk | Talk 12:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifics of this case aside, getting Mindspillage to edit is a total non-issue, since she's an admin and can easily unblock her IP herself as per the "collateral damage" rule. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And who pretends to be an admin, threatening to block people who disagree with him, [40] regularly makes personal attacks, tells people they're using Wikipedia as free webhosting because they don't want their user pages to be edited by others (nothing to do with images, mind you), [41] and asks good editors to stop editing outside the main namespace because he doesn't like the way they voted in an RfA. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] The people defending him have to realize that they've weakened their own positions regarding the next time they call for a troublemaker to be blocked. If they're prepared to take that on board, good luck to them. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think he asked people to stop editing outside the main namespace. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Sjakkalle. Fixed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If he's been doing that, you need to take it to dispute resolution. WP:AN/I is mainly for assessing urgent problems that may require administrator action. There doesn't seem to be any cause for that here, so far. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said above, Tony, those defending him will have to be consistent, so if you're willing never to put a query on this page about a non-urgent issue, never to block someone for doing less than Gmaxwell did, and to seek dispute resolution from now on when dealing with disruptive editors, instead of blocking, there'll be no problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be as inappropriate for me to defend Greg here as it is for you to use it as a forum to attack him. This is for assessment of risk in potentially urgent incidents. Please take your complaints against Greg Maxwell to dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-Block

    I think Aaron's comment of him being "hurt and upset" is still there after the block, but at least he seems less aggressive now(to an extent)[50] .Just figured i'd give a heads up. Karmafist 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My opinion of this user is that he is a very dangerous individual whose edits speak for themselves. Full of sarcasm, threats, rude insults, impersonations of an admin, not to mention massive disprect of other users and blanking of user pages. I'm all about forgiving, but this is banable behavior. If further incidents occur, a ban would be warranted. -Husnock 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xerves

    I have blocked Xerves (talk · contribs) indefinitely for threats to disrupt Wikipedia and for a legal threat at User_talk:Haikupoet#Rant.2FThreat_from_Xerves. If he would like to discuss his disruption and recant the legal threat, I will consider unblocked him. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Piecraft, part two

    Time for a stupid question from a new admin. Ever since his 24 hour block last month, Piecraft (talk · contribs) has disdained logging in, and has instead continued to contribute anonymously from a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets. He's even gone as far as to use them in attempts to vote twice at several AfDs. Some of the accounts, but probably not all, have been collected at Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Piecraft. Apart from that, should we be doing anything else? - EurekaLott 20:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh boy, here we go again. Piecraft's language is getting abusive once more. See User:Piecraft, User talk:Piecraft#On sockpuppets, User talk:Avogadro94, and User talk:217.129.169.105. Would another warning be appropriate, or does he need a second time out? - EurekaLott 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute between Pamento and Pickelbarrel

    This is a rather nasty quarrel. I have to admit that I am finding it rather difficult to spot where it all began, but at the moment this much is clear (or not as the case may be!). I was contacted by a somewhat distressed User:Pamento yesterday regarding this matter on my talk page. He asked me to give him advice about how to stop User:Pickelbarrel harrassing him. I then told him that he should avoid anything confrontational and to report Pickelbarrel to an Admin for harrassing him if he kept on.

    Pickelbarrel's response to this was to start harassing me on my talk page and to ask User:Cenestrad how best to get rid of me.

    Right. Now as far as I can see, on the 14th of January Pamento made a perfectly reasonable comment on User:Uncle G's talk page asking about his opinions on WP:NOT dictionary policy. Then Pickelbarrel makes an unsigned comment on Pamento's talk page telling him not to harass UncleG (around 5:00 UTC), for no other reason, in my opinion, than newbie jealousy. Pamento then, stupidly, rises to this making an unsigned vandalistic comment on Pickelbarrel's talk page. This then begins a chain of events which lead to Pickelbarrel blowing this out of all proportion, attacking Pamento at every opportunity, using Uncle G's name in vain, Pamento getting nasty with Uncle G as a result... well you can see for yourselves really, all the pages I have found which link to this 'dispute' are linked above. To write it all down here would make for a dissertation.

    I just hope that you Admins can make out of this a good and lasting peace! Dan 22:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I will add that although this probably doesn't fit the page guidelines, I was sent here by an Admin... so don't blame me! :-D Dan 22:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've already asked both editors to stop, and I've twice told Pickelbarrel that we should be civil to everyone here. I don't want to become embroiled in this dispute, which really has nothing to do with me. I'm rather busy working on WikiSaurus at the moment. Support from other people, reinforcing my requests to desist and to be civil, would be welcome. Uncle G 09:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move along, nothing to see here. Really folk, just leave these guys to it if they so desire - it's not really doing any harm (only their talk pages) and they're both much the same. They'll get bored at some point. See also: User talk:Wangi#Asking for possible help re an uncivil Wikipedian. Thanks/wangi 09:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked and as I just told Sam Korn, I don't see an actual dispute (you know, like content, spelling, article naming, etc.), I just see two people kicking and spitting at each other--in such similar styles and levels of hmmm "contributions", in fact, that I'm considering the possibility that they're actually both the same person. They/he/she really needs to take a time out. Tomertalk 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be interesting to see the IPs of all involved in this! ;) T/wangi 09:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, my problem seems to be that I seem to be the only person who has a problem with this. However... it appears to me to be a very bad thing that we let this sort of madness continue, and also if these two are separate entities then we are giving Pamento especially (as a newbie) a very raw deal. He is clearly being harrassed by Pickelbarrel, whose behaviour (as well as his spelling) is atrocious. But that's just my opinion. Dan 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I happen to think they're both in need of a time out. Forced, if necessary. Tomertalk 22:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dan, his only contributions are to his own, Pickelbarrel's and some of our talkpages: Special:Contributions/Pamento... oh, and one real edit. If these guys are making a mess of your talk pages then just clear it up - that's your choice to do on your own talk page. However I don't think there's anything much here to get excited, or waste time, about. Pickelbarrel has made a number of edits, and at least one new article, and he seems most excitable, but lets not piss on the parade of two (if they are two :) potential new editors. By taking this to this platform we're stooping to much the same level level that they are operating at - pointlessness! Lets try to encourage rather than ban, after all these guys are not vandalising the encyclopedia. Thanks/wangi 23:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WritersCramp

    This person's userpage routinely containsoffensive content, for instance 'This user is a proud homophobic. Gaylords not welcome'. I have asked the user to cease and desist, because he violates WP:NPA left right and centre. I will block him if offensive material is re-added to his userpage. The Land 22:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    blocked for 48 hours for blatant violations of WP:NPA as well as violating a number of other policies. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. The Land 23:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that he has been repeatedly blocked in the past, including a one month block back in November, what do you think a 48 hour block will accomplish? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It will keep him off wikipedia for 48 hours ;-) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If he keeps doing it after this, I think a considerably longer block would be justified. I, somewhat lamely, hadn't checked the block log on him. The Land 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that "homophobe" is actually a personal attack lobbed by homosexuals, and given that noone here seems to be named "Gaylord", I think complaining about hir user page (which is obnoxious in the extreme, don't get me wrong) is really counterproductive in complaining about hir making personal attacks. It seems like blocking him for adding material, taken by some editors as offensive to them personally, to his userpage is, at this point, simple vindictiveness. Wikipedia content is not censored for the protection of minors, but users are blocked if some editors don't like other editors? Something is fundamentally wrong with that approach. (WP:NPA is another matter, which has nothing to disagreeing with someone's politics or holding them in disdain for their sexuality.) Tomertalk 09:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He is using his userpage to shout 'I hate gays'. He uses 'homo' as an insult in edit summaries. He refuses to stop doing so when asked to. He is an unpleasant troll who shouldn't be allowed to troll on wikipedia. The Land 10:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only the first sentence of that summary that I was calling into question. People use their userpages to proclaim hatred for all kinds of people. If it's OK for people to hate George W. Bush on their userpages, it's OK for WritersCramp to hate gays. Abusive edsums and trolling are different matters. Tomertalk 17:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/WritersCramp, in addition to his continued disruptive behavior, he has several sockpuppets, some with names that are specifically personal attacks meant to incite people. - Trysha (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect that he has created an account to work around the block, the account User:BionicBoner has picked up in conversations where WC left off right after he was blocked. Same style of userpage, same interests - and by username policy, (clearly refers to genetailia) this account should be blocked as well. - Trysha (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While I don't support his behavior, I have to say I can't help smirking at his inventive account names. :-) Anyone know anything about his ISP? Tomertalk 06:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Onefortyone may be violating probation

    Onefortyone inserted a (in my opinion) poorly sourced paragraph of hearsay and rumors about Cary Grant's sexual orientation into that article. I reverted, with an explanation on Talk:Cary Grant about the inadequacy of the sources and the prior discussion on that page about the need for very strong sources if the article is to include claims that Grant was gay or bisexual. Onefortyone has re-inserted the text twice, ignoring my request that he wait for comments from other editors, and attacking me in an edit summary: [51] Could it be that you do not like sources which prove that Cary Grant was bisexual? I went to Onefortyone's talk page and discovered that he is on probation for just this sort of behavior. If this is a violation of his probation - I think it is, but I could be wrong - I would appreciate an admin assist. Thank you. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Onefortyone has stopped re-inserting, although he has repeated the personal attack twice on Talk:Cary Grant and has not addressed the question of the sources' reliability. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Onefortyone re-inserted the text again and continues accusing me of anti-gay bias. I am at three reverts, so I'm done for the day. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are the person who has completely deleted my contribution to the Cary Grant article. Months ago, there was already a discussion on the Talk:Cary Grant page concerning the same topic in which another user said about your reverts, "Don't presume to whitewash someone else's life just because you don't agree with it." See [52]. Onefortyone 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those comments weren't about me or my reverts or edits to that page. Those comments were placed on the talk page on August 7th. My first edit to Cary Grant came on August 16th. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for confusing you with another user. Onefortyone 01:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The claim is clearly sourced from published books with named authors and so belongs in the article. All it needs is more NPOV phraseology. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My argument is that the single source is not reliable, as it relies on double-hearsay and its accuracy is in question. While the text can easily be balanced with counterarguments (Grant's widow and one surviving ex-wife both vigorously argued in TCM's documentary on Grant that he was heterosexual), a battle of hearsay sources isn't my idea of encyclopedic. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    But all Grant's wives have to go for evidence was . . . hearsay. They weren't with him every minute. They weren't married to him when he was with Scott. One of them wasn't even born. All they had to go on is things he might have said to them (how many gay or bisexual husbands tell their wives the truth?) or they might have heard from other people. In other words, hearsay. If the personal opinions of ex-wives count, so do the personal opinions of colleagues and friends. It is all or nothing. You can't say 'I believe source x rather than source y' because that is POV. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That's what I said - hearsay is not good enough for an encyclopedia, and unless we have something stronger than a questionable author saying that someone told him that someone else said Grant was gay or bisexual, it shouldn't be in the article. Onefortyone has no other sources than that one book; the comment from Arthur Laurents is completely unsourced, while the line about Bringing Up Baby is unsourced and probably irrelevant, as it's based on his own interpretation of the word "gay" in the film's dialogue. My point for the original post is that Onefortyone's probation appears to require him to strongly verify edits about the sexual orientation of actors and actresses. These edits appear to violate the probation. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added some quotes from Arthur Laurents's book, Original Story by Arthur Laurents: A Memoir of Broadway and Hollywood to the Talk:Cary Grant page. See [53]. For the gay subtext of the Bringing Up Baby line, see [54]. Onefortyone 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This quote is from that last link: There is no conclusive evidence that Grant was bisexual. (That's the conclusion of a graf on his sexuality.) If a site dedicated to the topic of LGBT culture in Hollywood says that there's no conclusive evidence, then Onefortyone's edits are merely rumors, which don't belong in an encyclopedia. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The source only says that there is "no conclusive evidence", which means that there is some evidence, supported by hearsay of the time. Biographers are frequently discussing the topic. Certainly rumors are part of a celebrity's history, especially if there are several independent sources which support the claims. 80.141.240.145 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Onefortyone has posted the text of the Laurents source on Talk:Cary Grant. It's clear that Laurents himself was unsure of Grant's sexual orientation and had no concrete evidence to say that Grant was gay or bisexual. In other words, Onefortyone's edits do not match the source material. I still believe the content should come out and Onefortyone has violated his probation. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting assistance with a Wiki Admin

    Hello, I am requesting help with a particular admin here that has stated I could be banned for what my personal position is on discussing matters with other Wikipedians. For some background information and I also want to clearly state my problem. I joined Wikipedia in December of 2005 in response to the actions taken concerning the wiki article "wehatetech" or "we hate tech." The article has been pulled several times and I do understand that once it's voted on somehow, not exactly clear on that, it's removed from the encyclopedia. I am NOT here to fight for that particular article. i understand that there is a guideline for articles, BUT my observation and opinion is that the rules were not followed properly in the process of deletion. Why am I still here? Well, in a nutshell, I have seen people removed from the site or blocked for various reasons I also do not agree with, but it up to those individual people to address their removal. I decided to stay in order to provide constructive criticism of the deletion process and to add another viewpoint to the issue. I feel improperly judged, reading from responses to my post, a "one issue candidate" and have been threatened with removal from the site, being a sock-puppet for "we hate tech" and accused of "cluttering" talk pages.

    My purpose is not to clutter the site or be on any type of mission to tear down Wikipedia. I wish to understand why certain things happen here and hope to add thoughtful insight and more information to topics in order to resolve an issue. I do feel like I am being pushed around and generally really upset with the whole process with a select group of individuals either working behind the scenes or posting on my talk page. Two Wikipedians have stood out in this whole situation, User:Haikupoet and admin User:Zoe. I have had several exchanges with both, with Haikupoet moving one comment and then deleting my response to because I was under the impression that it was deleted. My response comment was then deleted, which resulted in the blocking User:Xerves. The block happened due to a supposed "legal threat" by "Zoe" which has now threatened me with the same. It's not MY forum I am promoting. I am a member of such forum and website http://www.wehatetech.com and I am NOT trying to promote in the first place.

    I AM promoting that fellow Wikipedians discuss issues and not stomp over other postings by others. I am being totally honest and upfront. I do not have a hidden agenda. Have I been totally innocent? No, there are two comments / edits on my behalf that broke regulation. i was dealt with in a proper manner by those admins and I am thankful for that. If further investigation yields that I be removed from Wikipedia then so be it, as long as I am adequately told as to such infractions. i only wish to resolve this issue. i have deleted none of my post and will not edit any of my post to make myself appear in a different light. Everything is available through my user history.

    Thank you. Kmac1036 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings, Kmac. Your complaint would be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you move it there, you're more likely to get a response. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have move this here per suggestion by "Quadell." Thank you. Kmac1036 00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm User:Haikupoet, and I thought I'd tell my side. First off, I moved Kmac's posting from my main page to my talk page. If that's not allowed, than I apologize, but I think it entirely reasonable as talk pages are where that sort of thing is supposed to go. Second, I have tried to explain to all parties involved in the Wehatetech mess how Wikipedia is supposed to work (check my user page for a summary of what I've tried to tell all of them). What I think we have here is a clearcut case of refusal to understand the system -- the WHT crew simply don't want to accept "nonnotable" as a reason for disinclusion in Wikipedia, and continue to try to force the issue long after any other AfD would have run its course and been forgotten. As for Xerves' comments and subsequent banning, he did not threaten me, it is true, but he did threaten (implying that he was speaking for the WHT community as a whole IMHO) to drag the fight out until they get what they want. Haikupoet 00:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I told Kmac that if he were to carry out his threat to disrupt Wikipedia by repeated insertions of wehatetach, then he could be blocked for WP:POINT ([55]). I said nothing to him about legal threats. The legal threat was made by Xerves, as I explained above. #User:Xerves. Kmac is also repeatedly accusing me of having blanked his User page, which is not true, and which I repeatedly try pointing out to him that he can read the history to see that I have made no edits to his page, but he repeatedly accuses me of using "admin tools" to hide my edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    External campaigning group spamming talk pages to pack Wikipedia debates

    Content of the spam is:

    Come and vote your mind
    Dear Christian friend,
    I saw you on the list of Christian Wikipedians and wanted to let you know about something. The other day, someone nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion! They include a Christian university list of people (not unlike 68 other lists like it)[56], presidents of universities, and authors of many books.
    Since that time, people have been voting. Please take this message as a call to vote; not a call to vote a certain way. I respect you and your ability to come, read the entry, and make a wise decision. In other words, I’m not vote stacking or campaigning; simply letting you know something that you’d probably like to know.
    By the way, my friend recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ. If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see the site!
    Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_DeYoung
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Morey
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Pack
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mal_Couch
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
    God bless you, Wiggins2 07:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Somebody tell me now this isn't a good enough reason to delete POV user categories. Hermione1980 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. That still isn't a good enough reason to delete such categories. If liberals, conservatives, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, Irish users, British users, monarchists, republicans, Americans and others can all notify each other about debates that interest them, why can't christians? What can't users in a free society communicate with likeminded individuals on an issue of mutual interest? Sometimes it seems as though the least liberal and least pluralist individuals are those who proclaim themselves liberal and pluralist but who insist that their views and agendas are right and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong, a bigot, a fascist, a conservative, or something else. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You completely missed the point. The whole thing is that nobody should be doing that. -- SCZenz 01:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why on earth not? Irish users let me know if there is an Irish-related topic being voted on. Writers on royalty let me know if there is a topic on monarchy being voted on. UK editors inform me if there is a vote on UK issue being voted on. Do you imagine that people are physically able to keep track of every debate? They can't. Like-minded individuals will always let others know what is going on. It seems to me that the issue here is that its those damn pesky Christians doing it! And that annoys the likes of Tony, who can be every bit as intolerant as those they accuse of intolerance. BTW I am not religious. In fact I oppose much of the Born Again Christian agenda. But they have every right to communicate among themselves, as I do with everyone else. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that letting people know about the discussions they're interested in is reasonable. However, taken to too great an extent, what this guy is doing does disrupt our consensus-forming results by overloading the discussion with people on one side of the issue. People have no right whatsoever to disrupt Wikipedia. This has nothing whatsoever to which POV is being pushed--can you please stop setting up that particular straw man? -- SCZenz 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a more complicated issue than either side makes it out to be. On the one hand, we don't want people to bring in tons of meatpuppets from outside Wikipedia to interfere with deletion discussions. On the other hand, we don't want to delete potentially valid articles without the contributors knowing about them. As mentioned above, people can't always keep an eye on every article they've edited in the past. If someone nominated one of my articles for deletion for whatever reason, I might not even know about it until after it was done. Maybe the answer is more notification requirements on AFD debates in general? Then this kind of campaigning would be unneeded, and could be stopped. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is bringing in people who have nothing to do with an article, because you expect their opinion to agree with yours. That's different than notifying authors, and it is a problem. -- SCZenz 03:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a good idea - that would be one way of determining whether he's a Jason Gastrich sockpuppet or not ;) Guettarda 01:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Whats the policy on blocking accounts that are role accounts?--nixie 01:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • It depends from your definition of "role account". There are different definitions. An account that can be used by multiple people fulfilling a single role is frowned upon. But an account used by a single person to distinguish edits made when that one person is acting in a particular role (from other edits made by that one person) is generally acceptable. ('bot accounts fit the latter description, after all. Uncle G's major work 'bot (talk · contribs) is, in this sense, one of my role accounts, for example. I have also seen some administrators that that have secondary accounts that explicitly do not have administrator privileges.) Accounts that are purported to be role accounts, but that are actually not role accounts are frowned upon. Two purported role accounts that are both contributing to featured article/talk page/deletion discussions are not actually accounts where a single person is acting in distinct roles. Uncle G 10:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with a block as there seems to be broad consensus for that I'll carry it out.. If it's thought to be a sock then someone will ask for it to be sock checked. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully support block. NSLE (T+C) 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support block, but I think we need to be very clear that the problem is any POV-pushing of this type, not the particular POV being pushed. It's an easy mistake to make, I think. -- SCZenz 01:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked him for 48 hours for this incident, and on going to checkuser requests I saw he's already listed there as a possible sock of one Jason Gastrich. Seeing Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jason_Gastrich, where he openly admits using socks, I'd like to study this more but my gut instinct is that we should probably start discussing whether it would be appropriate to indefinitely block all accounts of this fellow.

    Of course there is nothing intrinsically wrong with socks, appropriately used, but this fellow's stated reasons aren't convincing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    kill his socks but give the main account one last chance after the current block expires.Geni 02:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I too support this. What I take issue with here is the attempt to push POV. Notifying users who already have a stake in the discussion (as in, they already gave input) is fine, as if the situation has changed, it would be good if they could clarify their stance WRT the changes. It is also okay to notify users who might know something about the subject -- in other words, "Experts". For instance, if a Malaysia-related article were put up for deletion, it would be best to ask Malaysian editors about it to see how notable it is. Likewise, something may be very popular in Ireland, but the article being AfDed may not have made this context clear -- Irish folk can help clear this up. But there are at least a billion people who claim to be Christians in the world, and the chances of finding one who knows something important about theology (and can thus expand the AfDed article or explain a point of importance on the AfD) are rather slim. Thus, this is not an attempt to clarify the facts (which should be done more often, but isn't done for fear of POV pushing) but an attempt to push POV, which must be strongly condemned. Johnleemk | Talk 02:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See also this where someone called "Jason Gastrich" boasts about the success of "Our latest ministry, Wiki 4 Christ". Wikipedia isn't a place for spiritual ministries to operate. I am going to block this fellow Gastrich's main account for twenty-four hours with immediate effect pending discussion of what we do about this. I'd like to get agreement, ideally, for an indefinite block of this user and all socks in the hope that we can deter Gastrich from trying to bring his ministry to Wikipedia. . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's going way too far IMO given the ambiguous nature of the comment. Some American Christians refer to almost anything they do as a "ministry", rather than reserving the term for actual preaching alone. Can anyone show evidence that actual disruption has taken place here, and what the nature of that disruption was? We don't expect our editors not to have POVs, just not to insert those POVs into articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If he has been disruptive, ban him for disruption on the same terms as anyone else. Let's not, and let's not seem to, ban someone for proselytizing. Tom Harrison Talk 03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys should read the link Tony provided, for example take a look at this:
    We are a network of Christian Wikipedia contributors. We have five main objectives.
    Our main objectives:
    1. Make sure Christian entries are fairly and accurately represented
    2. Contribute new Christian entries
    3. Network together to make each entry as good as possible
    4. Voice our opinion on the inclusion of Christian entries
    5. Glorify Jesus Christ
    Item 4 indicates an intent to disrupt Wikipedia. What's inherently wrong with having a "ministry" of whatever kind here is that it's an effort to use Wikipedia for a goal different than its purpose: to make a good encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Is[reply]

    In any case I don't buy the "Some American Christians refer to almost anything they do as a "ministry"" line. If they think that I don't think they're likely to be capable of working within out neutrality policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't remember you ever complaining about my working within the neutrality policy. Maybe you should review my work and see if any bias has crept in. Tom Harrison Talk 04:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're zooming way over my head here. Take it slowly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'line' you say you don't buy, that everything I do is a ministry, is a principle I subscribe to. Am I then incapable of working within our neutrality policy? Tom Harrison Talk 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I think that Jason's consecutive nomination of about a dozen atheist articles for deletion (described in his RFC) is indeed evidence of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and I would have no problem with a 24-hour block on that basis. I just don't want this to turn into some kind of witch hunt against fundamentalists (as much as I disagree with fundamentalist ideology myself). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This chap contacted me in email and I've told him I'll unblock his main account if he can list his sock puppets so they can be blocked. He does sound like he sincerely wants to promote contribution to Wikipedia and I have no quarrel with that as long as he can find a way to do so without breaking the neutrality policy. The other isues with his behavior can be addressed in the normal way but at this stage I'm trying to look for evidence that this guy has a good faith wish to work with us and start a dialog. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, I think, three major problems with Gastrich.
    First, his use of socks. He is quite open about past use of socks, professes intent to use his main account for "the vast majority" of edits going forward, but still appears to be using socks (or possibly meatpuppets) to evade 3RR on articles where he is in an edit war. I can't offhand think of a credible reason for him to use a "role account" (I have considered using my old account for main space edits now my new account shas sysop rights, but even then I'm hesitant).
    Second, his blatant intent to use WP as "ministry". There is nothing wrong with being guided by faith, and nothing wrong with openly working to ensure that Christian subjects are covered, it's working to the effect of having them coveredto a specific viewpoint which is the issue. He removed Ben Franklin from the list of deists citing his own "evidence" on his website; Franklin is on record as openly a Deist, and there is authoritative evidence now linked form the resotred entry in the list. Gastrich appears to be one of those black-and-white people, and that is always going to cause friction. His representation of the Louisiana Baptist University entries as "Christian biographies" is a case in point: LBU is, according to the available evidence, an unaccredited institution teaching fundamentalism to fundamentalists. These fundamentalists then go on to teach other fundamentalists, creating a sort of walled garden.
    Third, his incivility - or rather, the fact that he tends to personalise everything. Not that I am unfailingly polite myself, anyone can kick back when riled, but it's his invariable tendency to ascribe motives to actions; anyone who AfDs an article on somoene who happens to be a Christian is thereby anti-Christian (even when they are a self-declared Christian) - much more, all on the RfC. There was an edit war over the inclusion or non-inclusion of a Gastrich book rebutting The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Both sides were pushing POV: one pushing a critique of Gastrich's critique, the other pushing Gastrich (being mainly Gastrich himself, anons on what is stated to be his ISP, or suspected socks). I solved this in the usual way by removing both and taking it to Talk, with the comment that it seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it, which I would have said was pretty uncontentious, especially given that those removing it had cited some pretty scathing and apparently well-informed criticisms of Gastrich's books. This provoked a very aggressive response, and a vigorous assertion that Amazin reviews are reliable, and that the fact that many of the reviews were high star ratings automatically made the source a good one - omitting to mention that the high star rating reviews were accompanied by some very well-argued one-star ratings, and in any case Amazon reviews are not a reliable source.
    I would like to be satisfied that Gastrich will be massively less aggressive in the future, but his RfC response is utterly defiant. I believe he genuinely can't see what's wrong with what he's doing, and that is probably the fundamental issue.
    Apologies for the long reply. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So he is uncivil, tries to force edits against consensus, uses sockpuppets contrary to policy, and you reasonably expect him to continue all these. That sounds block-worthy to me. His religion may have brought him here; it should not be a reason for us to send him away. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anybody ever suggested that his religion was the problem. But when he pushes his religion to the point where it disrupts Wikipedia, then it's a problem. The disruption's the thing. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly agree with this. Jason Gastrich is disrupting Wikipedia to push his religious POV, accuses everyone else of disrupting Wikipedia, not assuming good faith, making personal attacks, being religiously intolerant, etc. etc. Stifle 16:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom, I appreciate your point that using words like "ministry" and whatnot doesn't necessarily taint the fellow's contributions, and I agre that his religious motivations aren't the issue here. Since he contacted me he has been very quiet and I think he's just waiting out the block. This doesn't bode well; I had hoped to see him make a full disclosure of socks and start a dialog, but no response so far. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Which seems to be par for the course. From what I can find of his participation in other fora across the web, he's treated each as a vehicle for self-promotion and witnessing. I counted four different fora that he has permanently blocked from participation, all for self-promotion and/or witnessing and refusing to abide by policy. I don't doubt he'll follow the same pattern here. FeloniousMonk 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tony; I don't oppose blocking him. As Katefan0 says above, the disruption is the thing. Tom Harrison Talk 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Kosebamse's law - People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views." Very applicable in this case. Radiant_>|< 21:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just checked my email. He did get back to me (there was a confusion over my identity which wasn't his fault, and one reply went astray). He has identified the following accounts as socks, but they're all blocked already.

    These were all blocked in November by Karmafist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

    He says that Wiggins2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and God's child (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are people known to him and coordinating with him, not socks per se.

    He has noticed the block on his account by Felonious Monk:

    His comment on this is "I do not use sockpuppets and I have done nothing wrong." Hmm, I think this chap has some re-education ahead of him. I've replied saying:

    • Well I think you've admitted using socks, and there do seem to be quite a lot of things wrong with your behavior. I advise you to step back a bit for now and try to work out what all these people are upset about, and how you are going to make things right for them. It's a hard job to do but essential if you are to learn how to work with Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Neutral point of view recent edits

    All -- there have been some questionable edits going on recently at WP:NPOV, with some concomitant edit warring. I'd encourage everybody to stop by the page and weigh in on the debate over these changes. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh

    Further incivility, mindbogglingly enough, on the RfC about his incivility. Someone please block User:Dabljuh for an appropriate amount of time. (Just the latest in a long string of unbridled abuse.) I'd block him myself, but I'm arguably "involved", since I supported the RfC from the outset... Tomertalk 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins can't block for personal attacks unless they rise to the level of dissrupting wikipedia.Geni 02:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the RfC? Tomertalk 07:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Skim read it. Just appears to be the latest shots in the cercemsission issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs)
    I assume "cercemsission" is supposed to be "circumcision". The RfC does not concern circumcision, however, it concerns gross incivility that is, in fact, an egregious part of the user's disruption, as it happens, of circumcision-related articles. Tomertalk 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Statements such as "Since that time he's been obsessed with circumcision-related articles...edits to such articles comprising well in excess of 95% of his subsequent edits. First contribution [4] on the subject is incivil, unproductive and overtly trollish. Circumcision-related edits have overwhelmingly dominated subsequent contributions " make me question that. The number of people signing up is low enough to make any claims of dissrupting wikipedia questionable.Geni 08:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's OK then if his disruption is limited then to a narrow group of articles and his personal attacks limited to just a few editors, notably those with whom he happens to disagree who, as it happens, contribute to those articles? Until you actually take the time to go through his contribs, it seems to me you should reserve judgment. I think we're done here, as this has now become a discussion of his RFC tho, not of his continued disruption. Tomertalk 09:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can see Dabljuh's behaviour is in violation of various policies, but not in a particularly vicious manner, and is stimulated by the ongoing dispute over circumcision. I don't see any reason to block him. The Land 13:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it was ok. I just said it was outside the juristion of admins.Geni 13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a reason why user conduct RfCs have a link to the user in question's contributions. If you check it you'll see that his disruption is not only obvious (including on his own rfc), but not limited to circumcision. Take this gem for example. Tomertalk 14:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Apology from Hotrocks vandal

    This was posted to my talk page:

    We are sorry for the 'hotrocks' (User:Hotrocks) vandalism - instead we agree to become good contributors - and we have decided that we don't get any entertainment out of it.
    This is a genuine apology and we are sorry.
    Apologies again,
    --Hutracks 12:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have time at this moment, can someone else familiar with the incident in question please investigate and possibly unblock? Thanks :-) - David Gerard 12:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The blocklog indicates that User:Hotrocks was blocked as a Willy on Wheels. However, there is only one surviving contrib in their history (a misleadingly summaried addition of a {{totallydisputed}}). Presumably, all their moves have been deleted, so it seems hard to verify whether they were in fact Willy or not. Kate had a deleted contribs browser; is it possible to somehow construct that by hand if you're an admin? -Splashtalk 12:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We were a group of WoW-impersonators who did a sort of breaching experiment. David blocked some of our sockpuppets, we didn't mean any harm, sorry for our vandalisms. Now we come back to do positive edits. --Hutracks 13:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    But is the blocking policy not for preventing damage rather than punishment? -Localzuk (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It also calls for indefinite blocks for people who act like indefinitely banned users. --Deathphoenix 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If any admin wants to give them another chance (everyone is theoretically forgivable), they can unblock and then watch closely just in case of damage - David Gerard 17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He "apologised" to me on October the 27th (User talk:Finlay McWalter#Hotrocks Vandal); his apologies are as worthless as everything else he's done here. Block, revert, ignore, repeat. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated personal attacks

    Wikipedia's policy on No personal attacks gives as an example "Negative personal comments", and "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". How many is an individual allowed to get away with? The latest (although quite mild) was posted a few hours ago (references show diffs):

    These are all from user:ScienceApologist, who used to by the username of user:Joshuaschroeder before changing it [57].

    • 23 Jan 06: "...not in the mood to educate you on improving your baloney detector at this time" [58]
    • 21 Dec 05: "Marmet and Carezani are well-known woo-woos" [59]
    • _9 Dec: "...it's only fair that Arp's pathological skepticism (reference to scientist Halton Arp) [60]
    • _5 Dec: "Iantresman is on some strange personal vendetta may be true" [61]
    • _3 Dec: "User:Iantresman, very incompetent in this regard,"[62]
    • _1 Dec: I am "...an avowed Velikovskian and hasn't received formal training in physics or astronomy."[63]
    • _1 Dec: I am a "nonscientist layman" [64]
    • 18 Nov: "... a list full of "critics" who range from geologists to the out-and-out insane (such as VanFladern)." (Referring to astronomer Tom Van Flandern) [65]
    • _8 Nov: Removing credentials from physicist Dr. László Körtvélyessy [66]

    --Iantresman 15:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Not a personal attack.
    2. Are these Wikipedia editors? If not, then it's not a PA.
    3. As above.
    4. You do appear to have a personal vendetta against Joshua, as evince by your rejected RFAR and harrassment like this. He is describinb your behaviour, not your personality. Not a PA.
    5. Questioning your competence on a matter is not a PA.
    6. Is it an attack to call you a Velikovskian? This is not a common insult, but if you are offended by it maybe you should have advised Joshua that you consider it an attack. As for the second part - either you have formal training in physics (in which case it's a factually inaccurate statement) or you don't. But it's not a personal attack.
    7. "Non-scientist layman" is not a PA.
    8. Again, unless VanFlandern is a Wikipedian, this cannot be construed as a PA (and even if he were one, I don't think NPA forbids one to comment on the quality of a person's off-Wikipedia professional persona).
    9. Nowhere near a "personal attack".

    Guettarda 19:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Guettarda, on reading the Wikipedia's policy on No personal attacks, the 1st two sentences read "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." (my emphasis). Bearing that in mind,
    (1) "not in the mood to educate you" is clearly aimed at the contributor, and questions their education.
    (2) (3) (8) These may not be aimed at Wiki Contributors, but are still personal attacks, because (a) they are aimed at individuals, (b) seem to fail the very first sentence on the policy page. I wouldn't expect to see any of these comments in an encyclopedia, or professional journal.
    (5) "User:Iantresman, very incompetent in this regard," again is aimed at the contributor
    (6) "... hasn't received formal training in physics or astronomy" (6) "Non-scientist layman", again are both aimed at the contributor. ScienceApologist, doesn't know my education beyond what I have on my personal web page, and whether the comment is true or false is irrelevent to the content of my contributions.
    --Iantresman 23:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At the head of this page is the following text:
    Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.
    What do you want? If it is some kind of sanction for those comments, then it is extremely unlikely that you'll get it here. You should consider a WP:RFC (and whatever follows in the WP:DR). Latinus 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If Adminstrators have limited authority to deal with Personal attacks, then of course there is no point my mentioning it. I just assumed that if there was a Wikipedia policy against something in order to focus on content rather than contributors, we'd get a better encyclopedia. It also seems pretty ironic that Guettarda suggests that I am harrassing ScienceApologist, merely by bring to attention evidence of contravention of a Wikipedia policy; a bit like punishing whistleblowers for speaking out --Iantresman 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Excesive Vandialism by User

    User:209.12.51.207 recently vandalized Personification [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personification&diff=36366004&oldid=36365454]. I checked the User Talk page and the user already had a "last warning" test 4 on it. Does that means somebody should ban the IP? Where (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like this IP's been blocked for 3 hours. If you want to report on a user that should be blocked immediately for vandalism (such as a user vandalising articles even after receiving a test3 or test4), try WP:AIV. To report on a user who is vandalising articles, but doesn't necessarily need to be blocked immediately, try WP:VIP. --Deathphoenix 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Consistant NPOV reverts

    User:Ramkumar.k keeps on inserting non-NPOV material into Jimmy George. I have reverted the edits 3 times, but s/he continues to put the stuff back in. Please advise. Where (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be time to avail yourself of some of the suggestions in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If this person (or yourself, or anybody) reverts an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, however, they may be blocked for violating the three revert rule. You can report such violations here. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Improper block of User:Mirror Vax

    I was reading the history for Canadian federal election, 2006 because I wanted to see if the disclaimer template that I nominated for deletion was actually being used on that page. Apparently, not only was it used, but one contributor was blocked for removing it. User:Physchim62, the template's author, placed it on the page at 9:39 AM [67]. User:Mirror Vax then removed it. This turned into a revert war; Physchim62 placed the template three more times and Mirror Vax removed it. Each of them had exactly three reverts. (Psychim62's reverts: [68] [69] [70]; Mirror Vax's reverts: [71] [72] [73]) In other words, both of them were right at the limit of our "electric fence". All well and good, except that Psychim62 then blocked MirrorVax for a spurious WP:3RR violation, despite the fact that (1) he had not made a fourth revert, (2) Psychim62 had also made three reverts, and (3) he was involved in the edit war, thus making his block clearly an inappropriate use of administrative powers.

    Can someone please undo this block? I've worked with Mirror Vax in the past on Commodore-related articles and can verify that he is a good contributor. And the block clearly violated Wikipedia:Blocking policy, specifically: "Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article-editing conflict." Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right, he only reverted three times. Not stellar performance, but not blockworthy either, particularly since he was involved in a content dispute over what sort of template to use with the blocking admin. As a courtesy, I'll ask that he unblock him. If he isn't available to do the unblocking in a timely manner, I'll do it. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also used his rollback button to revert. Tsk. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Mirror Vax is now unblocked. Please note that the first of my diffs is an edit, not a revert. It was to place {{ElectionResultsCA}} on the page, as discussed on the relevant talk page. This template has also been discussed at length on TfD, where there is a near two-thirds majority to keep (and hence to use it on the page for which it was destined). During that discussion, the wording of the template has been edited to try to address the concerns addressed. Unfortunately some editors are not willing to accept this consensus: User:Mirror Vax seems to be one, given his edit summary "this is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit for intimidation and propaganda". User:Crotalus horridus also seems unwilling to accept that the template does not fall under WP:NLT. I apologise for the incorrect block, and I hope that other administrators will better keep their calm about this page tonight. Physchim62 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick reply, Physchim. I understand the frustration. Maybe you could encourage the folks discussing this template at TfD to come to the page in question to help build a more lasting consensus. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Canadian federal election, 2006

    (continuation of above) I should mention that there has been lengthy discussion of the problem (official blackout of certain results of the Canadian election between 00:00 UTC and 03:00 UTC 2006-01-24) on Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006, TfD and VP policy. A great deal of consensus has been reached, but some parties remain unsatisfied. Given the timescale, I cannot see any greater consensus being reached before the polls close. Hence, unfortunately, there is likely to be edit warring tonight. No by me, I'm off to my European bed—I just felt I should warn the duty admins of what to expect. Physchim62 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I say let them post that information, unlike Yahoo and Microsoft we don't help countries censor their citizens. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank-you for your helpful comment, but you fail to address verifiability issues. Physchim62 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Saugeen Stripper page protection

    Request for page protection on the Saugeen Stripper article while a deletion review is in progress due to various users trying to avert process. --OntarioQuizzer 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New Instantnood and Huaiwei Bans

    I banned Instantood and Huaiwei both from Clock tower. Revert warring without discussion and the usual jabs in edit summaries.

    I also banned Instatnood from Category:Transport in Hong Kong, Category:Transportation in Macau, and Category:Transportation in China, reverts on old fights in otherwise stable articles (or cats as the case may be) without summaries or discussion.

    The full list for bans per this ArbCom ruling can be found here. --Wgfinley 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And I just added Lists of country-related topics as well, missed one. --Wgfinley 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And another....Singapore Science Centre, both Instant and Huaiwei, blatant revert warring. --Wgfinley 20:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    7 Day Blocks

    I have blocked both Instant and Huaiwei for 7 days effective immediately for continued and incessent edit warring despite numerous warnings, pleas to reconsider, and article bans accumulating at more than one a day (not to mention what I'm sure we're missing). This blatant disregard of their probation requires a more direct response and I believe this block is in order given their continued edit warring and disturbance to Wikipedia. --Wgfinley 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    May I request that this block be reviewed. The latest incident that prompted this block, in Singapore Science Centre, is not a China-related article; and so I'm not sure about the validity of that ban, and therefore of this general ban as well. In addition, the ban was issued after a discussion had taken place in the talk page Talk:Singapore Science Centre, and therefore I feel that the ban is rather unnecessary, as the reverting has ceased. For these reasons, I hope admins would consider reducing the length of the block, thanks. --Vsion 06:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Remind me again on how many articles they are banned from? If the article bans are not working, then blocks like the one issued is pretty much the only way to solve things. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They engaged in edit warring first and 'discussion'–one lonely comment by Huaiwei–afterward. Whether the Singapore Science Centre is an article that was covered within the narrow terms of their original probation is moot; their behaviour was disruptive and inappropriate. (There is also an amendment to their original ArbCom decision on WP:RFArb, expanding the terms of their probation to include all articles.)
    Moving their destructive interpersonal conflict to non-China-related pages doesn't give them a free pass to edit war. If they can't get this through their heads after being banned from more than a dozen individual articles and receiving two or three short-term blocks in the last few weeks, a seven-day block seems regrettably necessary to get their attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As this notice states, this is not about one edit, it's about a documented pattern of behavior that shows no signs of ending. Huaiwei reverted the article 3 times in the past week without any discussion and the usual debate in the edit summaries. He didn't post anything to the talk page until after his latest revert. Finally, I'm pretty confident this meets the criteria of being China-related seeing as how the majority population of Signapore is ethnic Chinese. --Wgfinley 06:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I resent that, Wgfinley. In no way are we China-related just by the majority race. I'm Chinese in race, but I don't see myself related to China. NSLE (T+C) 07:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you don't think this fight on this article has anything to do with the fights on China-related articles?? --Wgfinley 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It may just be Instanthood wanting to get on Huaiwei's nerves, but Singapore Science Centre is definitely not China-related. NSLE (T+C) 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethnic Chinese, yes majority of Singaporeans are, but I have yet, after living here for a great deal of 15 years (I am an European migrant), I have yet to come across a Chinese here claiming to be related to China in any sense, except for ancestry. Its just a great deal of misconception, Singapore is a South-East Asian nation, the portion of the Asia continent where Chinese are considered migrants. No, Singapore Science Centre is not related to China, nor are any Singaporeans, in regardless of ethnicity, related to China. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 14:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And, once more, this is not about a single edit, this is not about the makeup of the Singaporean people although these are delightful exercises in wikilawyering. This is about how nothing justifies edit warring and dozens of other articles they're already both banned from. --Wgfinley 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonetheless, it is clear that because of Singapore Science Centre, Wgfinley issued the general block. His misplaced belief that the article is china-related undeniably influenced this decision. Also in several instances, the situations had been overstated: that "normal editings" being stated as "edit wars"; "simply revert" being stated as "revert warrings"; and "explanation in edit summary" being described as "jabs in revert comments". One clear example is in Clock tower, where a closer examination will show that there is no revert at all. Many editors do have the occasional habit of writing long edit summaries, and there is in fact no ill-will in the edits of Clock tower between them and other editors involved. However, Wgfinley had misinterpreted the few long edit summaries as a revert warring and issue the block, and continue to uphold it despite later clarification. As these decisions are questionable, it warrants a fresh look into the circumstances and that the length of the 7-days block be reconsidered. I earnestly request that because it is an extremely harsh penalty on two very important wikipedia contributors, as evidenced by their contribution pages; which also show that both parties have exercised considerable restraints in the past few days. An overly harsh punishment in this circumstance would not be in the interests of this community. I appeal for reconsideration, thank you. --Vsion 16:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Come now, Instantnood and Huaiwei clearly need time out. They have been playing this cat and mouse game of reverts for ages now. They got their hands slapped at arbcon and have continued regardless. Singapore Science Centre was nothing special - it's just the article when Wgfinley finally had enough. He has been spending time and effort on individual article bans - we should be thanking him for that. Wikipedia is all about writing an encyclopedia, not warring. There are plenty of articles needing attention that if they both decided to they could have kept out of each others way. Thanks/wangi 16:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.194.104.5

    This ID was apparently being used to make death threats back in June of 2004, and User:RickK blocked it. I don't have any information about the ID myself, except for seeing the kinds of threats being made. We have received an email at the Help Desk mailing list from St. Petersburg College claiming it is their firewall internet address. The email came from a person in their network technical support staff. Should this ID be unblocked? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone ahead and unblocked it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Saugeen Stripper protected in violation of WP:PP

    I am highly concerned by the precedent being set here, although I still hold out hope there was a mistake. To summarize. Article was created in december and was AfD'd. Result was non consensus/keep. Immediate deletion review. It was immediately AfDd again. Again result was non consensus. Now there is another deletion review. Fine, that is the process. But while it is deletion review, a couple of users have chosen to redirect the article endlessly, despite the fact that the AfD result was keep. I posted a message requesting temporarily page protection of this article at least until the deltion review took place, and now (either as a mistake or out of spite) the BLANK article has been protected. Can someone please do something about this? Phantasmo 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, sorry... there wsa no consensus to DELETE, but that doesn't mean there is no consensus to redirect. 46 people wanted the article removed, only 20 people wanted it kept as is... that's a clear consensus. So it's been redirected. No we have people who were on the side that had less than 1/3 of the vote trying to claim that they can force their will upon everyone else and being deceptive about what the votes were in order to try to keep it as a full article. The redirected article has been protected, which is certainly clearly within process of how things should be handled. Deletion review has no bearing on whether the article is redirected or not. If they do consider redirecting as part of the official delete vote, then they would also have to consider the 46 votes to remove and then go ahead and redirect anyway. People who lose votes need to stop playing little wikilawyering games where they try to claim that no consensus to do one specific action means consensus to do their action, because that's not how things work. DreamGuy 20:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who lost the vote? The result was non consensus KEEP! Those who favored deletion then put this up for deletion review. While the deletion review is taking place, the article should remain in the state that the AfD result dictated, which is KEEP. The guy who placed the article up for deletion review (below) even agrees that the redirect is a misuse of power!!! All I ask is that the process be honored. I have no personal stake with this article, but I do have a stake in wikipedia's processes being honored. This is an end around at best, a blatant violation at worst.Phantasmo 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the result was "no consensus", which defaults to keep. It's an important subtlety. AfD and DRV have no bearing on what form an article takes, only whether or not it exists. android79 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is semantics. The article in question is up for discussion in deletion review. Those who supported deletion redirected as an end around. Now, the deletion review process is meaningless because there is nothing left to judge. The article was a non con keep. Not a merge redirect. That also results in a clear difference. Secondarily, no matter how you slice it, R Fiend has violated WP:PP. That much is a fact. Phantasmo 20:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it's time to trot out that old comment that too many people keep bloody forgetting: AfD is not a vote! Maybe I should make up a template. Or a userbox? They're all the rage, right? "This user knows something about AfD that you evidently don't."
    Oiy vey...For goddsakes, this is not a hard concept. I understand that AfD is not a vote. I am not the one falling back on #'s! I am basing my comments on the closure result. The simple, unalienable stance that I have is this. AfD twice was closed with the result of No Consensus: Keep. Not Merge redirect. Not delete. Not KEEP. I believe that there is no detriment to leaving the article as a standalone article while the deletion review process plays out. If the result of deletion review is delete, let it be deleted. If it is relist, let it be. I just believe that is the most acurate representation of the process as it is supposed to be. I understand that the power to redirect is always there, but following a 2nd non consensus keep, a redirect/protect in the middle of a deletion review by an admin involved in the back and forth editing REEKS of impropriety and abuse of power. It just does. There are even proponents of deletion who believe this. Just because something CAN be done doesn't make it the right thing to do. Phantasmo 01:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently the admin that protected the page has also been involved in the edit war itself. This is, unfortunately, a violation of WP:PP. --OntarioQuizzer 20:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin, so perhaps it's not appropriate for me to comment. I voted "keep" in that latest AfD, but when I did so I counted the votes, and it looked pretty clear that "redirect" would be the result. If WP:PP was violated, that's another matter, but I think the vote's result was pretty clear. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Klaw, perhaps, but the closing admin declared it non con/keep as only 40 of 66 favored deletion. Whether or not that was a correct closing is a discussion for the deletion review page. Until then, the AfD decision should be upheld. That is policy. And the WP:PP violation was blatant. Phantasmo 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect is fairly clearly in line with policy in this situation, so long as no content gets lost. However, while I was tempted to protect it myself, I don't think that's the right thing to do. The Land 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there was an obvious edit war, protecting is proper. Since one side was supported by strong consensus on the AFD page, protecting it in that version is acceptable. Please stop wikilawyering, an AFD is neither binary nor a vote. Radiant_>|< 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I heartily concur here with Radiant!. The closing admin's decision was no consensus which, as he said in making the closing, supports neither keep nor redirect. Johnleemk's closing decision was most definitely not "keep". Either keeping or merging would be acceptable purely as a result of the AfD; which one ought to have been hashed out on the Talk: page rather through an edit war. The edit war resulted in page protection, as always on m:The Wrong Version. -- Jonel | Speak 01:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not up to date on this whole debate, but I'd just like to comment that an AFD result is never an argument against creating a redirect and/or merging. This is a wiki, and creating a redirect is an action any editor can take.. -- SCZenz 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    True, but the issue is one of page protection. It would be appropriate the create a redirect and protect it if the consensus had been delete, but the article kept being recreated. There are two concerns here - one is that the page was protected by someone who was involved in the edit war, and the other is whether the page needs protection at all (the decision should have been made by an uninvolved party). Guettarda 01:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was the closing admin, and anyone who is claiming the AfD supports them should be shot (yes, this means both Phantasmo and DreamGuy are wrong). The AfD got no consensus, defaulting to keep. This does not preclude the formation of consensus in the future (and not necessarily through AfD) nor can it be used by itself as a reason to either keep the article as is or redirect it. I intentionally typed this message in caps to highlight this on the AfD, since I've noticed more and more of this retarded "OHNOES NO CONSENSUS === KEEP SO FUCK OFF YOU DELETIONIST REDIRECTORS" occurring in the wake of no consensus AfDs. Apparently the message didn't get through: AFD HAS ZERO BEARING ON THE CONDITION OF THE ARTICLE NOW. IT'S OVER. IN THE PAST. IRRELEVANT. FORM CONSENSUS BASED ON DISCUSSION NOW, NOT A DISCUSSION OF TWO DAYS AGO. Johnleemk | Talk 06:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    John, again, I have to defend myself here. I understand that the closure of AfD does not preclude a redirect. All I am saying is, I think it is inappropriate for those who were pushing for deletion to suddenly reverse course and push for a redirect as soon as the AfD is closed, and while the deletion review is taking place. I also think that it is inappropriate for an admin involved in teh debate to protect a redirect version of the page. I think that your remarks in your post above are unnecessarily hostile. The deletion review should have taken place and then redirect could have been considered. There would have been no great harm in that, and it would have shown greater adherence to the spirit of wikipedia policies, if not the actual letter of them. Phantasmo 14:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reason this dispute can be hashed out on the talk page. No reason at all. Shifting this out to DRV or AfD is a delaying tactic from whichever side is behind this (I honestly don't care who it is) to delay getting consensus. You can discuss this on the talk. There's no need for a DRV, and even if the DRV is filed, you don't need to discuss potential redirection there -- the talk page isn't automagically deleted if a DRV or AFD is filed. I honestly don't care if those "delete -- be gone!" people changed their minds overnight, but without bothering to examine their actions in depth, it makes sense to me, unless they all specifically stated "delete -- no redirect". All this reflects is the pointless AfD custom of having only one "vote". I wouldn't be surprised if, when asked to prioritise, they would have put delete first and redirect second. Perhaps this sort of instant run-off voting (except we don't call it voting; we call it alternative recommendations in the debate. ^_^) would be helpful, if people actually practiced it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah yes...the BS that AfD has become. It should NOT be a vote. If many people want to merge or redirect, then no consensus obviously does not equal keep. The article should be a merge at best, consider that only at Wikipedia would you find such untterly unnoteworthy cruft and ignorance to the process. If THAT cruft is notable enough, then Wikipedia is .01% of what is size should be right now, 99.90% of this site should be BS cruft that only a small of minority (often related to the topics themselves) want in there. This is getting way out of hand. Process...process...process...people just keep milking this to find any excuse to put in BS, and then complaint about those who try to trim out the fat by protecting. Protecting may have seemed unreasonable before, but it seems justified now. I bet Britannica never has to have editors actually have to argue over the inclusion of BS, its like having arguing why -2^(1/2) does not exist five times...what a waste of time.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 15:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact, some of us did just that: "Merge and redirect, don't count this as a keep" I believe is approximately what I wrote. The protection (hell, the closing of the AfD) by an involved editor of the page was a conflict of interest, but this binary thinking about the outcome of the AfD is sort of skewed... -- nae'blis (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki-stalking by malber

    malber (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was previous blocked for making personal attacks on me including saying that autism is a "social construct to hide behaviour" and that people with it should "just accept the fact that she's a jerk", comparing me to some pig thing from star trek and so on

    I'm posting this here because now he is going around trolling and wiki-stalking me - reverting any change I make, presumably because I pointed out his previous nastiness (I have quotes and diffs in a comment on my talk page for reference, near the top)

    His first follow-on was to the template Template:User Aspie, where he placed the template on his page (he does not nor has claimed to have AS (form of autism) and said it's a "social construct for hiding bad behaviour") and then used that as an argument for provocatively hanging the template from it's design that many people were using and had been agreed with on the talk page to an ugly-looking bright purple and green one (he also tried to claim that the userbox and category should be deleted, given his clear bias against the group of people in general you can see why, really)

    An admin caught this but now he is doing more of the same behaviour as you can see looking at his contributions. He has been following around reverting edits I make on purpose just to harass me.

    some links:

    I don't think anything can really be done at this point, I dunno, but it'd be nice if someone could at least watch him (I wouldn't be surprised if via his contributions-stalking he appears here and comments soon) as he's clearly just trying to troll against/harass me. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He also left a message replying to MSK on my talk page, here. - FrancisTyers 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just keep us posted here, and if it escalates, appropriate actions will be taken. Can you give diffs of when you've warned him about this stuff, and whether anyone else has too? Thanks. Harro5 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like User:Antaeus Feldspar. Are they friends? 203.122.221.73 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet another Zephram Stark sockpuppet

    Same old drill. I've blocked Cunning_Linguist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as the latest ZS sockpuppet. See the mostly complete list here After I blocked KIMP (talk · contribs) (a Zephram sockpuppet confirmed by CheckUser), Cunning Linguist picked up when he left off and continued spamming people's talk page's with KIMP's message. Also, notice that CL's fifth edit [78] was to accuse me (and Jimbo) of vandalism. Once again, no doubt at all that this is Zephram, but I welcome review by other admins. Carbonite | Talk 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry on Geoffrey Bolton by user:Velela

    And the socks come thick and fast. See block log. I've blocked Velela 48 hours for this little piece of fun. Look out for more socks on this article - David Gerard 23:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Help me

    Please help me contact Bishonen, I want to negotiate the unblock of the fighterforfreedoms, but her page is locked. This is urgent, please. - Talk

    negotiate?... PAGE NOT FOUND. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they mean User:Fighterforfreedom who is indefinitely blocked. This seems to be a sockpuppet of said blocked user. Makemi 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not a sockpuppet of fighterforfreedom. I am a war buddy of his. He was having difficulty thinking because of the medicine he was taking for the 5 bullets he took in Iraq. He would apoligize for his actions if he was unblocked. Thank You. Fffreedom 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    How do we know that he's going to be any clearer-thinking if he's unblocked? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We pretty much know he won't, because I've tried it. Yes, my pages are locked — semiprotected — not for long, I hope — and Fighterforfreedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of the reasons. I've seen his apologies before and I'm through assuming any good faith with them. The first time he apologized I unblocked him. Bad idea. The other times the apologies have expressed desperation, indeed, and a kind of parody of every feeble excuse ever grasped at by a vandal. See here one typical cycle, posted in rapid succession and starting at Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' page:
    "I hope you lose the right to be an admin. you flaming homo Communist bastard, and yes I know I will never be aloud to edit anything again Bishonen you dumb assed bitch truckstop prostiute."[79] Incomplete apology mode: "I am sorry. But I come from a culture that talks like that ... Please accept my apology and let me edit again or else me and my KKK friends will come into your house at night and slit your throat.".[80] Full apology mode: "I apologize from the bottom of my heart. I am from a minority, and I feel I have been discriminated against not only on this but all of my life. I think Jimbo Wales would be disappointed if he saw this kind of racism on his own creation."[81] My sister used my computer: "I accidentally left my computer on this and my sister pulling a prank decided to cuss everyone out. Please let me back in. If I put one toe out of line you can bann me for life."[82]... Back to full abuse mode: "I took five bullets in Iraq for asswipes like you, and the lulu faggot, just so you can block me and write books about sexual wars!!! It outrages me!!! You both can be expecting a visit from my neo nazi friends, and when I get issue 457 passed, it will pave the way for me to seize power in Washington, and I will have people like you murdered by the thousands."[83]. There are zero good edits. I understand that FFF has problems and is experiencing a strong psychic need to post on Wikipedia, and feels frantic. I'm sorry for it, but I don't really see that we can help. Bishonen | talk 01:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    He has been off his medication for a week now and is doing all the things he was before he got shot except moving his left arm which was hit by the bullets. Fffreedom 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are not Fighterforfreedom, why did you make the exact same edit to Ward Churchill that he did? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry. That was a mistake on my part. I was looking through the damage he had done and accidently saved that archive. I apologize for my mistake. Fffreedom 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fighterforfreedom is still wondering whether he will be unblocked soon or not because he would like to make some good, well thoughtout contributions to wikipedia on his time in Iraq. Also he would like to apologize for the creation of fighterforfreedom2 and fighterforfreedom3. Fffreedom 00:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (And the creation of User:FighterforfreedomIV, huh?) Not, if I have anything to do with it. I'm sorry. Bishonen | talk 01:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Thank you for replying Bishonen. I was not aware of FighterforfreedomIV. He did not tell me about that one. Once again he was on a rough doseage of pain medication that made him not think straight. He is now off of it and is thinking clearly. He is not here to get therapy or anything. He is trying to return to this wonderful community to further his knowlege and make good contributions when he can. Fffreedom 01:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Um hum. FFF is now also posting from 69.223.69.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), using the soft tone you see on this page (sorry, but I refuse to pretend this isn't him), yet, please note, concurrently still abusing Lulu in the other tone he has.[84] Bishonen | talk 02:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    I'm with Bish. And stop using the "got shot in Iraq" ploy, please, it won't buy sympathy, not especially with what's going on. If he's "off his medicine" and no longer "not (thinking) straight" he shouldn't be attacking Lulu. NSLE (T+C) 02:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He didn't vandalize Lulu in the past 3 days. I am beginning to think the admins are discriminating against veterens. I saw a post where a vandal apologized and he was immediatly unblocked. I don't care if you don't support the war, just don't take it out on the soldiers. Fffreedom 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure it matters. Are not the death threats cited above enough to get him blocked for a loooong time, if not banned for good? --LV (Dark Mark) 20:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. No apology is enough to make up for "me and my KKK friends will come into your house at night and slit your throat." Just saying that is a crime offline, and we have zero tolerance for it here. It's way beyond vandalism. To characterize his ban as discrimination against veterans is to suggest that veterans are above all standards of conduct - false. We discriminate against anyone who throws death threats around. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm done bickering about this. It simply isn't worth it. I'm sorry for wasting all of your time. Fffreedom 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, Fffreedom has seemingly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=36565147 vandalised] this discussion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple Accounts / Admin Abuse

    I'm having an issue with an admin who claims he can reveal one of my other editing accounts if he feels like it even if I'm not violating or planning to violate WP:SOCK. I think I'm protected by WP:SOCK#Multiple accounts and Wikipedia:Harassment since it's very easy to find personal information about me with the other editing account. The admin in question disagrees and also claims that a supposedly personal attack I made (disputed since the admin himself is personally involved in the matter) justifies his claims. Are there any official/unofficial guidelines for this situation? --ZimZum 23:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting review from (an)other admin(s) would be a sensible step, but we'd need more information for that. -- SCZenz 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From user's contributions said admins seems to be Tomer. NSLE (T+C) 01:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How does he know that your 2 accounts are connected. If you told him, I don't really think it would be harassment for him to reveal that publicly. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From the conversation it became clear that the admin in question used admin privelidges to compare IP addresses. I'm mainly asking if it is normal for admins to 'reveal' double accounts whenever they run into one, especially when in a situation where they are not in a neutral position. To me it felt like harassment, the admin in question states his behavior is acceptable. --ZimZum 10:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he didn't use admin privileges to compare IP addresses. It's a common mistake to think that admins can do that, but they can't, for privacy reasons. Only the handful of people with Wikipedia:CheckUser privileges can identify the IP addresses of logged-in users, by using the CheckUser tool, and they're only allowed to do that if there's independent good evidence for suspecting that a pair of accounts are a) related, b) being used abusively (for instance for one person to vote several times). Please see the CheckUser page for these safeguards of users' privacy. Tomer had no special "admin" way of finding out you were running a sock, so I suspect you told him, maybe unintentionally. Anyway, that's why Greg Asche is asking how Tomer knew. We can't say what's "normal" when admins "run into double accounts", because they simply don't run into them. You'll have to give us more information. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    People have all sorts of reasons for running multiple accounts, e.g. people who edit a type of article they'd rather not have associated with their main account, admins who like actually editing articles without having trolls follow them around, etc. I don't (I have User:Querulous but haven't actually ever used it for anything), but if they're not doing evil with them then that's not actually a problem. If I spot multiple accounts with CheckUser, what I do about it if anything depends if they're actually doing evil with them. If one person is using two different names in two different areas, it actually looks just like two different people.
    (And now I expect some idiot to follow up with "Ah but who are YOU to define evil?!" or something) - David Gerard 12:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah but who are YOU to define evil?! ;) Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no reason to believe there were any traces linking the two accounts. The admin in question didn't deny when I accused him of using admin priveleges, leading me to believe he did use an ip based method, or had someone with checkuser abilities do it for him. I also think it's questionable when an admin engages himself in 'user account guessing' which I believe is frowned down upon as well though I'm not overly familiar with wikipedia's guidelines. --ZimZum 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't feel a need to "defend myself" here. The ZimZum account was initially created for the specific purpose of endorsing User:Dabljuh's bizarre response to RfC. Anyone with one working eye and access to Special:Contributions/ZimZum can figure that out. Examining those contributions and the writing style that accompanies them and comparing them to the interests and style of the other user makes the association a no-brainer. "ZimZum" might think there were no traces linking the two accounts, but as they say, a leopard can't change its spots. Of course I didn't deny using admin privileges to link the two accounts, as I said in my RfA, responding to trolls is counterproductive. There really was very little "user account guessing" required. Regardless, ZimZum himself confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt exactly who he was by his response. As for what's "questionable", that'd be the claim that ZimZum is Bo Peep's sheep. The account is being used to harass another user on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dabljuh and elsewhere, and to engage in other truly questionable behavior. Tomertalk 12:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking the accounts is a far stretch, and I find your explanation not very enlightening. You and another user seem persistent in continueing the harassment. Justifying this kind of harassment by throwing wild accusations toward me in turn isn't changing much to the situation. TShilo12's post shows a rather disturbing viewpoint on how to settle disputes. --ZimZum 13:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ZimZum, if you have a problem with me, I recommend you draw up an RfC, or try to resolve it some other way. In the meantime, please cease and desist from the accusations of harassment until you can provide evidence. Tomertalk 13:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Like I explained the other account can be used to trace my indentity which makes me uncomfortable when editing controversial topics. This falls under Wikipedia:Harassment, and I already asked you to stop it. I guess we'll just leave it at this and I'll quit contributing to wikipedia. --ZimZum 13:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more than happy to leave it rest. You're the one who brought it here. Tomertalk 13:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Professor Von Pie

    Professor Von Pie (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts POV edits into the Bob Hope article and is repeatedly reverted. I have asked him not to insert his personal opinion, but he just continues and now he sends me an email which says, "It will be reverted daily, possibly hourly". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be inclined to try sweet reason then block when if it fails - David Gerard 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd seen him previously. His edits are careless (little apparent heed for blending content into narrative flow- often only tacks something onto the end of a sentence turning it into a glaring run-on, sometimes ignores simple stuff like double spacing a para break) and the details are frequently wrong or misleading, the wonted gossip thing. Wyss 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hourly, is it? I've blocked him for reverting five times in less than 24 hours. Zoe seems to have been very patient. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    NPA Violation?

    Does this diff rise to the level of WP:NPA violation, or am I being oversensitive? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not quite, in my humble opinion, but it is uncivil. We know it was mean in any case, so what exactly it violated doesn't really matter, now does it? -- SCZenz 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A little uncivil, not really an attack. But, really, you should know that you're not the boss of him. ;) · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you're Boss Hogg, that is! El_C 01:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Zephram Stark sockpuppet?

    Maybe somebody should keep an eye on Doctor Nicetan (talk · contribs). On his first day of edits (24 Jan 2006), he blanked the section on Inalienable rights that was previously blanked by Zephram Stark (talk · contribs), and another sockpuppet of his (Peter McConaughey (talk · contribs)). This "new" user seems to be familiar with wikipedia, using wiki acronyms, citing wiki policy, etc. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Using an image uploaded by his earlier sockpuppet KIMP isn't a standard Zephram Stark behavior. --Doctor Nicetan 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm... sooooo socklicious [85]. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it is pretty obvious. Just examine the Inalienable Rights edit history. There are three users who have a passionate hatred of the Criticism section and use exceptionally long edit summaries. They are Zephram Stark (talk · contribs), Peter McConaughey (talk · contribs), and now Doctor Nicetan (talk · contribs). It's the long edit summaries that give him away....that and the crazy ramblings on his user page. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh that's just great. Make fun of the handicapped guy. --Doctor Nicetan 06:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Doctor_Nicetan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as yet another sockpuppet of Zephram. He's almost becoming a parody of himself. Anyway, he certainly is persistant, got to give him that... Carbonite | Talk 11:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The technical evidence confirms that Doctor Nicetan (talk · contribs) is yet another Zephram sockpuppet. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:WoohooDoggy 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 04:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block, page move vandal. They got away with much more than usual. Cleanup is needed.-gadfium 04:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleanup is complete. (Mostly done by others, not by me)-gadfium 04:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush

    is obviously not an "attack category" unless dislike is now a form of attack, there are clearly too many people in this category to simply delete it anyway, can't you just leave it alone?! Or at least stop the double standards and take all the anti-liberal templates and categories with it--205.188.116.65 04:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This category was marked as deleted by a deletedpage template, which is silly. I removed it. I'd say that it's an extremely divisive and toxic category and I'm sure I'm not the only one, but those who delete it really should first ensure that it's depopulated first, Sticking deletedpage there won't delete the category, it'll create it! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As it was apparently deleted out of process, I have recreated it pending any vote that occurs at WP:CFD. I encourage any interested parties to discuss it there, as the neither the Admin noticeboard nor the deletion log are appropriate places. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 20:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't see this discussion in time and deleted the category again. I'll now work on depopulating it. (Update: The categories are essentially depopulated, but this is not reflected in the category pages, due to a well-known shortcoming of the MW software.) I'd like to point out that I also deleted Category:Wikipedians who like George W. Bush and Category:Wikipedians who support George W. Bush and replaced all three of them with Category:Wikipedians interested in US politics. It was pointed out that not everyone who has an opinion on George W. Bush is necessarily interested in US politices. That may be true, but then again, why should we care? If a user is interested in US politics, that's potentially useful information as far as the 'pedia is concerned: that user can be invited to join various politics-related projects, etc. But if a user is decidedly not interested in US politics, why should we care about their opinion on Mr. Bush? That's irrelevant, non-actionable information as far as the project is concerend, in the best case. I'd still like to ask anyone who disagrees to list these categories on deletion review, rather than simply recreating them. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, I have now confirmed that all three categories are indeed empty. The fact that some pages are still being listed under these categories is due to a cache issue, which I was unable to resolve for now. This issue is expected to vanish during the course of the next couple of hours or days. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, it would be in order to restore the deletedpage template now. I was fooled by the cache issue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LaShawn Barber

    I have blocked this user for using a celebrity's name. The user claims it is her real name. Can we AGF and unblock, or should it stay blocked? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See the user's talk page. I've unblocked. -- Longhair 04:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be a bad idea to watch the account; I seem to remember Ms. Barber was at one point angry about her article. I highly doubt she'll vandalize, but we might watch that her article stays NPOV. Ral315 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:☠

    Thoughts regarding a username that's just a skull-and-crossbones dingbat character? I admit it: it makes me nervous. Perhaps I was swashbuckled by pirates once toward the end of a former life, I dunno. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I'm jealous.  :) Here's to hoping he (or she) turns out to be a productive member of the project... and not some dingbat. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    HA!! On a serious note, aren't folks with symbols as usernames generally blocked becuase of browser compatibility issues? For instance, this symbol just displays as a box for me. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask them nicely to choose a more readable name, and show them how to put their pretty symbol into their signature…I've started the ball rolling. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you know, one shouldn't really put non 7-bit ASCII chars in signatures or in usernames at least on the English wikipedia, because it prevents people using console-mode browsers from ever being able to edit pages where these users have signed. This is not because console-mode browsers do not support Unicode (indeed, lynx, and most others, support a wide range of charsets) but rather because MediaWiki appears to consider all text-mode browsers to be "blacklisted", and thus transliterates all non 7-bit ASCII chars into hex codes as an attempted workaround for browsers that don't support it. Unfortunately, as far as I've tried, this workaround seems to be broken in such a manner as editing a page containing non 7-bit chars with a text browser (through no fault of the browser) causes the text to be converted into a string of broken hex codes, and thus saving any revision of the page using a text browser causes the Unicode character string to be hopelessly messed up, precluding any editing of the page without messing up their signature. I have seen cases indeed where people have savaged users for messing up their signature in this manner (although I shan't name names). People may wish to remember that some blind or partially sighted users use text-mode browsers with a screenreader, and not everyone has a graphical terminal on which to work on. In my case, I am not partially sighted as such but rather have some discomfort reading pages of computer text for prolonged periods of time, and so prefer to work using a screenreader and terminal when doing heavy editing work; I've found it impossible to edit any talk page that Miborovsky or Encyclopedist signed, for example, in Lynx, and thus have had to use Firefox for editing any page they've signed. Just thought I'd mention this. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the username should be changed–ideally by its owner–for reasons of legibility, ease of communication and to avoid confusion. I also wish that we hadn't enabled Unicode for usernames or signatures (spoofing problems, etc.) but it's too late to put that toothpaste back in the tube. I'm wondering, though, how Nicholas edits articles that contain Unicode...? I've seen it popping up more frequently, and sometimes unexpectedly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, he should change his name. No reason he can't use it as a signature or something. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:21, Jan. 25, 2006

    MR. BRUXVOORT IS A WANG!!! vandalism by 67.162.148.73

    User:67.162.148.73 is vandalizing the macroevolution article, replacing subject headers with "MR. BRUXVOORT IS A WANG!!!" This IP has zero other edits. Justforasecond 06:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Disposed of. Thanks. --Golbez 06:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006

    I am being bold and have recreated this deleted article. It was deleted by an AFD a few days ago as it was speculative. As Liberal leader Paul Martin has tonight announced his resignation the reasons for which the article was deleted no longer exist. As this is a significant news story in Canada and the article will be in demand immediately I have taken the initiative of recreating it rather than going through the deletion review process. Homey 07:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing wrong with that. But couldn't you write this entire article as one section within Liberal leadership conventions? There are already sections for all the other leadership conventions by year, and the article is not big enough to break into separate subarticles. There's nothing special about this year's leadership convention that gives it merit as a separate topic. silsor 08:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2003 has it's own article. The current one will doubtless grow. Homey 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    66.211.223.200 Vandalism

    This user has some earlier edits and cleanups that appeared to be of marginal use, but then started going a little crazy. Since those weird edits, he's just been going around engaging in subtle link vandalism (with an odd obsession for articles on the French Revolution). Can an admin look into this guy? JoanneB has done an admirable job of following him around and reverting his vandalisms, but it would probably be better if we had a more lasting solution. KrazyCaley 08:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack, just noticed that the aforementioned JoanneB is one step ahead of me and has already blocked the guy. Apologies. KrazyCaley 08:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zanimum2

    I have blocked this account indefinitely because I think it is an impersonation of the administrator Zanimum. Looking at the contributions list I see only user talk page edits, can anyone please review? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes it has to be.
    So is user:kooorooo,after edirting a ku klux klan userbox,he joined zanimum and zanimum2 on an editing spree,deleting fair use images from user pages until he was blocked by user:Curps.

    As he edited,the summary was given as -user:zanimum asked me to delete the images.

    Zanimum2 also did a similar thing and made peronal attacks on user:booren page(also blocked).

    he is probably a sockpuppet of kooorooo Batzarro 09:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:zanimum2 is not me, nor is Kooorooo. Three ways of telling Zanimum2 is not me...
    1. I have an odd habit of not using the ~~~~ thing, and just going [[user:zanimum]]</wiki> to sign posts, leaving the user part visible; Zanimum2 has used the <nowiki>~~~~ thing.
    2. Not that you can really prove this, but I never write or speak swear words. (I do think them occasionally.)
    3. The userboxes on Kooorooo's page are on Zanimum2's.
    As for proof Kooorooo is not me, I can offer little, except the fact I'm Canadian, and his userboxes are very Amerocentric. -- user:zanimum
    I'm with zanimum on this. I have made a request for CheckUser on all impersonations of zanimum. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Batzarros's userpage, need help

    I need some help here, because I'm a bit confused now. I think the events are as follows.

    1. Batzarro had some fair use images on his userpage removed by Zanimum, repeatedly.
    2. Zanimum protects the userpage to prevent further additions of such images.
    3. Batzarro asks me to unprotect his userpage and promises not to readd FU images.
    4. I unprotect Batzarro's userpage.
    5. Batzarro adds two FU images to his userpage.
    6. I remove them and protect the userpage again.
    7. Batzarro now claims that the images are either public domain or his creation [86] and that they have the wrong tag.

    I have trouble deciding what to do now, can somebody please help? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The star wars pic image:AEAT is a pic I made on my computer. The dog pic is from public domain. When I added the tag,I did not care about domain . Batzarro 10:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you Mike or Dave Sharples? The Star Wars image was originally credited as the joint work of the Sharples, but you uploaded the current version which has that credit coloured in. The two images are in all other respects identical. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the key objection I had to your and Ferall's userpages is that the images were not fair use that were at least used in the encyclopedia itself, as well as on your userpage, but that they were exclusively used on your userpages. -- user:zanimum

    Batzarro (talk · contribs), 220.247.254.190 (talk · contribs) and 220.247.252.135 (talk · contribs) have been violating WP:POINT by editing other user pages in retribution. The account and the IP's also seem related to Ferall (talk · contribs). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I also believe that the Kooorooo (talk · contribs) and zanimum2 (talk · contribs) accounts have been created by Batzarro to prove a point. The wording Kooorooo has chosen on User talk:Kooorooo is completely out of character of zanimum, and is completely consistent with Batzarro's choice of words. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree, as the real User:Zanimum. Sadly, I must add Booren as another suspected sockpuppet. Booren's only real edits are to his userpage, which was taken down by Kooorooo in my name. Also Batzarro's usertalk page evidences he's a fan of Ashida Kim, the image added to this new user's page. -- user:zanimum
    I've added User:Booren to the list. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, now we can add user:Zanee. Cute. -- user:zanimum

    Curps has just blocked Kooorooo indefinitely. -- user:zanimum

    I am not a fan of Ashida Kim but believe in neutrality. There is no proof that he is honest,no proof that he is a fraud either. The dog pic I uploaded was from a public domain site perrosdelargentina or something like that if I am not mistaken. I cant remember. Besides most of my edits and uploads were useful,except that i spend 25% of the time on my userpage which I narcistically fawn and croon over. Kooorooo edited the kkk template I added. I am an Australian/SRi Lankan/Indian/Singaporean mix not an American. As for kkk I have little caucasian ancestry.

    Anyway just unblock my page?

    The ADMIN who blocked me;user:zanimum had some fair use images on HIS userpage.He is the root cause of all the drama.Batzarro 17:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this user still permitted to edit? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zanee (talk · contribs) keeps on removing the "suspected sockpuppet" tag from his user page. I am probably too involved to block him for this, so I would like another admin to keep an eye on him. If he continues, however, and noone steps in, I see no alternative but to block him myself. I will start at a 1 hour block, and I will then double it at every new revert. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Other admins, note that Zanee has edited the article "Batzarro", adding a link to user:batzarro's page. Only Zanee, Batzarro, and Booren have yet to be blocked, anyone find the evidence against them enough to do so? -- user:zanimum
    Zanee has again removed the suspected sockpuppet tag from his user page, replacing it with something with which I think he's trying to provoke us. I will now block him for 1 hour. The next time he does it, I will block him for two hours, four, eight, sixteen, etc. Any admin who disagrees with this block is free to unblock him. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow-motion edit warrior

    An anon at a moveable IP, most frequently editing at 129.241.94.253 (talk · contribs) but also using 129.241.94.254 (talk · contribs) and 129.241.28.247 (talk · contribs), persists in changing the disambiguation page Lost into a redirect to Lost (TV series), without discussion. Multiple attempts have been made to engage editor in productive dialogue (see Talk:Lost and the user talk pages for all the IPs); when these received no response, user was repeatedly warned, most recently at 15:27 UTC today, by Kukini. User ignored this, and made the same edit at 17:50 UTC. I think it's time for a block. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that blocking is the best answer, since he's used so many IP's. I think a page protection might be the best course; perhaps that will compel him to actually use the talk page. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That does make sense, although I think that if the warnings are to be taken seriously they ought to be followed by action. In this case, 129.241.94.253 was given a level 4 warning, which is supposed to be the "final warning", and then another one after that. A short block might be in order, just to show the user that the warnings aren't empty threats. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's an anon, them semiprotection is probably a lower impact option. Guettarda 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but the anon isn't vandalizing, it's a content dispute (or rather, a dispute over where the content should be housed), and semiprotection is explicitly not to be used to exclude anons from participating in a content dispute. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Timecop Permablock

    I'm definitely no fan of timecop or his ilk. However, I find the spurious accusation thrown by User:David Gerard that he is a sock puppet rather ridiculous. This flimsy accusation ultimately led to a permablock by User:Alkivar

    Obviously, I whole heartedly support a permaban of timecop and all GNAA members. But at least be honest and up front about the circumstances. Wikicrusader 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    David has checkuser - it's his "job" to ferret out sockpuppetry. Guettarda 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are any other confirmed accounts editing from the same IP as timecop, they should be considered the sockpuppets, not timecop. This is backwards. silsor 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The dickyrobert account was the first indef blocked account of the person... all the others were linked to it... as we knew this as DickyRobert... it only makes sense that the puppetmaster gets marked as such.  ALKIVAR™ 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Timecop and his friends are here to fuck shit up. Others are welcome to assume good faith in the face of blatant trolling, and I probably can't convince them otherwise - David Gerard 10:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem User

    Troll Penis (talk • contribs), potential long term vandal, unconstructive edit wars, vandalism, trolling, all efforts at dispute resolution seem to have failed--152.163.100.65 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No such user. Typo? -- Curps 21:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoax. -- Curps 21:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User created after the above. Blocked. Impostors too. -- Curps 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite block, User:Tommstein

    At 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I placed an indefinite block on User:Tommstein, because frankly I have had enough of his obnoxious behaviour towards myself and other Wikipedians. In particular, his post on my talk page accusing me of "fruity-cult-standing-up-for-fruity-cult bias" [87], and his reply to my request to leave me alone where he states "... I'm about to get banned because of being painted as a bad guy and the only bad guy by your bias for a fellow cult" [88]. This stems from his view of my Scientology background, which he reiterated (along with misc. other ad hominem) in what was essentially a spurious RfC against me, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NicholasTurnbull. He's been repeatedly warned by many people, including myself, and continues in this pattern of horrid behaviour; his contribs show this is a consistent pattern. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good show.--Sean|Black 22:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an AC case in the queue or accepted, but anyone in a case can email the AC, and doesn't actually have to be unblocked to participate. Just so's y'all know - David Gerard 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't block people you are involved in disputes with. Secretlondon 02:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kempler video

    User:Kempler video (David Rutstein) has, for months, been editing Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promoting a conspiracy theory about the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. In recent weeks he has been re-writing articles to promote his view, and to insert links to his personal conspiracy website. He has also developed another conspiracy theory, that User:gidonb is actually a writer named Stephen Plaut who is paid to keep "truth" about Rabin's murder out of Wikipedia (gidonb made the mistake of linking to an article by Stephen Plaut). Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to manage this self-promotion and conspiracy theory mongering? Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I vote for declaring the third tuesday of every month as an official Steve Plaut Wikiholiday. As for the constant insertion of conspiracy theory stuff, if it's obvious self-promotion, demonstrate it and get the user blocked if he reverts it into the article. WP:NPOV is a policy, not an idle recommendation. If it's crackpot stuff, WP:UW and WP:V come into play. The Kempler video tho, is not exactly obscure...its release and the apparent government cover-up surrounding it (in which Peres was widely implicated) is often credited as what won Mitzna the `Avoda elections last time around. Tomertalk 00:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Matlock Town F.C.

    I have written a new article on Matlock Town F.C. I believe that this version does not infringe any copyright laws. The new article is written in the teporary subpage. Will an administrator remove the Possible Copyright Violation notice as soon as possible? Thank You!One with Her 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone with tact needed

    User:Mike Nobody/II needs to have the fair use images removed. Needs delicate handerling. User appears to be a little anoyed about haveing to remove fair use images from his userspace.Geni 03:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Timecop - block removed following IRC discussion

    I have (provisionally) removed the block that User:Alkivar placed on Timecop (talk · contribs) on the basis of having had a mediation discussion with this user via an IRC conversation; Timecop has stated that he is willing to be civil. I will be keeping an eye out regarding proceedings. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that GNAA have launched a campaign of harrassment at Alkivar and other Wikipedia users, I've gotta say I find it exceedingly unlikely that Timecop's learned his lesson. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Civil my ass ... i've been getting threatening phone calls at home.  ALKIVAR™ 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is too much. I've reblocked, though if you wish to revert me, Nicholas, I will not wheel war - I just think there are limits to what we can allow, and getting to harrassing phone calls is about 20 steps over the line. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No kidding...harrassing phone calls? He should be gone for good. Period. Rx StrangeLove 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. I know for sure timecop has done no such thing as harassing phone calls. Alkivar, you have largely implied that timecop did the phone calls, so please clarify your accusations. Sam Hocevar 09:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alkivar, it's unfortunate that you got those phone calls. However, that's beyond the scope of wikipedia conduct, and (most importantly) we have zero evidence that timecop has anything to do with it. Furthermore, timecop lives in Japan and has stated he does not make international phone calls. Even if this was done by GNAA members in say, North America, timecop cannot be held accountable for their actions. All I can say is change your phone number. He has proven himself a legitimate user and I see nothing in his contributions tying him to DickyRobert either. I strongly recommend he be unblocked. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:41, Jan. 25, 2006
    Furthermore, timecop lives in Japan and has stated he does not make international phone calls. That's the strangest logic I've heard all week. The first half means nothing whatsover if the second half is untrue: which means that boiled down, you're taking him at his word. I'd say there's very little reason to do that, gievn his track record. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet if I called your house and said I was timecop, I'm sure you'd take my word. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:07, Jan. 25, 2006
    Okay, we have now left the realm of bad logic and have entered the territory of complete non sequitor. Also, since his user page proclaims "This user thinks Osama bin Laden is the greatest man on Earth" and "This user eats dog", you can talk to him about politics sometime and maybe pick up a few recipes while you're at it. I'm sure you take his word on those, too. --Calton | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a non sequitur, it was intended as a question, but I couldn't find an interrobang on my keyboard. Please answer it. Alkivar thinks it's timecop, timecop says it's not him, I doubt anybody would dial overseas to make a prank call, nobody has any evidence that it was timecop, and it has nothing to do with wikipedia anyway. Do you consider these to be non sequiturs as well? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:31, Jan. 25, 2006
    It's a non sequitor (i.e., a sentence logically untethered from what it precedes) regardless of what punctuation you stick on the end. A question mark merely converts it into a non sequitor rhetorical question, since you can't honestly expect me to believe that you're looking for information of any kind. And your doubts that anybody would dial overseas to make a prank call merely shows your lack of imagination -- or, indeed, lack of knowledge of the ease in making such international calls (assuming, of course, Timecop really DOES live in Japan to begin with). --Calton | Talk 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's part of a GNAA/Bantown campaign. Ask Linuxbeak about these charming fellows. They're not just trolls and hackers, they're loons as well. I have no reason to believe anything any of them says to me at any time whatsoever, and I hope others would be as smart - David Gerard 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed: "He has proven himself a legitimate user" - what the fucking fuck? - David Gerard 10:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he's been the key force in keeping our encyclopedia clean of vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs, which I think is excellent work. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:07, Jan. 25, 2006
    No, his is a "War on Blogs" period/full stop, not a "War on vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs", or hadn't you noticed? --Calton | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name any deleted blog articles that were worth keeping? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:31, Jan. 25, 2006
    Irrelevant. His is a "War on Blogs" period/full stop, not a "War on vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs" or "War on articles that I, personally, want deleted", or hadn't you noticed? --Calton | Talk 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone's even been attacking Alkivar with diffs on Uncyclopedia. Presumably on other wikis as well. If Timecop said the sky was blue, I'd look out the window - David Gerard 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    David's right. Whether Timecop is doing this stuff personally, or his friends are the actual culprits, there is absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia in allowing him or them back. More than that, there is no ethical reason either -- sannse (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it rather sickening that we're not seeing the bigger picture here: Timecop's organization is now criminally harassing one of our users because he blocked their "fearless leader". Whether timecop did this or not, are we so spineless that we're going to give into this sort of internet gang war? Should our admins be afraid to take action against GNAA members if they act like retarded clowns? When I was harassed by bantown, it wasn't their leader who did most of the harassment. In fact, it was the low-level trolls who were trying to prove themselves. No, I'm sorry. This is a picture perfect example of why we should not allow GNAA to abuse our good faith, trust, and resources. Screw them, and screw anyone who thinks otherwise. If GNAA members want to actually help Wikipedia, then why the hell do they harass our members, both in cyberspace and real life? This "war on blogs" bullshit is not justification for their presence. If they want to truely help Wikipedia, they can do alone, not in the name of GNAA. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Rx StrangeLove 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who do you call criminal? Im sorry but i have a work, family and more, and im no criminal like you claim all GNAA members are. I've been trying to understand you but its not possible at all, maybe its time for you to learn from people who's actually willing to read and decide, like silsor. As for your problems with bantown, dont try to mix them with GNAA, because its not related. Cheers --blackman 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I've also had enough. I've been very patient so far, his harassment of members off Wiki is going too far. I'm permablocking. I'll send a message to Jimbo and the ArbCom about this, I'll let them overturn my permablock. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC, there was a user that was sanctioned for sending threatening emails to Wikipedians about Wikipedia related stuff, and I do not see that this is any different from that. If someone is making threatening phone calls over stuff happening at Wikipedia, then we should be able to do something here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 14:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WTF?

    I love how a discussion about unbanning a troll turns into trolling the person that banned the troll. Is this what our community has degenerated to? --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's now with Jimbo - David Gerard 16:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    More precisely, TBSDY has perma-blocked TimeCop (presumably for all of the above) and left a note with Jimbo and the ArbCom. TBSDY doesn't have authority to make binding decisions for all admins, not being an Arb (or a Jimbo), so I thought I'd note it here. Not that I have any problem with the permablock, but it's at the very least customary to tell the other admins about such things, in case they disagree. -Splashtalk 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that TBSDY said this above as well. Ral315 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WTF indeed! We have a guy that turns up here saying 'I'm the fearless leader of a bunch of international trolls, who disrupt websites for kicks' - and what so we do? We assume good faith. Bad enough, but even when our trusted admins get abuse, we still 'assume good faith', and demand the admin 'proves it'. Get a grip! AGF - does not mean we have to have our heads up our asses. I say call time on all these trolls. --Doc ask? 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah. The only reason they're put up with at all is because it's not worth it in terms of soft security - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, and noting it was correct. I'm just noting that it's got higher attention - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    According to Alkivar, the GNAA isn't involved in any of this. He's talking to them right now, and they say that anyone who harrasses him gets banned. They said it is just someone who claims to be affiliated with them. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-25 23:47

    User:68.156.64.5 is inserting random errors and gibberish, see contribs

    • BTW, did you know that cannabis is closely related to peyote? Could Cannabis and Cannabis (drug) be semi-protected? It suffers constant random vandalism. -SM 04:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    The vandalism is not that constant, and whatever has occured has slowed down a bit and, I feel, does not warrant immidiate protection. In the vent it re-occurs, put your request on WP:AIV, as it'll likely be tended to more quickly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Better still put it on requests for page protection --pgk(talk) 08:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.172.251.162 personal attacks

    69.172.251.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persists on editing my talk page with personal attacks (see his contribution history), but they are over the course of days so I suspect if I report him on WP:AIV they will get dismissed as "Only been warned once today" or something along those lines. They are a persistant troll and vandal and ever since I warned him not to blank warnings on his talk page he has been harassing me over it, and will not drop the subject. He has almost no (if any) positive contributions and I would request a permanant, or at least a long term block as their account is purely for vandalism and personal attacks. VegaDark 04:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Contributing" since November, nothing but vandalism (oh, no, there is one spelling correction!), and now harassing VegaDark for warning him/her? OK... I see the account has been blocked for a couple of days. I'd request that somebody clever check whether this is a static IP, as the story suggests it might be. I'd be glad to extend the block, provided it won't just mean incurring collateral damage to innocent users. IMO we shouldn't keep abusive non-contributing "contributors" around at all. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Dudes111 (talk · contribs)

    I'm not very sure where to put this complaint, or quite how to word it, as it's a cocktail of a few reverts, deliberate posting of false info, and a dash of attempted sockpuppetry. Dudes111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly posted unconfirmed rumors with no citations on Avatar: The Last Airbender over the course of a week and a day. After I initially deleted his additions, he reverted them, claiming his facts were real. (He then thrice removed my subsequent "in-need-of-citation" tags) With some research, I realized a user on a popular fan forum for the show was taking credit for his edits in the same real-time timeframe, while simultaneously claiming to have "found" his initial submission here, rather than writing it himself. When this information was aired on the talk page, he attempted quasi-sockpuppetry by pretending to be an anonymous arbitrator and leaving his post unsigned. Am I in the right place? --172.171.196.5 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See [89] where Dudes111 apparently thinks he's logged off but hasn't. Strange - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User Dudes111 has explained the aforementioned actions and apologized alongside the explanation (seen here, scroll down to "Hello there I am the Dudes111, you can check ...") I'm satisfied with the apology and explanation, but I can't speak for how others feel. I recommend not taking any action right now, but watching the user to see whether they continue to be a problem, or if they become a valuable contributor. --Lesoria 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user User:Aidan Work circumventing indefinite ban

    user:Aidan Work, blocked for serious personal attacks (as well as about 100 other policy violations), is now editing under the username user:Royalist0007. Proof - thats the first part of his email adress. Same kind of edits. Same homophobia on his user page. Same articles being edited over again.

    A block is needed now before he thinks he can continue like this. --Kiand 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Royalist0007 could be User:Aidan Work sockpuppet

    I suspect User:Royalist0007 could be a sockpuppet of User:Aidan Work. Aiden Work is currently banned because of abusive behaviour. Some current behaviour that I believe points to sockpuppet includes characteristic signing of his own articles and categories[90]. Also replacing Category:Commonwealth of Nations with Category:British Commonwealth because Aiden is more fond of the latter, which is technically incorrect. Also a general interest in the same articles and topics, and finally the categories that are used in his page. I have mentioned the sockpuppet policy on the user talk page. Djegan 08:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    I've blocked User:Royalist0007 as an obvious sock puppet of Aidan Work. Both Kiand and Djegan are correct: not only is "Royalist0007" Work's email name, he is editing in the same manner. --cj | talk 09:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion

    When I was controversially blocked for 3RR violation and tried to explain that the block was not valid on WP:AN3, the blocking admin, ignorant as he was, doubled my block for "block evasion". Now I see that the blocked User:Molobo is allowed to roam freely in Wikipedia and to make controversial and inflammatory edits both in the namespace and on talk. Not content with WP:AN3, he even went to the blocking admin page in order to make stupid retorts. He posted on the talk page of the article he reverted ad nauseum, posted a request for comment, and a comment to the notice-board. In the past, Molobo openly admitted that the IP is his and used it to edit his user page, so no IP check is required. IMHO such a liberal attitude towards crass revert warriors who circumvent blocks and pay no respect to 3RR profanes the whole conceipt of blocking. Is there any policy on block evasion at all? --Ghirla | talk 11:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that it has come to my attention, I have reset Molobo's 24h block as a result of his blatant evasion and blocked the evading IP for 24 hours too. -Splashtalk 12:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note about my reasoning: normally, it is only really ArbCom bans that get reset upon evasion: it is probably more usual to block the evading account until the end of the original block. In this case, however, Molobo's editing has been so completely unrestrained (all the way to an RfC) that I think starting over is more appropriate. -Splashtalk 12:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User 72.10.123.177

    Just reverted some vandalism from a fairly major page (Jimmy Carter) and noticed that the user already has a "final warning" on their talk page placed < 24 hours ago. Hence, a block for 72.10.123.177 (talk · contribs) would be appropriate. Thanks. Turnstep 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Multiple Accounts / Admin Abuse 2

    It has come to my attention that the admin Jayjq is responsible for the asumed sock check of this incident and spreading the news. The evidence is here: User_talk:Jayjg#What do you make of this? and here: User_talk:Eliezer/archive2#Sockpuppet check.

    This looks like several severe violations of Wikipedia:CheckUser to me. --Scandum 12:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, looks like Jayjg did everything by the book. What would be a violation of CheckUser (let alone a severe violation) would be if he told everyone what your IP was. All he did was say that you are a sockpuppet of ZimZum (or the other way around). There's nothing wrong with that. Thanks for letting us know here, now I (or another admin) will look into your contributions and block one of your sockpuppet accounts if you abused either of the sockpuppet accounts. --Deathphoenix 14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please ignore Deathpoenix. I've been quite civil despite the rather hostile attitudes of several users. Also, this is not what this issue is about and it looks like Deathphoenix is trying to obstruct the current discussion.
    I've been told [CheckUser Policy] is a more up to date guideline for the check user tool. The actions by Jayjg still seem a clear violation of the CheckUser usage guideline. Especially the part stating that check user shouldn't be used for political control.
    Taking into account that Jayjg is deeply involved with the highly controversial Circumcision article and seems unable to keep his role as an admin and editor seperated I suggest that the Removal of Access guildeline is followed before check user violations become the norm. --Scandum 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not obstructing the situation. I just came into this situation from reading WP:ANI. My actions have been reversed and I have promised to wash my hands of the matter. I was a complete outsider with no interest in either argument. If you think I am deliberately obstructing you because I have some vendetta against you, I invite you to check my contributions: I have never heard of you prior to reading this section. --Deathphoenix 17:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over the guidelines, I don't see which of them you think he violated. It looks like he looked it up after being asked in relation to suspicions of vandalism and sockpuppetry. I don't see any evidence that he released private information. --Fastfission 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First check user should never be used for no good reason. There was never any valid reason to use check user on either Scandum or ZimZum. Secondly nobody ever asked if ZimZum was a sockpuppet of Scandum, and since there was no wiki sockpuppet violation I think it was way beyond Jayjc to reveal that information. Doing so was likely motivated by political reasons, making it a clear abuse of power. --Scandum 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean, you were caught? - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How come we don't get to have cool templates like that? Guettarda 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocking ZimZum as a sockpuppet of Scandum

    I am definitely very uninvolved, having never seen either user nor posted (or even recently read) any of the articles in question.

    This shows that ZimZum/Scandum created a new account because the old one was "traceable"; however, both ZimZum and Scandum are still very active. According to this post, Scandum = ZimZum. Scandum's first contribution is 4 March 2005, while ZimZum's first contribution is 17 January 2006. Therefore, ZimZum is the sockpuppet account and Scandum is the sockpuppeteer (unless Scandum itself is a sockpuppet of another account).

    Therefore, as a completely uninvolved and neutral admin, I am going to block ZimZum indefintely as a sockpuppet. Scandum, you should only post using one account. If there are any admins that disagree with this action, feel free to unblock. --Deathphoenix 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand, Deathphoenix. What's the abuse? There is no rule against using two accounts, as such. See the CheckUser policy: "As a reminder, sockpuppets are not generally forbidden (editors may edit wikipedia under several accounts). It is the abuse of sockpuppets use (and in particular voting twice under two different names) which is severely frowned upon." Bishonen | talk 15:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    (edit conflict) He's been posting to RFCs and being quite incivil. I would not have blocked if ZimZum is active while Scandum is not (since the stated intention of creating the new account was because of the stigma of the old account), but both accounts are active and very incivil. Overall, I've been taking fairly uncontroversial admin actions as a newbie admin. I suppose this is my first potentially controversial action, which I decided to take because I've seen a fair number of incivil sockpuppets like this become quite abusive, and this sockpuppet shows signs of being a potentially abuse account. If this were a normal and unique account, I wouldn't have done anything. However, I believe we should keep sockpuppet accounts on a much shorter leash. If you wish to unblock, go right ahead. I took one action and will wash my hands of the whole affair. I don't intend to get myself involved in this case any further. --Deathphoenix 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I forgot to mention, both accounts have been used to post to circumcision/genital cutting-related articles, but nothing else that I can see. They weren't used to simultaneously "vote" on any matters. ZimZum's posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh, but Scandum has not. That's about it. --Deathphoenix 15:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they've both edited Circumcision. And I suppose it does make sense to set high standards of good behaviour for extra accounts. - Haukur 15:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean only people editing in a way 6 admins endorse have their privacy respected. --Scandum 01:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh* I don't know what to think. I can understand your frustration but I can also understand the case for revealing your puppet. On one hand we can say: "OMG!! Jay outed an alternative account of user he had been in a dispute with even though he did not violate WP:SOCK!!!!11" But on the other hand we can say: "The account looked like an abusive sockpuppet so Jay was asked to check if it was a sock. Turned out it was and Jay said so." It's a judgment call. Maybe Jay should have got a second opinion on whether to reveal the connection. (And maybe he did.) But I'd say he was within his rights and did not violate the checkuser policy as written. Maybe that policy needs to address cases like this more explicitly. - Haukur 01:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The account got checked for being suspicious cause it voted negatively for an RfC Jayjq himself was directly involved in. The votes were also highly unequal, so there was no way my vote was in any way affecting the RfC's outcome. I understand your opinion of me is as an annoying whiny abusive user due to the dirt throwing that has started right after the start of the conflict.
    I'm not sure how exactly you are reading WP:SOCK but if you look beyond the counter accusations you might see there were no sock puppet violations making what happend highly inappropriate. A similar case would be where you asked if Jimbo and Lola are sock puppets, and the admin with user checking answers no, but since Jimbo hasn't been giving him pressies for Christmas you should know that Puff Pusher is a sock puppet of Jimbo. So much for not giving pressies! Enjoy--Scandum 02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the extra account was being used abusively (e.g. by commenting on the same talk pages as the other account with the same views) then the block is justified. If it was not being used abusively then the block is unjustified and Jay should probably not have released the information to begin with. Now, let's find out which is the case :) - Haukur 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both ZimZum and Scandum are abusive. A cursory glance at their contribs makes this painfully obvious. Tomertalk 15:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, my understanding is that you only block a sock if it's being used for sockpuppet abuse, such as voting twice, or for a user to "support" himself while pretending to be someone else. Blocking it for general incivility of a kind you would not have blocked a unique account for, as Deathphoenix did, isn't right. I'm unblocking, for now, but invite Haukurth or anybody else to reblock if they find evidence of sockpuppet abuse as such. (If there is none, incidentally, Jay shouldn't even have looked.) And of course either or both of the accounts can be blocked for general abusiveness. I wouldn't object, I just don't think DP's block, with the reason as given, ought to stand. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    That's fine. I'll take that as a lesson and go back to just blocking vandals and such. I was hoping my actions would prevent wasting time, as my personal opinion is that ZimZum will, in the future, create a lot of headaches and waste the time of a lot of Wikipedians. But since such preemptive actions aren't allowed, I'll just stop right now after having done it once. --Deathphoenix 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Such preemptive actions are indeed not allowed. I can assure you that I haven't been anywhere near the same article with the two accounts since I created ZimZum to edit controversial articles. The accusations of me being abusive should be taken with a grain of salt since they have been suddenly popping up the minute the conflict of the check user tool began, not before that. --Scandum 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not quite correct, Scandum. I distinctly remember Benami complaining about personal attacks you and Dabljuh were making. Jakew 17:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unlike Deathphoenix, I am remotely involved in this nonsense—far more so than I want to be. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ZimZum was invented as a vehicle for Scandum to be abusive. This persona was invented 17 January, 2006, for the obvious specific purpose of endorsing Dabljuh's bizarre and incivil response to his RfC. Since then, ZimZum has taken on a life of his own, which has been, like Scandum, occasionally incivil and, where Jakew is concerned, clearly assumes bad faith, although overall productive. My suspicion is that the user felt freër to use the ZimZum persona for incivility, in the belief that it would be OK to do so since he could always just create another sock in order to continue to be abusive, rather like how foreign tourists are widely perceived as rude: precisely because many tourists don't feel a great deal of accountability for their actions, they leave their civility at the border. ZimZum's record has been far more abusive over a far shorter period of time than has Scandum's, hence my supposition. For whatever reason, Scandum/ZimZum has developed a chummy relationship with Dabljuh on circumcision-related articles, which is where (along with related discussion) all of ZimZum's incivility and assumptions of bad faith are to be found. It's on this observation, in concert with their identical interests and writing styles, that my original supposition that they're the same person is based. Everywhere else I've seen S/Z operating (eugenics/racism/online gaming (which is where I assume he first ran into Dabljuh)), he is, in fact, a civil defender of WP:NPOV and an otherwise good editor.

    Scandum: (incivility) [91][92][93]characterizes his reinsertion of Dabljuh's assininity as "rvv"

    (assumption of bad faith) [94]

    Scandum also displays occasional mild antagonism toward User:Zen-master: [95][96]

    As far as I can see (and this is my attempt at humor which S/Z hopefully gets), Scandum's biggest problem is that he's an insane egomaniac; ZimZum's is that he's drunk. (go read their user pages for support of this assertion)


    ZimZum: (incivility) [97][98][99]

    (failure to assume good faith) [100]

    As for the protestations of harassment in "exposing" him, he does that himself, at the very least, admitting that he's someone else, and issuing a challenge to figure out who. Tomertalk 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting, but I think your accusations are highly POV since I don't see the relavancy. Why don't you spend a fraction of that time investigating an admin abusing his powers? Or is it considered uncivil since he's your buddy?
    I'm getting the slightly odd feeling here that this is some kind of diversion from the topic above this one. --Scandum 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you don't see relevancy in my comments you consider them to be POV? That doesn't make sense, but whatever. I don't see any abuse of imagined power or I'd be commenting on it. What's incivil is your accusation of cronyism. I'm getting the slightly odd feeling here that you think I'm advocating blocking you. I'm not, so enhance your calm. All I've done is demonstrate that you're not as blameless as you try to make yourself out to be. You can't expect people to come to your defense when you come to court with soiled hands. Tomertalk 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anittas again

    Anittas continues on as before despite his RFC, the recent discussion of his harassing others here and the 24 hr block that arose out of it, and his recent warning from Jimbo [101]. He's started up again, fanning the flames of others and inciting disputes with personal attacks and generally being disruptive [102]. I've warned him once and removed the personal attack. He's responded by deleting the former [103] and restoring the latter [104]. Someone else may want to want to look into his antics and have a word with him or something. FeloniousMonk 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wanted to warn User:Turkmen for Monk. I strongly believe that Monk uses his tools in the wrong way and I wanted to let Turk know this. Monk calls this for a personal attack and threatened to have me banned. In addition to this, another admin was very rude to Turkmen, telling him to "shut up". --Candide, or Optimism 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see neither rudeness nor a "shut up" in the link you provided. I do, however, suggest you learn how to deal with others, or else suffer a block. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The "shut up" is there. I double-checked. Allow me to post his comment in full:

    :He did exactly what he should do. You were rude and wrongly accusatory. Within the bounds of civil behaviour and respect for other members of the community you could follow the correct course of action and apologise for your unacceptable behaviour, or you could just shut up about your mistake, and I'm sure people would let it slide based on the fact that you are a new user. Since you chose to continue your rude behaviour, you should apologise and make an effort to learn something about community etiquette. Guettarda 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    --Candide, or Optimism 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment seems very fair to me. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And if a non-admin would make that comment, you would be flooding his talkpage with warnings. He can tell people to shut up, but I can't warn Turk for an admin whom I believe is using his tools in the wrong way? Why is that? Are admins above regular editors? --Candide, or Optimism 19:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Don't put words into my mouth. If a non-admin said that I would not comment on it. It is a perfectly reasonable statement. Perhaps it was a little harshly worded, but not excessively so. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I want Monk to shut up, too. --Candide, or Optimism 19:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop disrupting Wikipedia and you'll have nothing to complain about. FeloniousMonk 20:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:134.161.137.162, Animal Liberation Front and Britches (monkey)

    I have previously reported this incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:134.161.137.162 and the Animal Liberation Front page was protected. However, the user has now started reverting over at Britches (monkey) and will not take into account the overwhelming support for the old version of the article at Talk:Animal Liberation Front. He will not stop reverting and will not allow the community to be the deciding factor, rather thinks that his own view is the only one to be listened to. So far he seems to be in violation of WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:NPA and a few others. Is there any thing that can be done to stop this user constantly ignoring everyone else.-Localzuk (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An admin has now blocked the user for 24 hours but they have instantly come back using the ip User:134.164.137.162 and reverted yet again.-Localzuk (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    About removing warnings

    User:Sebastiankessel said that removing warnings from one's talkpage is considered vandalism. He told me to check WP:Vandalism, and so I did, but I'm having a problem finding the info where it says that one is not allowed to remove a warning on his own talkpage. What is says is "Removing vandalism warnings from one's talk page is also considered vandalism", but I was not warned for vandalism. Can someone help me out? Can I remove a warning that doesn't pertain to vandalism? --Candide, or Optimism 20:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, Anittas is right. I interpreted the message left as a warning and reacted accordingly. I'd like somebody to correct me if I was wrong in the way I read the page. Thanks.
    My apologies in advance to Anittas if I misinterpreted the policy. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's cool. --Candide, or Optimism 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, though I concede that that is the wording of the policy, the intent is actually slightly different. The intent of that comment is to avoid anonymous vandals removing warnings. I think it's permissible to allow a wide latitude in behaviour here. Nevertheless, Anittas does correctly state what the policy page says. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A loophole in one policy is not carte blanche to violate another. When removing warnings Anittas misused the edit summary to make personal attacks and discount genuine warnings as mere harassment [105], [106]. FeloniousMonk 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not misuse the edit summary because it's my talkpage and I should feel free to remove any comments that I want. Your policy say that a user is not allowed to remove warnings about vandalism. I disagree with that one also, but it has nothing to do with my case. Where did I make personal attacks when I reverted back? I want you to back up this claim of yours. --Candide, or Optimism 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As has been said many times, policy is what we do, and the written version of it always lags behind. The page should be updated to reflect what is actually meant (which Sam Korn stated quite concisely, so I won't bother repeating). Having not read through the events of this situation, I can't speak to the issues FeloniousMonk has raised, but certainly WP:VAND needs to be updated. I'll go and do that now. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an admin change, update, or reform a policy? I thought that the entire community decided on these things, with a reserve from Jimbo who can at any time dismiss any changes. Also, it doesn't matter if you change that particular policy because that particular policy - that is, the Vandalism policy - doesn't apply to me. I have nothing to do with vandalism. --Candide, or Optimism 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy pages only document policy; they aren't policy in themselves. Where what happens is obvious, it is not unreasonable to update the policy page to reflect this. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand. The policy pages reflect the official policy if Wiki, right? Then, I'm thinking that one user can't just decide that the policy is to be changed or even reworded without authority from the community, or whoever. --Candide, or Optimism 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to your question, as far as I can tell, is no. The policy pages do not reflect the official policy of the Wiki; they reflect, for reference, in a slightly out-of-date way, what we actually do. -- SCZenz 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite so. There are one or two "official" policies, which must be obeyed: NPOV, Copyrights, Civility. Other than that, written policies are more like guidelines that should almost always be followed. The primary policy, though, has always been "use common sense", and updating policies to fit in with sensible practice makes good sense. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you then enforce things that are not a part of the policy? Say that I was a vandal and I would remove warnings about my vandalism on my talkpage. Why would I then risk to be blocked for removing the warning? In fact, how can you define that as vandalism at all? You said above that the wording was wrong and that it would apply to anonymous users that would make the revert. Obviosuly, these admins wouldn't interpret it this way. You guys aren't even on the same page. It seems that there are no requirements on who can add new rules to the policy, as we have seen here. Some dude thought it was good to update the so-called policy and so he did, without anyone objecting it. It makes no sense. Who is shaping this policy? Who decides these things? --Candide, or Optimism 07:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I've restored Essjay's wording, because it's obviously sensible. This being a minor and blatantly obvious fix to the policy, this is the appropriate way to build a consensus--it's a wiki, remember? -- SCZenz 23:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lamington-Child

    Quite possibly the most obvious WP:POINT vio ever, Lamington-Child's user page says that his/her goal on WP is to see how many articles they can vandalize before getting banned; my guess is 3(currently at 2 right now.) Also has an assload of userboxes, likely as a straw man against the Userboxen issue a few weeks ago. Karmafist 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE TO ADMINISTRATORS Spirit Mountain Ranch Vandalism, Commercial Advertisement and POV of White buffalo

    Someone (most likely these people from Spirit Mountain Ranch) have been vandalizing Ma-hi-ya-sqa and placing advertising, WP:POV WP:V and other content which fails and is not in compliance with factual writing. Some of the statements are nonsense and POV. Please monitor this article and **BLOCK** these people from putting advertising banners and disrepecting Native beliefs. They make statements that Albinoism is a "birth defect". Being born an "Albino" is not a birth defect any more than being born a Negro or Indian is a "birth defect". These people are simply using Wikipedia for adverstisement and reverting edits, posting POV, and vandalizing other pages about other White Buffulo considered sacred. Please monitor this article. 67.177.11.129 06:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC) [edit][reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=36759157"