Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

User:Thousandsons

Thousandsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received an indef. block plus talkpage protection, so he is unable to request an unblock. The block seem highly dubious, especially without the intervention of ArbCom and/or Jimbo Wales. From his contributions, he simply committed petty vandalism. A block such as this shouldn't be enforce by one individual admin without consensus. P.S. My userpage and his userpage is a little bit similar, but I am NOT his sockpuppet. A groundless, privacy-invading checkuser was previously filed and proved my innocence. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 08:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I will look into it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User posted personal details of other people, threatened to "fuck up all ya pages and shyt," vandalized user pages, and personally threatened admins who intervened to prevent vandalism. He's staying blocked, and the page is staying protected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought talkpage and userpage do not follow wikipedia regulations.--Bonafide.hustla 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear this user should not be unblocked, he has made threats acted inappropriatley and childishly. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No that's incorrect - "# Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. # In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page

Do you really think userpages should be a safe haven for comments such as

"Oh just fuck you! when I get unblocked your ganna see some shyt, cuz I'm commin' foe you, and don't lye this is cuz I'm black, I'd get the police involved if I wasn't a nigger, you better unblock me now If you whant me ta stop being so black, I'm ganna give ya a day ta think about weather or not ya wanna deal wit me, and believe you me homie I know all bout harassment and I ain't ganna stop on this mutha fuckin syte, if i'm not unblocked at 3:00 I'm ganna hack your shyt, harras you and basicly just fuck you around, so think about it ok NiggeR?"

--Charlesknight 10:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Making threats charles is just going to get you blocked. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then I urge you to take a look at User:Jiang's userpage and talkpage. It seems to be a personal attack (albeit against a group).--Bonafide.hustla 12:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What, precisely, are you hoping to accomplish here? The guy has vandalized, the guy has made threats, the guy is NOT here to do the encyclopedia any good whatsoever: NOBODY is going to unblock him, it's clear, but more to the point, why would you think it's a good idea to do so? No phony comparatives with other cases or users, please: what is it about THIS guy -- User:Thousandsons -- that exempts him from the ordinary expected standards of behavior? --Calton | Talk 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if the whole point of this report is to be one more devious round in the endless attempt to get User:Jiang to remove an image from his user page, as featured on AN/I and elsewhere, ad infinitum. Frankly, this looks like borderline WP:POINT to me, and User:Bonafide.hustla is still edit-warring all over the place with User:RevolverOcelotX over Taiwain China Taiwan China Taiwan, instead of going through the dispute resolution process as advised. Time to community-ban both of them? --ajn (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither does Bonafide.hustla have clean hands regarding "groundless, privacy-invading checkuser" requests. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My response on my talkpage--Bonafide.hustla 05:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. The "response" on the talk page was to copy and paste -- twice -- the above section. So it looks like the answer to the question, "What, precisely, are you hoping to accomplish here?" is "nothing whatsoever". --Calton | Talk 06:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry there was an editing conflict when I tried to add my point. I'll summarize it on my talkpage now.--Bonafide.hustla 07:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanations posted.--Bonafide.hustla 06:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Gadugi

This user (Jeff Merkey) is running for the election, but was indefinitely blocked in the past (I believe for legal threats). Would it be reasonable to unblock? User says, "I'll let the community decide if it should be lifted" — I don't see a problem in this — I don't think the user is anymore a threat. Opinions? - FrancisTyers · 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Has the legal action he's threatened been concluded one way or the other? If not, he should stay blocked. --Carnildo 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

His comments from meta are copied below:

He's running for board election, I sincerely doubt that he is proposing legal action against Wikipedia. - FrancisTyers · 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me there are people at the Foundation who can unblock him if they want to. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would they need to? If he isn't a threat, why is he still blocked? - FrancisTyers · 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to User:BradPatrick, the answer is "No" to the question "Does Jeff Merkey has any outstanding legal actions against the foundation?" - FrancisTyers · 19:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How about against other users? --Carnildo 20:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting selectively from his lengthy reply,

"...I do not hold Wikipedia, Mr. Wales, or anyone on Wikipedia responsible for what happened..."

- FrancisTyers · 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Were there concerns other than the legal issues leading to the block? If not, I think we can probably lift it, as it seems to me that he has no intentions of any legal action against anyone in the project (if he ever did). Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The block was made as follows:

18:09, 15 October 2005, Fvw (Talk) blocked Gadugi (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Jeff Merkey (Personal attacks, legal threats, harassment, disruption, ...))

He's apologised for all of these and made it clear that there are no legal issues outstanding. - FrancisTyers · 21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that User:Sint Holo, one of his more recent incarnations, was blocked by Jimbo Wales himself, and this user has a long history of sockpuppetry and abusive behaviour (which included him posting forged IRC logs on his now-removed web site, merkeylaw.com, purportedly showing me trying to solicit indecent photographs from his underaged daughter - ironic considering my sexuality) I would strongly oppose any unblocking of this user, and suggest his candidacy for the Board is removed by one of the officials. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon hearing the remainder of the evidence I would tend to agree. I'll ask him to negotiate direct with Jimbo. - FrancisTyers · 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In my completely useless opinion, indefinitely blocked or banned users have zero right to run in this election, especially one as abusive and disruptive as Merkey. Hollow assurances aside, can anyone say for sure this is not some play at Wikimedia-wide disruption? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are 3 election officials, and the rules say that accepted candidates will have confirmed placed next to their name, which no one had last time I checked. The Foundation appointed the election officials and I'd say its there call whether to accept Mr. Merkey's candidacy or not. Not a task I envy them of. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

<election official>Banned users are not eligible to stand as candidates, that is an absolute.</election official> <normal user>Whether Mr. Merkey is a banned user is a question for the Foundation, not the election officials.</normal user> Essjay (Talk) 04:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord

Look at this: [1] It seems that Beckjord (talk · contribs) has declared a "Wiki-War," and given his past disregard of Wikipedia rules, including dozens of evasions of his current 1-year Arbcom ban, I think a permanent ban is in order here. (Remember how Jimbo banned Wik?) Editor88 18:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the idea of on-wiki consequences for off-wiki actions, or vice versa. I'm content to let him rant against any of us on his own websites, it's much preferable to him bringing his ranting here. Friday (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As that site is off wiki i dont think he can be banned for it, and also some text on that page cant be denied. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If he wants to whine, let him. He's not actually inciting any action against the site at the moment. --InShaneee 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe sometimes off-wiki actions can and should have on-wiki consequences... but I don't think Beckjord's Wikifools page there crosses the line. It's not particularly harassing (at least I don't feel harassed by it) and we already saw, during the course of the events that led up to his ArbCom sanctions, that Beckjord doesn't actually seem to have the power to call up legions of minions and bend Wikipedia to his will. BUNCH OF GRAPES 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why we're all worrying, he's apparently attacking "Wicipedia", not us. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord tried previously to send his legions to Wikipedia...but it lasted a day, maybe two...I wouldn't worry about it.--MONGO 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He's into cryptozoology, right? Maybe they're here, and you just can't see them because they're shy and reclusive. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows that Bigfoot can't type! Geogre 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes he can...but only telepathically while traveling through wormholes.--MONGO 21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot, is that you? If so, what was meeting Steve Austin like? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Once he arrives on Earth after travelling millions of lightyears via wormholes, bigfoot likes to take a walk through the forestand leave lots of footprints everywhere.--MONGO 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice 'come hither' look there. Didn't expect this kind of vanity from a fur-covered bipedal extraterrestrial mammal. Prepare to be banned. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert

I suggest that our policy for Colbert Masturbators be that registered users be blocked indefinitely, and that anonymous IPs be blocked for a minimum of a week, and that this be done for a first offense. I know this is harsh, but consider the circumstances. DS 04:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, we could handle it like we handle all other vandalism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it gets a bit more nuanced: some editors think that, for instance, the elephant article is a good place to say, "Stephen Colbert once told people to say that the elephant population has tripled over the last three months." I think such editors need to be told to use the talk page, and roll the edits back as disruptive but not malicious. Repeated entries by the same user refusing to use the talk page should end up with one more warning and then a block. If, on the other hand, they're simply run-of-the-mill Colberrorists using vandalism-only sleeper accounts, they should be blocked on sight. But ultimately, MiB is right: the biggest mistake we could make is to overreact to this. There's a PR element to this, and so far we're doing pretty well. This is probably the most direct, focused barrage of vandalism Wikipedia's dealt with, and so far, judging by word of blog, we're actually getting high marks. JDoorjam Talk 04:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen, consider it done -- Tawker 04:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts should be blocked indefinitely, established users with mostly good edits should not be blocked for the first offense for more than 48h, IMHO. And since Tawker is here, can we make a bot that would monitor tripling of the elephant population in a usual tawkerbot fashion? abakharev 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot suggestion is probably a bad idea, the Bots are getting a bit wonkey as it is, but adding it to Lupin's bad word list isn't a bad idea--152.163.100.65 05:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In the War on Colberrorism, we cannot cut and run. We must fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I take this to mean you agree with my plan of mailing a series of doctored (GFDL) photos of bears chasing/eating Colbert, signed "Jimbo Wales," to the "Eagle's Nest." Or perhaps you mean the true victory is ignoring his neologism, and making "Colberrorism" the only one people remember from this ordeal. JDoorjam Talk 05:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm thinking is "What should we do with Colbert if he confirms he owns Stephencolbert (talk · contribs)?". I think we should keep him block, since he's been more-or-less asking (millions of) viewers to vandalise Wikipedia, causing possible server problems. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, just as a point of fact, here, Stephen Colbert the comedian is not. Stephen Colbert the parody of Bill O'Reilly is. It's actually quite clever, in that he (the comedian) is recognizing the manipulation that people like him (the parody) have been attempting. Still, of course, the block is appropriate. Geogre 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"more-or-less asking (millions of) viewers to vandalise Wikipedia" <-- Have you watched the show? Also, please read A Modest Proposal. What some Wikipedia administrators would have said if they had lived in 1729: "Defcon 1! Jonathan Swift is telling people to eat babies!" --JWSchmidt 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

am I the only person who realized his true purpose was to make g. washington look bad, because he is really a commie 71.253.142.109 02:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicodemus75

I have blocked Nicodemus75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a month due to chronic WP:CIVIL and WP:NOT a battlefield violations, due to his repeatedly demonstrated lack of desire to contribute anything to Wikipedia but acrimony, argument, and incivility. In particular, this diff (which is typical of his us vs. them mentality) is a highlight of his garrulous, incendiary style, and he hasn't stopped the conduct that resulted in his RFC. This is not the first time he has been blocked for incivility, and he seems to refuse to change.

This is posted here in the interest of transparency. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

His response to this block was to log onto IRC and msg me privately, threatening to have me desysopped. I don't see any indication that he is at all repetant about - or even willing to address - his lack of civility. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ook. That diff in particular isn't so bad, but the collective input from this user does nothing but raise the temperature of every discussion I've ever seen him enter. That being said, I always like to see a warning on the user's talk page first? With that in mind, I'd support an unblock with a "you've now got zero margin for nastyness" warning. - brenneman ^{L} 05:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have little hope that this will accomplish anything, given that his last edit states that he doesn't see that he's ever been uncivil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nico refused brenneman's suggestion, and additionally went on the attack against both myself and, inexplicably, brenneman (who was offering to unblock him). I don't think he's willing to admit incivility, or moderate his tone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Warnings are good ideas in general, but become useless enabling when mandated for even the most unrepentant violator who clearly knows our civility and AGF policies, and has been blocked under them before. Nicodemus has been blocked for incivility before, and I don't personally see any reason why he shouldn't be under a kind of "zero margin" as it is, and why this block isn't a logical outgrowth of that lack of margin. It is clear to me that Nicodemus is an odious presence here who contributes little constructively, and, frankly, should never have been unblocked in the first place so many months ago. We don't need more people trying to draw the community into partisan camps for the sake of the confrontation itself, and we certainly don't need any more inserting venom into deletion discussions. Dmcdevit·t 07:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The only disagreement I'd have with that is that he hadn't (to my knowledge) been told he'd used up every bit of "margin." I know I'm straining at gnats here, but given that 1) He's come off a long break, 2) Feels (with some justification) that his "record" is ancient history, and 3) reckons he hasn't been that uncivil... Well, I'd probably be pretty cranky if I were him right now. I'd still like to see the block lifted, with the caveat that is becomes an indefinite if he doesn't cool it. - brenneman ^{L} 07:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Brenneman. El_C 09:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Noting that I don't particularly care if he does have reason to be cranky, since incivility is never the proper reaction to any stimulus, Aaron's proposal is fine with me as long as Nicodemus agrees to abide by it. (At the moment, his last talk page communication was still attacks.) With that in mind, I'll remove his {{unblock}} and wait to see how Nicodemus' response to Aaron's last message pans out. Favorably, and unblocking is fine by me. Dmcdevit·t 09:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. El_C 09:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron too, but I don't have much confidence that Nicodemus will change his ways. As to the block itself, it is very hard to make a project like Wikipedia work when some people resolutely refuse to countenance any way of working other than their own, so to characterise Nicodemus as serially disruptive is, I think, entirely fair. And yes, that is following him down the path of personalising the issue. Sorry. In the end we have a set of inclusion guidelines on content of many kinds which have widespread consensus, albeit with a few dissenters and some debate around the margins, and then we have schools, where any attempt to formulate a similar set of consensus guidelines has been stymied by such absurdities as the assertion that all schools are inherently notable. What AMIB was trying to do was to intrroduce a guideline that would allow pretty much any school article which has significant verifiable information beyond the mere fact of its existence. Only in the bizarre world of the schools debate could this be seen as anything other than a good-faith attempt to extend a consistent approach across all content areas. Just zis Guy you know? 10:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone recently under attack from him, all I can say is that I remain convinced that personal attacks are not a blocking criterion, but, on the other hand, I agree with MiB and others that it's the "Wikipedia is not a battleground" thing that is blockable. The guy is sure that he's fighting a war against the forces of darkness, who happen to be administrators and long time users ... or just people who don't agree with him. Whatever it is, he's puffing and swinging constantly. I felt a bit like Foghorn Leghorn facing Henery Hawk, myself. It may be one of those things where his best bet would be to stay away from the embattled areas of the site, except that those are the ones he seems to like. <shrug> After a warning, I agree with blocking if he does more attacking. If he can't figure out when he's ever been uncivil, I suppose we can help him figure it out. Geogre 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Loserdick

Here's a new vandal/troll from New Zealand. He uses various IPs registered to Telecom New Zealand (kinda like New Zealand AOL?) and/or University of Auckland. I've reported him on Wikipedia:Abuse reports, don't know how else to deal with him. He's easy to identify because he seems to want to be caught, and edits his own blocked accounts and pages for admins who have blocked him, like this: [2] He claims his aim is to "bring Wikipedia down" because it's "stupid": [3]. Contributes idiotic vandalism and likes to blank pages. --woggly 10:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the info about the IPs he's been using:

• Loserdick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - read his talk page

Registered to University of Auckland:

• 130.216.191.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 6 times since May, unblocked due to collateral damage
• 130.216.191.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 3 times since June, unblocked due to collateral damage

and possibly:

• 130.216.191.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 4 times, most recently in March. Similar page blankings and stupid vandalism [4], interspersed with possibly valid edits.

Registered to Telecom New-Zealand:

• 222.153.112.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) first block yesterday
• 222.153.113.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) begging to be blocked [5]
• 222.153.34.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) first block yesterday
• 222.153.148.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) the latest, freshly blocked. I sorta fed him on this talkpage, couldn't resist. --woggly 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want, I will offer to contact the New Zealand university in question, feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you wish to discuss this. --TheM62Manchester 11:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Should be blocked for an inappropriate username. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As indeed he was, several days ago.--woggly 05:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Adminship abuse in order to push POV

I was blocked for the fourth time by admins who push POV at the Lance Armstrong article. Just because he is from the same country as most editors of the English wikipedia does not mean his article needs to be a fanzine. The admin who reported me even implicitly admitted I had not broken the 3 revert rule. However, I got blocked for 72 hours. Another editor who had deleted a POV tag without discussion three times, which is explicitly described as WP:Vandalism, was not punished at all. JzG who had abusively blocked me three times before even though he was in a content dispute again took advantage of the block to delete the history of two articles about journalists who wrote a book about alleged drug abuse by Armstrong. Even though his suggestion to merge the articles failed and a thir opinion had helded to get a consensus on the talk page, JzG just went and made the articles into redirects: Pierre Ballester and David Walsh (sports reporter). Thus I cannot present the links any longer to show that there he had violated the same rules about biographies of living people that he had claimed to have blocked me for. There are many editors concerned about POV at the Armstrong article. [6][7][8][9] Please help to resolve the conflict. Socafan 11:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much grasping for straws there, starting with your new fact-free rationalization and ending with your reaching WAY back for editors allegedly supporting -- including padding the examples by counting the last, a single-edit anon, twice.

Guy, you've been blocked the last 3 times owing purely to your own behavior. The fact that no one has reversed those blocks despite your vociferous argumentation should be a clue. Take the time to reflect on their real meaning -- which is neither "everyone's out to get me" nor "if I make just the right legal argument I'll win". --Calton | Talk 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for mixing up two links. Here are the right ones, three different users plus an anon complaining about POV at the Lance Armstrong article: [10] [11] [12][13] Thank you for kind way to apologize for your vandalism. [14][15][16] Socafan 11:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize a goddamn thing and have nothing to apologize for, you reading-impaired Perry Mason-wannabe. Holy crap, you've drunk your own Kool-Aid, haven't you? --Calton | Talk 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I showed you that the rules are very clear that no editor is allowed to remove a POV more than once in 24 hrs. You did it three times without discussion, thus vandalizing the page. Your incivility says more about you and your level of argumentation than about anyone else. Socafan 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not necessarily mean that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context." See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive53#User:Socafan and other conversations.

Socafan is waging a crusade to spin the doping allegations against Lance Armstrong in the most damaging way possible. His first 3RR block was after reverting three separate admins. I see no sign that he is in the least repentant, and every indication that he will continue Wikilawyering. His view appears to be that hios content should go in unless and until we can all persuade him otherwise - this is a reversal of the unambiguously stated rule at WP:BLP. As Jimbo says: "responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim." Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not waging a crusade against Armstrong, I do not even know him. I dislike people who act as if this was the Stanford Prison Experiment and abuse their powers in order to present things the way they would like them to be. As I showed above, others are concerned about the POV at the article, too. Fans are presumably more likely to have an article about an athlete on their watchlist. However, a neutral article would do everyone a better service than a ridiculous misrepresentation of facts. Socafan 11:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

am not waging a crusade against Armstrong, I do not even know him. Dude, do you even bother to read what you write before hitting "save"? Of course! How could you POSSIBLY be waging a crusade unless you knew him personally? Your logic is air-tight! --Calton | Talk 11:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you wage crusades against people you do not even know. Reasonable people have other hobbies. Socafan 11:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, now you've gone from tedious wikilawyering straight to complete incoherence. --Calton | Talk 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, what I see here is the continued assertion against all the available evidence that you are (a) right and (b) a blameless victim. Is that your assertion? If so, then I propose we move to a community ban, as previously suggested by Tony, because if you won't even acknowledge the problem with your behaviour there is no realistic chance of your fixing it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Having attempted to mediate a few days ago, I do not support User:Socafan's approach to editing the Lance Armstrong article. I think his behaviour is very frustrating and his edits do not reflect concensus. To accuse editors of contributing to a fanzine is not approprate. Most editors are editing in good faith to produce a meaningful article on a notable sportsman. Socofan's beahviour is unconstructive--A Y Arktos\^talk 12:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• See also this egregious trolling. Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing User:Socafan's responses here has pretty much sealed my mind against him. I'm not sure if I should chalk it up to ignorance or simply grasping at the final straws of his side of the argument. Naw, it can't be ignorance, I think everyone by the 6th? grade learned about The Crusades, during which they were KILLING people that they knew nothing about. --mboverload@ 12:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to take a look at the issue rather than be a know-it-all on crusades? I live in the 21st century, times were people you do not know anything about get an axe on their head are over for me. Socafan 14:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

After two blocks for 3RR he is straight back in there edit warring over a tag whose inclusion seems to be unsupported by any other historied editor. Socafan's approach appears to be that anything he does need not be justified but may not be undone without first persuading him. Since he has never acknowledged that there is any problem with his edits, despite everybody else agreeing there is, I am not holding my breath here. Just zis Guy you know? 13:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the tag has been provided for several days now. There is no discussion showing that it needs to be removed. Thus, removing it is vandalism and it needs to be restored immediately. As do the articles you made into redirects. Socafan 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh indeed, the reason for the tag is absolutely plain: you refuse to accept the fact that your edits have failed to gain consensus. Oh, and you refuse to accept that Armstrong is clean. Do feel free to come back when he's been successfully prosecuted. As to the idea that merging two articles with substantially identical content into one which covers the subject of that content, when the articles themselves cover nothing else, that is a very novel interpretation of vandalism. One might almost accuse you of failing to assume good faith, but I see from your postings on Talk pages that accusations of failure to assume good faith only apply when it is your edits which are questioned. Funny, that. Just zis Guy you know? 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I had not edited that section at all. It was added by another editor and it is biased. You had failed to gain consensus about the articles you replaced by redirects, and their history showed you had violated the rules about biographies of living people. Your repeated condescending attitude and twisting of facts does nothing to support your POV. Socafan 14:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Community ban

After having seen nothing from Socafan but attempts to violate WP:BLP and trolling everywhere he can think of whenever someone calls him on it, but managing to remain uninvolved so far, I've blocked him indefinitely per "exhausted community patience" in the purest sense of that term: that I will be very surprised if anyone finds a reason to unblock him. Please review etc. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sam. Just zis Guy you know? 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam, you beat me to it. Here is the post I wrote for AN/I.

IMO, Socafan is a purely a disruptive editor here to challenge Wikipedia policy and administrators. Socafan's early edits show a familarity with Wikipedia policy leading me to think the user is a sockpuppet. Why are we continuing to tolerate this users continued disruptive behavior? Socafan is adding nothing of value to the project. I think a community ban or RFAr is needed ASAP. --FloNight ^talk 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Exhausted my patience 2 months ago. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh! Not sure I ever had any patience with this one. Just zis Guy you know? 14:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin, I've seen very few (if any) edits from Socafan that couldn't be considered trolling, disruptive or POV pushing. Aren't I Obscure? 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you (no, I'm not an admin, just a busybody). Yeah, I'm sorry I lost my temper with this bozo -- resulting in a one-hour block for me. I was miffed -- okay, mad -- that his continual calling of my edits "vandalism" went by scot-free for him, at least in the short-term, but now that that's a moot point I guess I have nothing to complain about. --Calton | Talk 15:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. He's not here to do anything but advance his views, and he interferes with people who actually want to work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the block - I felt I tried to be reasonable and has been pointed out to me, I failed miserably. I was disappointed to see the silly reversions at Lance Armstrong and the disussion which was uncivil (from more than one editor) and failed to focus on the content. Mediation is obviously not my strong point! I wasted my time and would rather contribute as per Tom harrison.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Support indefinite ban for exhausting the community's patience. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC).

Support the block, user has repeatedly been unable to grasp the fact that their behavior, not some imaginary massive conspiracy to persecute them, is the cause of the trouble here. The unblock request on their talkpage further illustrates this lack of understanding. -M^ask 22:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

=== Socafan evading his ban; blocked ===

I have just blocked 84.56.29.199 (talk · contribs · block log) on the basis that it is Socafan evading the ban and continuing to edit the Lance Armstrong talk page.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The editor from 84.56.29.199 claims not to be banned user [17] though at least one other editor thought the same way I did in response to the IP's edits, their timing and their subject matter: So Socafan gets community banned and an IP user comes to defend him? Hi there Socafan. You're not fooling anything.[18]--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you've been had, although only a checkuser would know for sure. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am assuming good faith. I am not heavily into textual analysis but the editing style doesn't seem quite the same. If somebody else wants to call for checkuser, that is fine by me. If it is the banned user returning, I suspect his behaviour will repeat, leopards and their spots ... - it will become obvious. The new user's observation though that the Lance Armstrong talk page is poisonous is fair comment.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, per AGF and all that, if Socafan is gone and the talk page is really "poisonous," it might be a good time to archive it and start fresh. Good luck to all. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Leclerq is not, by comon ocnsent now, Socafan, but a German Wikipedian with a properly constructive approach. I have archived out the trollfest from the Armstrong Talk page. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible... Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How long should Appleby be blocked?

Multiple sockpuppetry was confirmed for Appleby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HSL for details). 12 confirmed sockpuppets were blocked indefinitely, but Appleby, the main account, got only 24 hours. We need to assess the proper block periods of time.

Some information for making a decision:

1. Appleby violated 3RR several times. Previously he's been blocked up to 72 hours.
2. And now, multiple sockpuppetry was confirmed
   1. Appleby circumvented 3RR with sock puppets. One case was reported by Endroit (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Appleby reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:)) but some seem to be left unreported.
   2. With sock puppets, Appleby also created the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HSL for details.

Any comment? --Nanshu 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Appleby is likely to reform? Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Note:He's been blocked 8 times in 10 months for 3RR violations. He's not getting that message. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would go with an indefinite block as exhausting the community patience. 12 sockpuppets is ridiculous. Certainly no less than 2 weeks. JoshuaZ 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree strongly. Disruptive, unrepentant, unlikely to reform, show him the door. Just zis Guy you know? 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for a further 24 hours pending the outcome of this discussion. Given the above I certainly wouldn't oppose anything up to and including an indefinite ban. --kingboyk 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing in all of this is that, despite multiple blatant rules violations, he's made some good contributions as well. It's unfortunate that he doesn't learn to play nicely as I think he could make a good editor if he'd put forth the effort to do that instead of edit warring and puppetry. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Get over it, Nihonjoe. Appleby is not just Appleby. This guy's a full time revert-warrior. Just look at the actions of Dollarfifty (talk · contribs), HSL (talk · contribs), Damool (talk · contribs), and the other socks. Appleby inherited some good traits by dumping some of his bad traits on to his other sockpuppets. But look at the number of Dollarfifty's reverts on June 13 (there's over 50 reverts on that day alone, perhaps?). This proves that Appleby is a full-time revert-warrior. If you're not going to indefinitely ban Appleby, you have to think of a method to monitor and restrict his reverts.--Endroit 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't go jumping all over me, Endroit, especially when it appears you've misinterpreted my comments. I wasn't disagreeing with anyone that Appleby shouldn't be blocked for longer. I've already said I agree that he should be blocked for a much longer time in order to cool his heels for a while and think about how to play nicely in the future. I was just expressing some regret that it came this far since he obviously knows how to edit in an acceptable fashion, and yet chooses not to. You don't need to convince me of Appleby's indiscretions. I've been around most of them, so I have first-hand knowledge of what a pain he can be. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't condone what Appleby did. In fact, he messaged me once with his sock Dollarfifty, presumably to make the sock look more legitimate and I don't particularly appreciate being used (there's probably a better word) like that at all or wasting my time writing a response to someone who didn't need to read what I wrote. But I agree with with Nihonjoe that Appleby has made some good contributions, especially in an area of Wikipedia that is often neglected. I think a long Wiki-break for Appleby is probably a good idea but I don't think an indefinite ban is the solution. I can't speak for Appleby myself but my suggestion is if he/she promises to be good (taken in good faith), a last chance should be given in my opinion (After a long break.) Tortfeasor 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least Appleby's writings were reasonable and it means he/she knows how to behave him(her)self. Now that all other accounts were blocked, and the main account's warned, I think he/she can do good job from now on as it was done under Appleby. It doesn't harm to give it another shot and see. Therefore, I object to indefinite ban. 2 weeks will do. Ginnre 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Decision

Based on most of the comments above, as well as Ypacaraí's comments here, it seems that a block of at least one year is in order. Given the long history of repeated policy and guideline violations with no indications showing a possible change of ways in the future on the part of Appleby, I've indef blocked him. Thank you to everyone for their input. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why was Ypacarai's comment so important? I checked his user page and it looks like he might be too pro Japan. And where is no indiations of possible change? Giving Appleby another chance is that unreasonble? Ginnre 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not "pro-Japan" or "pro-Korea," and I've had plenty of problems with Appleby's POV-pushing. I think it's sad, because he's entirely capable of writing good articles and contributing positiviely, but this effective betrayal of the community's trust means the decision to block is more than justified, I think. --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A block for about a month certainly does teach him a lesson, but not an indefinite one. It is certainly far too harsh. Furthermore, see his contributions to wikipedia. The vast majorty are constructive, not destructive. I have never seen him violated any other laws other than this. People do make mistakes, you know. Perhaps he is not even aware of this law and he happened to find out that a computer terminal can create multiple accounts, without being aware of the law. Ypacarai himself, on the other hand, is quite a controversial and stubborn figure in the first place. Currently, even I had problems to pull him in just to enquire him for reasons only on why he removed the Korean naming conventions on goodwill basis. All of you might want to take a look at Talk:Tsushima Island to see the progress of the discussion. Mr Tan 10:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he is unaware of Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy. He once commented "obvious sockpuppetry and way way way beyone 3rr" in a edit comment[19] and there, he himself circumvented the 3RR policy using his sock puppet Dollarfifty. --Kusunose 12:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm....you do have a point. But I'm sure that besides this violation, he is not a mere vandal and has made many constructive edits as shown on his contributions page and his user page. I certainly do support a one to three month ban just like an armed robbery being prosecuted to ten-to-twenty years jail under Singapore's laws, but an indefinite ban on him directly just like an exceution of a murderer in the gallows is certainly way too harsh for such a valued contributor. I am sure that every other moderate user holds a similar view of my standard, and that few months is certainly more than enough to let him reflect on his violations. Mr Tan 13:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism

It seems like there are some sneaky vandalism by two users here, who wanna claim fake things to Norway with no sources for it. I'm pretty new here and don't know how things work yet and how to deal with this kind of vandalism here on wikipedia. In the article "Normans". The two Norwegian users, Inge and Barend keep putting Norway or Norwegians in the article from no where. I have asked them like 5 times in the discussion, what the sources are. Of course they refuse to answer, since there are is no source for it. Here the fake claiming started. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normans&diff=27008966&oldid=26282705 Thanks --Comanche cph 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comanche cph (talk • contribs)

This entry is at best slander. If an administrator would like to to involve in this issue I would be delighted. The user Comanche has been a test of many a merited users patience. As he has been spreading his slanderous comments about me across ceveral talk pages now I would urge any administrator to involve themselves seriously in this conflict. I am aware that many administrators are very busy, but simply leaving a warning on this users talk page has proven not to be enough. Other editors in addition to myself have tried to guide this user towards what is normal behaviour on wikipedia, but with little result. An in depth look at this users history is very much in order. If a merited administrator would involve him/her self a thorough look at the problems this user is causing the community should be weighed against his few positive edits and a long term solution should be reached. I am for one fed up with bearing the brunt of this users attacks. Inge 01:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Brian G. Crawford, needs to be blocked

I'm going to be nice and self-report this. I am Brian, and this is my sockpuppet, and he should be blocked before I tell Kelly Martin/Scott Groehning to go stick a cucumber in its cloaca. Much wikilove, Brian. Harry Bagatestes 16:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a potentially offensive username. --kingboyk 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Barbamama sock of banned user WordBomb?

Please check Barbamama (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki); he appears to be yet another sock of WordBomb, continuing to target User:Mantanmoreland, among other things. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or a meatpuppet. WordBomb told me by email that s/he arranged for other people to get accounts and carry on the dispute. WordBomb stated on Wikipedia Review.com that other users were in place to challenge Mantanmoreland and the Wikipedia users that were protecting him. This could be a cover for WorbBomb or it could be meatpuppets. To muddy the waters more, several other longterm users that are involved in RFAr cases posted to AN/I and other user talk pages making claims against Mantanmoreland and SlimVirgin. They did this with IP addresses and new sock accounts. FloNight ^talk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbamama is not me, though we appear to have the same goals, for which I encourage him/her to carry on undaunted.--Whisky Tango 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For some reason Barbamama was stalking User:Zeq, and as part of that campaign he commenced an AfD on an article Zeq had just created. Frankly I can't quarrel too much with the AfD per se, as it is a dubious article, but isn't there an issue here? Is it OK for a banned user to evade the ban in this fashion? Something about this doesn't seem right.--Mantanmoreland 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pornography article semi-protection

I am a user and noticed a large influx of vandalism on the Pornography page. So, I semi-protected it. Since I am not an administrator, that action had no net effect except from adding a banner to the top of the page. I logged out and tested the page, and my edits were allowed. So, could an admin please put semiprotection on the page. Thank you. --Wscc05 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you are not an admin so canot protect an article. You can request protection at WP:RFPP. I sprotected the article for now, but on review may unprotect it, the vandal count does not look that high. Just zis Guy you know? 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember that putting the {{sprotected}} template on a page doesn't semi-protect it - it just sticks up the banner. Actual semiprotection/protection/unprotection can only be carried out by an administrator, using a tab on the top of the page similar to the Move tab you've probably got. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack made. User deletes personal attack against him/her. Adminstrator reinserts personal attack

I am reporting anonymously as an observer. A user AaronS is making vicious personal attacks on the Talk page of another user, such as "In the end, however, you're just an inauthentic sophist, a false intellectual, and a phony, because you're incapable of autocritique, incapable of seeing your own insanity -- in a word: a charlatan. I always think that it's sad when people who have the potential to practice real philosophy settle for the lowest common denominator. You're nothing more than a partisan pundit. Anybody can be a mouthpiece. Anybody can latch on to any ideology and expound it throughout the world. Your overcompensated sense of of self-surety is what exposes you for what you are: a child, frightened, weak, and isolated." [20] The user TheIndividualist is getting a slightly abrasive back but not to the level of personal attacks. He/she is showing remarkable considering the attacks . Also another user User:FrancisTyers, who is supposedly an administrator, is reverting back and putting the personal attacks back in after TheIndividualist deletes them [21], which is totally unethical for an administrator. ConcernedUser 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are a sock puppet who was created solely to attempt to create trouble. Your first edit ever was to report me to personal attack intervention, your second edit was to "warn" me on my user page, and your third edit was this. RJII/TheIndividualist/IndividualistAnarchist/You are a banned user who has been disrupting Wikipedia and exhausting the community's patience for well over a year. While I readily admit that there was no real point to my comments, and that they were unnecessary, I made them without thinking, and you certainly deserve them, considering that you are void of good faith. I have no problem with them being erased, since you have already read them (and they seem to have had an impact), and since they do not have any merit beyond that.

The only thing that I apologize for is the disruption that this has apparently caused. There was a discussion on RJII/TheIndividualist/IndividualistAnarchist/ConcernedUser's talk page regarding his motivation for disrupting Wikipedia, and I let him know my thoughts on the matter, and my opinion of his motivations (he's searching for the secret to immortality). I didn't think that he would disrupt Wikipedia further by bothering all of you with it. So, for whatever waste of time this might be, I apologize. It was never meant to go beyond that. Now I understand why there is a policy in place against kicking people when they are down, despite how much they might deserve it. --AaronS 19:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am a sockpuppet. I didn't want to use my normal username in order to avoid retribution from you and rogue administrators. I know how the system works. You have to cover your tracks. There is no rule against creating sockpuppets for something like this. I saw your attacks against TheIndividualist which were very undeserved. Though a little haughty he was being civil and you were not. Your attacks were very vile. ConcernedUser 19:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wield a mighty sword. Fear me, for my wrath is great. I just might pop out of your modem and hit you. Yes, you know how the system works. That's why you're so good at gaming it. You sound like a mix between User:RJII and User:Lingeron. But, please, nobody here is as stupid as you might think. --AaronS

Oh please. --mboverload@ 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No one deserves the kind of abuse you dish out. I've seen it against other users as well. By the way TheIndividualist is not a "banned user" but temporarily blocked from editing for a year. That doesn't give you free rain to abuse him/her. ConcernedUser 19:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I'm pretty sure that I save all of my abuse for RJII. Your authentic and compassionate concern is duly noted. On a serious note, like I said, I apologize for the fact that my actions have led you to create a sock puppet so that you can evade your ban and come on here to dramatize the situation. I just hope that people appreciate the theatrics for what they are and aren't annoyed. --AaronS 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind and blanked the talk page, AaronS shouldn't have been goading the banned user. - FrancisTyers · 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:BAN regarding baiting, and WP:BAN regarding reverting the edits of banned users. - FrancisTyers · 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That was the right decision, and, again, I take responsibility for this situation. --AaronS 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You weren't reverting the edits of the "banned user" but reverting back in the abusive comments from Aaron. ConcernedUser 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

AaronS was definitely goading TheIndividualist and using language that would have undoubtedly caused more concern if his target had been an editor in good standing. Allowing your opponent to provoke you into rash statements or actions is a classic mistake from politics to sports to war. Take this as an opportunity to learn and grow a little. Apology accepted (from me anyway). Thatcher131 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that Aaron has acknowledged his role, will someone please block the troll? Thatcher131 (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Alvin easter

Alvin easter (talk · contribs) has been adding a number of edits to many biographical articles asserting that the person had appeared nude, nearly nude, or had "beefcake" appeal, without citing sources. I am unsure whether they are all hoaxes, or simply unsupported. Anybody want to look into this as well? --Nlu (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Muslim123456

This guy keeps creating biographical articles. I've marked a bunch as Candidates for Speedy Deletion, but I'm not sure how to alert him to stop. Can an adminstrator assist, please? CPAScott 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of his contributions appear to be copyvios. I've left a note on his talk page and deleted most of the copy vios. joshbuddy, talk 20:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

German Wikipedia editor using English Wikipedia as "experiment"

A German Wikipedia editor has admitted here that he is using the Bad Nenndorf article as a social experiment to bring out the neo-nazis and right wing extremeists on the English Wikipedia in a direct violation of WP:POINT and one that I think is serious enough to warrant an indefinite block. He was engaged in a dispute already in the German Wikipedia about the subject, and brought the edit war over here, to what was a previously quiet article. Next he claimed that his actions were a grand experiment to test the right wing extremist bias on English Wikipedia, a kind of behaviour that is disruptive in the extreme and should be completely disallowed. It has been claimed I was in a content dispute with him, but I did not block until the issue was resolved with a complete rewrite of the article in question, at which point I was no longer disputing anything, nor was he. Another administrator has already support this block, as his actions set a very bad precendent of playing with the English Wikipedia just to prove a point. pschemp | talk 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The block should remain. Perhaps Germans should stick to the German Wikipedia, if they are just going to play games here. Adam Bishop 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the user named should be block, I caution against the suggestion that other germans are not welcome here. In regards to the block, perhaps a note to the admin staff on de might be appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Anyone is welcome who will contribute constructively rather than destructively.pschemp | talk 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I did not mean to suggest all Germans are not welcome, just this guy :) (In fact, we should aspire to be more like the German wikipedia in some ways...) Adam Bishop 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it is particularly interesting that that this person has an account at de: -- they're not at en: to help work on the encyclopedia, so they don't need to edit here. Jkelly 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A block sounds appropriate for the situation described... but which user are you referring to? joshbuddy, talk 20:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's User:KarlV. Same username on de.wiki. pschemp | talk 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For information, according to KarlV, ‘An eventual block was part of the experiment.’[22] So the block is scientifically sound. ☺ —xyzzy_n (German but not usually playing any games here) 21:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Block him until his ears bleed. We expect that kind of stupidity from clueless n00bs, and we're ready to educate them nicely. We do not expect that kind of thing from our fellow Wikipedians. I do not imagine that anybody from here trying that kind of stunt on dewiki would receive a kind reception, nor would they deserve such. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Until his ears bleed" would be exceedingly useful in fact... —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Pschemp has indefinitely blocked User:KarlV, allegedly for WP:POINT. The evidence of WP:POINT seems rather weak to me; specifically, this statement, which seems to say he was trying to find out if extreme right-wing editors had indeed been made admins on English wikipedia, and that he felt, once they discovered him, they would block him. Furthermore, Pschemp was involved in a content conflict with KarlV, as is obvious from this edit and the Talk: page there. In addition, KarlV's edits seem to be absolutely correct in this case, and Pschemp's wrong - the sources did, in fact, not describe Bad Nenndorf as a "concentration camp", and Pschemp used original research to insist that it be described that way anyway. I think this block should be undone. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The content dispute was over as the wording had been changed to neither concentration camp nor internment camp. I blocked long after this was settled. Since when is its said that if you ever edit an article you can't block someone? I didn't "insist", I tried to stop an edit war while we worked on it. I'm not allowed to think? Don't characterize me as insisting either, If I had "insisted" I wouldn't have changed it from both of the original words to a third solution, nor accepted the final ChrisO version. I didn't use any word not already printed by The Guardian, and debating which term should be used doesn't mean I'm a neo-nazi, it just means I'm at least trying to figure out what is the best term. pschemp | talk 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable with this block too. First, it appears that User:pschemp was part of the conflict dispute and therefore shouldn't have blocked. That aside, if KarlV was here to find out whether far-right German contributors had become admins, that wouldn't necessarily imply that he was editing disruptively, so I see no grounds for a block. On the contrary, if there's any truth to what he's saying, it would be important to find that out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:KarlV edit warred in the context of a ‘test’. For what it’s worth, I find the underlying purpose—to eliminate subtle neo-Nazi POV-pushing—admirable and the allegations up on which the user appeared to be following worthy of investigation by the community, if there is more to them than the user’s statement. However, User:KarlV was clearly making a point, was making a point by the disruptive means of an edit war and, being experienced, should have known better than to do that, there being enough venues on Wikipedia whither the issue could have been brought to be dealt with in a regular manner. I think WP:POINT is established thusly and the user’s understanding of the consequences is also established. Furthermore, the user already had been given an entire day to read the English policy pages. Call me a square bourgeois armchair eser, but I don’t think that guerrilla methods should be tolerated here right now, no matter how just their cause. What remains is the formality of who imposed the block, and if this bothers you, then redo it properly. (…Sorry about the length of this.) —xyzzy_n 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If any of you think I'm a neo-nazi because I stumbled into an edit war and tried to figure out what was really going on here, then you are sadly mistaken. I looked at all the possible words, and over the course of this dispute educated myself on what should be used. The fact that this article is on its fourth term for the camp and that I tried to come up with a compromise (cited from the Guardian, not original research) shows this. Ultimately, interrogation camp was used, which NOBODY disputed. And my block happend AFTER the wording question was settled. Questioning wording is not a crime, nor is trying to stop an edit war while things are sorted out. And correct edit or not, KarlV started an edit war, broke 3RR and generally disrupted this article. pschemp | talk 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

‘If any of you think I'm a neo-nazi’ ← If this refers to what I posted above, I apologise. I did not intend to imply any such thing; my remark was meant to refer to User:KarlV’s stated purpose. —xyzzy_n 23:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

no, I was referring to Jayjg, but mostly making a general statement lest this turn into a witch hunt. pschemp | talk 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see where Jayjg said or implied that you're a neo-Nazi. What he said was you were in a content dispute with the user you blocked, and also that you were inserting OR; The Guardian does not call that camp a "concentration" camp so far as I can tell. Would you please consider undoing your block? Apart from the issue of it possibly being disproportionate, it's clear that admins shouldn't block people they're in a content dispute with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting back into the content issue, it was already settled. I was actually referring to the title "torture camp" there, and as for concentration, the word was used in the article, I didn't pull it from thin air. It was decided that the word wasn't used in a way that made it appropriate to cite it, and I didn't argue with that ultimately! Like I said before, the content dispute was over, and the block wasn't related to the content disupte. I will not unblock, nor will I reblock. I am done with this. pschemp | talk 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you not wanting to get back into the details of the content dispute, but I searched both the Guardian articles and they did not call it a concentration camp, yet you said they did. I think that was KarlV's point, and he was correct. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a good block. No one has contradicted that there was no current content dispute. The user was trolling to out people and create disruption. It doesn't matter whether he was trying to out good guys or bad guys, and it doesn't matter if the user is a good editor on another project, it's still disruption and trolling. Let's not encourage the trolls. NoSeptember 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If he does unblock, I'd be more than happy to reinstate it. The guy has blatantly admitted to WP:POINT violations, and obviously is only here to stir up trouble. --InShaneee 00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is so straightforward. User:Samsara was also involved, supporting User:pschemp, in the content dispute at Bad Nenndorf with KarlV. Samsara blocked KarlV for 3RR, which he should not have done because of his involvement. When someone else complained about that, pschemp supported Samsara, a new admin, saying "In such clear cut cases of 3RR such as that it is perfectly acceptable for any admin to block," [23] which is completely false. See WP:BLOCK and Talk:Bad Nenndorf. I think this block should be undone, and we should wait for KarlV to explain the situation before anyone redoes the block; and if it's redone, it should be in proportion to the disruption (if there was any) and not indefinite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed because he was also TRYING TO STOP AN EDIT WAR started by KarlV. There is a difference. 3RR was clearly violated.pschemp | talk 00:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference. We are not allowed to block users when we're part of the content dispute. The exceptions are vandalism and libel. Please review WP:BLOCK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

KarlV can comment on his still unprotected talk page, I'm happy to hear what he has to say. NoSeptember 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the 3RR situation as being relevant in the least. The user came here with the express intention of causing disruption to 'bait' certain admins. What more do we need? --InShaneee 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What disruption did he actually cause? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR. That's a 24 hour block for the first offence, but this guy not only PLANNED to do that, but ANNOUNCED it publically. --InShaneee 00:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't block someone indefinitely for a 3RR violation he's already been blocked for, especially when both of the blocking admins are involved in the content dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

he wasn't blocked for 3RR, he was blocked for WP:POINT.pschemp | talk 00:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked for a link to the actual disruption, on or off-wiki. You have so far not supplied one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone supply a link to actual disruption on Wikipedia, or harm caused to an editor or to the project off-Wikipedia? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The link to him announcing his plan to disrupt in the name of his experiment is in the thread above. Users are blocked for intent all the time, I only wish all vandals were so forthcoming. --InShaneee 00:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit history of Bad Nenndorf shows the disruption. Or is it not disruptive to revert without discussion multiple times anymore? pschemp | talk 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He made four edits. Are we now going to block everyone indefinitely for reverting four times? You say above that he wasn't blocked for 3RR. Now you seem to be saying he was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say anywhere in this link that he intends to cause disruption. He says he has heard there are far-right editors/admins on the English Wikipedia who also edit on the German one, and so he made a related edit to see what would happen. What happened is that he was blocked, first for 24 hours then indefinitely, by two admins involved in the dispute, which is a concern. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say he plans to make any useful edits here, either. He's here to bait admins, which is disruption, and I'll say again that I'm more than happy to block on those grounds. --InShaneee 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish you weren't happy about it, InShanee, and I hope you'll reconsider. He said he had a concern that there were far-right editors from the German WP operating here. He made some edits that had been at the center of a dispute on the German Wikipedia (as I understand it) to see whether the alleged far-right editors here would respond. That is not disruption, and it's not baiting in any serious sense. It's trying to determine whether there's a problem. The response was that he was blocked for 3RR by an admin involved in the dispute, and then blocked indefinitely by another admin involved in the dispute. And there are two separable issues here: (a) the indefinite block is inappropriate; in fact I don't see he should have been blocked at all, though he should be cautioned not to play games, if that's his intention; and (b) regardless of any other issue, those two admins should not have blocked; otherwise we may as well ditch WP:BLOCK entirely. If we're going to do the latter, please let me know, because there are several users I'm currently in content disputes with that I'd love to be able to block indefinitely. If that's now permitted, I intend to be busy this evening. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the the involved admins shouldn't have blocked him; however, I maintain that he does need to be blocked. I deal with inexperienced users all the time, and this is EXACTLY what I tell them NOT to do; if he has a problem with POV, he should discuss it issue by issue just like the rest of us. --InShaneee 00:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The block happened AFTER THE CONTENT DISPUTE WAS SETTLED. How much plainer do I have to say that? There was no more dispute at the time. It was done, over with. Finished, and had been. pschemp | talk 00:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, how much plainer does it need to be made to you? You and Samsara were involved in a dispute with KarlV over whether to call something a concentration camp. Samsara blocked him for 3RR in relation to that dispute, and you supported the block, even though it was a violation of WP:BLOCK. A few days later, KarlV said that his concentration-camp edits were made to find out whether some editors alleged to be involved with the German far right (or words to that effect) [24] would respond. When you read that, you blocked him indefinitely in relation to the same dispute, which you had been involved in. Another violation of WP:BLOCK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am previously uninvolved in this case, but admit that I've been supportive of actions of pschemp and other editors in the past. I've reviewed this case and I think the content dispute is a total red herring. If we are going to argue that pschemp should not have made the block, ok sure. But the block itself is a good one. I think it's wonkism to insist that some other editor make the block, but, since I'm previously uninvolved, (have never touched the article or interacted with KarlV) I would be happy to unblock and reblock if that would satisfy the process issue. More importantly, though, it's clear to me that this editor turned up here to disrupt things. Whether for "noble reasons" or not, that's just Not On. There are far better ways to work for change or raise issues than by being disruptive. I tend to take people at their word when they say they ar here to disrupt, and hand out a block. That's the case here in my view. Support the block as is, reluctantly would be ok with a reduction to a definite (but long) term, and will reblock (once) if lifted completely. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a reduction as a compromise. What period would you see as fair, Lar? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lar unblocks and reblocks

I've unblocked and reblocked so the block is in my name, a previously uninvolved admin, based on my review of the facts of this case. I'm not keen on a reduction to any particular definite term... but I think a month might be a good amount if we were trying to give this user a small amount of benefit of the doubt. That said I don't agree with your characterisation of why the block was handed out, it was not at all related to a content dispute, it was related to a stated claim of intent to disrupt. That's a blockable offense, and indefinite as far as I am concerned. The content dispute is a red herring, dismissable by a reminder that at the time of the 3RR violation, pschemp or samsarra should have asked for help, and nothing more... the recent block is completely unrelated except inasmuch as it gives a possible appearance of impropriety. Appearance only, there is no real impropriety here in my view. Let's not wonk out and avoid doing The Right Thing if we can.... (signed, a lifelong process wonk) ++Lar: t/c 01:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a reduction to a month. I think it's far too long, but as a compromise, it's better than indefinite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. --InShaneee 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's far far too short and really... we shouldn't be compromising, we should be reaching consensus on the right thing to do. Intent to disrupt, stated as such, is an indefinite. I snapped out a month just to say something... IF we were trying to give the user the benefit of the doubt. For stated intent, I see no reason to do that, actually. I won't wheel war over it though, not my style. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

One month block sends the right signal. We have enough trouble with vandals and trolls, we do not need experienced editors disrupting the project on top of that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lar, don't get me wrong here. I completely support indefinite blocks for disruption. I'm not at all policy-wonkish when it comes to that. It's just that, in this case, I honestly don't get it (i.e. don't see that it was disruption), but perhaps there's something about it that I'm missing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, it just strikes me that this editor was doing a breaching experiment, and disrupting things. I see no need for that here, and think indef is the right thing to do. pschemp is one of the admins I tend to see taking a hard line but who I trust because her actions, while sometimes pushing the envelope, are for the good of the 'pedia and she's willing to make herself unpopular in that cause... maybe her page hasn't been vandalised as much as yours but she's out there making the hard choices all the time. Should she have come here first? Sure. Sometimes expediency should win out and sometimes it shouldn't. But that's a side issue. The main issue is this is a disruptive editor, and as pointed out, a month may not really even inconvenience them in the scheme of things, or (more importantly) act as a preventative 4 months from now if they come up with another brilliant experiment... So I think indef is the way to go here. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a 1 month as well. This mess would have been easier to sort out and settle if pschemp had not blocked but brought it here first. FeloniousMonk 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree I pushed the line, but since my block has been redone by someone else, that issue is kind of null now. pschemp | talk 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A one month block is useless here. This "experiment" is the only thing this user has done here in more than 3 months. NoSeptember 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why bother with a block? JoshuaZ 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

At some point he may decide to do another disruptive experiment or even continue this one. There are a lot of accounts with few edits out there that have been indef blocked for being used solely for disruption or trolling or vandalism. Why treat this one special? He has not offered an apology or a promise not to do this again. NoSeptember 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Translation is where? El_C 02:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • here, but pls cf my post below. --tickle me 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Tickleme

pschemp: "The block happened AFTER THE CONTENT DISPUTE WAS SETTLED". Blocking post facto could well be interpreted as unwarranted revenge ...if unjustified - that's what counts. I'm having a more than unpleasent exchange on Talk:Bad_Nenndorf_interrogation_centre with pschemp, for several reasons stated there I feel his actions in the course of these events are unbecoming of an admin - IMO he's not to judge about KarlIV given the circumstances.

Besides, I concur with SV that KarlV edited proper: he tried to delete POV and "inadequate reading of sources" to put it mildly, pls cf. my unsatisfying exchange with pschemp on that very subject. KarlV's statement (it's in English) may show an unwise choice of words, however, he never announced anything that could be constructed as intent of obstructing WP: he saw severe shortcomings both here and on German WP and wanted them addressed - doing so via legit editing, he expected trouble from specified users. This happened, and that's what he wanted to find out: will they hinder me to do what's needed wicipedically. To call that a "social experiment" is unwise, arguably pompous - but undoubtedly just a metaphor. Like it or not, no reason for action. His outspoken wish to go for Neo-Nazi machinations is arguably not the ideal mindset wikipedically, but who has that mindset anyway? Eventually, he's to judged by his edits alone.

His indefinite block is unwarranted, as he violated WP:POINT only following semantical interpretation of words unwisely chosen. Both his edits and intentions don't allow for the assumption at all. As for his suspicion of here being editors trying to take advantage of others not being able to read sources, be it German ones here or English ones on Geman WP my experience so far corroborates this. User:I like Burke's Peerage's revert to a version containg a forgery is a prime example. pschemp is involved, I quarrel with him about it, and I don't like the way he handles the issue at all. Creator of the forgery's first, yet uncut version is User:Samsara, he should be taken to task:

"Meanwhile German politicians demanded an apology from Britain.<ref>http://www.ndrtv.de/panorama/data/panorama_060420_bad_nenndorf.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/14/bad_nenndorf</ref> The German newspaper Die Zeit claimed that there were other concentration camps such as Bad Nenndorf, but provided no proof to this charge."

Please Get your facts straight before you go accusing people of writing things that they didn't. That edit was a merge from Bad Nenndorf (concentration camp) and original author was not Samsara. pschemp | talk 03:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Historian Heiner Wember, author of the Die Zeit article states exactly the contrary: Neo-Nazis he cites made the claim, which he rebuffs as "utter nonsens".

Samsara, pschemp and User:I like Burke's Peerage either edited the above excerpt or helped to keep it in the article via revert. If requested, I'll have to sort that out on a timescale. And yes, I find it troubling that Neo-Nazi claims are smuggled into WP. German WP is constantly attacked like so, but over there all know to read German sources, so mostly it's to no avail. Karl is afraid that some folk switched to English WP as consequence. Good thinking. Some even start to reintroduce such edits to German WP citing their English articles as references. Absurd, but sometimes it works - sloppy sourcing is everywhere and attrition does wonders.

As for Karl's contribs here: he's a busy and respected editor on German WP, sometimes impetuous, and yes, his statement could be seen as loudmouthing; but he's reliable and, say, doesn' t forge - I assume several admins to speak up for him if that should help. He's only an occasional contributor here, that should not be an issue. --tickle me 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And again, none of this is relevent, since the new article was created by ChrisO, was accepted by consensus, and doesn't even contain the stuff you are going on about. It isn't incivil to point out that your comments are irrelevant, which is all I did. If you think I acted so badly, go file an RFC, but none of the above has any bearing in the WP:POINT block. pschemp | talk 04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I support unblocking and express an interest in reviewing the experiment's findings — link me Template:En icon. El_C 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

More comments by Tickleme

1. I don't want you to post in my edit's, it's considered incivil - and again, you're an admin: you know how to cite and reply.
2. If you know that the original author was not Samsara, you know the original author.
3. I was asking "I like Burke's Peerage" since 09:41, 3 August 2006 to comment on the forgery, he didn't reply, you did. However, you didn't tell me what you know profess to know. I don't like that. Couldn't you have put facts straight on the "merge from Bad Nenndorf (concentration camp)" issue right away? Forgery is a serious accusation: you knew of it, at least now you know the author, you reverted to it, you didn't react, and you didn't help. Now you're yelling at me in boldface.
4. With your present help, if it merits the name, my original suspicion is confirmed again, it was "I like Burke's Peerage" alright, with another interesting variant. Should you know better - and I err, I would like you to inform me as soon as possible - this time. --tickle me 04:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but here on the English wikipedia, making a reply is not incivil, wherever it goes, that how we discuss things here. In fact your removal of my edit is the incivil thing, and I will reinsert it. Do not remove it again.pschemp | talk 04:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as the comment is indented correctly and properly signed, it's generally considered acceptable to comment between paragraphs here. Please refrain from refactoring comments like that in the future, okay? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying this right out here in the open. What is your point? If you are trying to accuse people of making neo-nazi right-wing extremist edits, just come out and say it. Otherwise, this is silliness. pschemp | talk 04:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1. "And again, none of this is relevent, since the new article was created by ChrisO, was accepted by consensus" All I have is this comment of yours, that indicates something else: "revert edit made withou consensus or sources", so does the history. Please show where the consensus was reached.

   That comment was made BEFORE the new article was created. Before. Consensus here means no one is going around reverting. No one has tried to reinsert anything from the old article into the new. No one has tried to change the name the camp is called by (the orginal issue) since the new article was created. That whole talk page was the old discussion and was just copied over AFTER the new article was made. Since no one has disputed ANYTHING in the new article, that IS consensus. That's how it works around here.pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

2. "none of this is relevent [...], and doesn't even contain the stuff you are going on about": it does not, I keep repeating this, merely because others interfered -> you reverted to the contended version.

   In the OLD article. To stop an edit war. That article was stubbed down when the new one was written. The old article doesn't even contain that infomation. Its irrelvant, as all the info was moved to the new article, where it was rewritten. pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

3. "If you think I acted so badly, go file an RFC": I don't know about the regulations, I don't know if it's worth the trouble, and I hope for more clarification. It sure is an option.

   Go nuts. pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

4. "but none of the above has any bearing in the WP:POINT block.": On the assumption that you tried to hide your and "I like Burke's Peerage" involvement, it may well. I find this assumption plausible.

--tickle me 04:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't try to hide anything. I tried to stop an edit war. Like I said before, if you want to make accusations that I or anyone else involved is a neo-nazi, just come out and do it, but this ranting on and on about edits that don't exist anymore is silliness. Articles change, through discussion. That's the wiki process. pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly welcome further clarification —hopefuly in a more comprehensible format— and make no predictions as to the outcome. El_C 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please don't post inside other people's comments, pschemp. It's making this hard to follow, and it's hard enough already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your're kidding right? It was one comment and is plenty visible. People do that all the time here. Even talking about this is less than useless. I tried to make this more comprehensible with section breaks, but nevermind. pschemp | talk 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

@Kylu: All I knew was this, which seems to be a good idea:

"Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow." (Wikiquette) If other -I suppose informal- guidelines apply here, I couldn't know. --tickle me 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There's just the two of you involved, and comments are indented to appear seperate (not interweaved) and properly attributed, as she's signed each indented post seperately. Now, if you'd commented on hers, some refactoring might need to take place, but quite frankly this is starting to seem less like a noticeboard request and more like a potential mediation case. Since you're mentioning wikiquette, however, you might want to consider if your comments accusing pschemp of hiding edits is, perhaps, a bit on the incivil side. Personally, I'd rather see less of this arguing here. It seems awfully...how to phrase it...disruptive to the admin noticeboard, to me. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I certainly have nothing else to say, and continuation of this discussion is not neccessary here. pschemp | talk 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"incivil": You might want to ask pschemp not to ask me to "go nuts", and I don't cherish the address "dude" neither. "seperate (not interweaved)": you are straining semantics here. pschemp's ways of editing this thread makes it hard for others to follow - incidentally, that's why they complain. Talk about disruptive. --tickle me 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

Karl asks to be temp deblocked to help in the process, he will refrain from other edits. I support this. --tickle me 06:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I support this too, though I ask that he bear in mind he's making serious allegations here (if I've understood them correctly), and so it needs to be handled carefully and with evidence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What "process"? Rooting out supposed neo-nazi admins here on enwiki? He can kiss my furry bum and that of each of my five cats before I agree to indulging in that kind of witch-hunt. Fold it until it's all sharp corners, and shove it. —Phil | Talk 07:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If the user is seeking an unblock, they shold place the {{unblock}} template on their user page per standard process, and uninvolved admins will review it. I see no sign of any such placement on their page yet. Since you're carrying messages back, make sure that when it's placed, it references this discussion, please. ++Lar: t/c 09:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, Lar! There's "the intelligent process wonk that everybody loves", and then there's "mutant Lar come to eat your children". To suggest that someone cannot be unblocked — or have arguments for unblocking them espoused by a mate — unless they use a particular template isn't process wonkism. It's stupidity. Naughty, Lar. Naughty! Do it again and you'll be sent to bed without supper. Yes, even in your timezone. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. However "should" != "must"... if you want a new set of eyes, not already in this convo here on AN/I, that template is a good way to get them. My point is that, though, there is a drawback... people review and don't realise there's a big thread here to look at... that is all. NEVER would I say you MUST put it there to get unblocked, people get unblocked all the time without using it. Everyone here in this convo I would characterise as involved already. As for being sent to bed without supper... not gonna happen, and if you've ever seen pics of me you'd know it never has yet. ++Lar: t/c 12:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight…

Say I were to post here on enwiki "I heard there are some ultra-Zionist admins on hewiki, I'm going to take a poke at something, see what they do to me", and I went to hewiki and fiddled with something at the very least borderline controversial, and they blocked me for "disruption", would you guys here be defending me? Huh? Fsck it, I'd be blocking myself if I did anything that stupid. Get a grip, people. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the anti-witchhunt sentiment, but it's hardly fair to compare Zionists to neo-Nazis (and I'm not sure what an ultra-Zionist is). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Meir Kahane. --Calton | Talk 09:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What? POV is POV is POV. What Phil said illustrates that nicely. I've done my share of stupid things when visiting en.wiki (I'm the rogue admin over on en.wikt:) but sheesh, nothing close to this. I agree completely with Phil; if I did that, I'd be blocking myself. I would not be surfing about, fishing for support (based on petty, incorrect policy loopholes) nor continuing the disruption. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The substance of KarlV's edits

We should surely look at exactly what KarlV changed. He repeatedly changed the term "concentration camp" to "internment camp" (see e.g. [25]). He was right to change the terminology (though wrong to breach the 3RR, of course): the term is highly POV and isn't supported by the contemporary sources. If I hadn't been busy rewriting the article, I probably would have made similar changes. Does changing POV terminology really constitute a violation of WP:POINT? This seems to me to be a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. -- ChrisO 07:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

When a blocked user makes a sockpuppet and makes an edit, you're supposed to revert the edit, because regardless of how wonderfully brilliant the edit is, the problem is that it's being made by a user who isn't supposed to be editing at all, right? So, we already have a precedent that states that intent does matter. This user had the intent to disrupt English Wikipedia, and rather than it being a mitigating circumstance, ther fact that the user is an admin on a different Wikipedia actually should make the charge even more grave. They know better than to pull this sort of thing. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

KarlV was blocked because of his announcement of using the English Wikipedia as a social experiment. That has nothing to with 3RR, or even what article he edited. This breaching experiment is the only reason he was blocked. Nothing else. We don't excuse 3RR if the edits were right for the wrong reasons, why would this be different? pschemp | talk 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy about this. His actions certainly caused a small degree of disruption, but I'm far from convinced that it merits an indefinite ban. -- ChrisO 08:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To be clear... He was reblocked by me for exactly the same reason as pschemp gave, after review of the relevant edits, in order to remove the charge that it was an involved editor doing the blocking, which is a red herring but distracting. So... If anyone have a beef about the block, your beef is now with me, not pschemp. ++Lar: t/c 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a red herring at all, Lar, but regardless, the issue still stands that an indefinite block for what amounted to a 3RR violation, no matter its intent, is harsh. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry SlimVirgin to disagree: he provoked a interwikiwar. Enough is enough. I like Burke's Peerage 09:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim, if it was merely a 3RR I'd agree it was harsh, but it wasn't. It was a breeching experiment, admitted to as such by the user. We don't need that here, the user should find something else to do. This is a good block, because, regardless of what the inital violation was, the block is actually for breeching. I believe this has been explained quite eloquently by Phil above... and I'm surprised that you seem to be resisting the notion that when someone admits they are here to cause disruption and expect to be blocked for it that we don't oblige them. I'll note that there seem to be a lot of red herrings here, actually. ++Lar: t/c 09:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to support Lar's re-block. We really don't want to encourage this type of behaviour, and I still say it's absolutely scandalous that we should have to suffer this from someone who's supposedly a respected member of a sister Wikipedia. I'm thoroughly dissapointed. ~Kylu (u|t) 10:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted an e-mail from him below, where he explains, and apologizes for the misunderstanding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What can wie say for shure?

1. KarlV waged an edit war
2. KarlV violated 4RR (!)
3. after having been blocked for that he declared ex post facto to have made a social experimant
4. he provoked Godwins Law to fullfill

Do we really need to say more? Best regards I like Burke's Peerage 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please inform the German Wikipedia about Karl's infinite block

Karl and some of his adherents are still celebrating Karl as a kind of interwiki-heroe in social investigation; see [26]. It would be fair to let them know what happened here. I like Burke's Peerage 08:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Kein Probleme... [27] ... ++Lar: t/c 09:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. A la prochaine fois. I like Burke's Peerage

E-mail from KarlV

He sent me the following e-mail with permission to post it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was travelling yesterday and today and saw now the discussions that break up on en:WP. I am very sorry about the missunderstandings that occured now, perhaps because I expressed myself not in a right manner (excuse my English). So I never had the intention to disrupt. The main motivation for all my edits in the past (and will be also in the future) is to create a wounderful encyclopedia based on realiable sources. I never intended a "social experiment", but I described in my statement more detailed my motivation for my 4 edits on en:WP (I called it test, because of the warning of the user Rufezeichen not to come to en:WP). So the main sentence of my 4 edits on Bad Nenndorf was not to test, no - it was a concret edit against the POV-label "concentration-camp", which was defended by several users on de:WP and en:WP. And as anybody can see now, I was right. No reliable source is talking about a "concentration camp" there. So, whatever you decided, at least WP has won, the article has won, and that was the most important for me concerning this issue. Thank you. Karl

I'm not sure I'd characterise that as an apology... it reads more like a "see, I was right" to me but I could be misreading it. ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Me neither: By the way KarlV did babel himself as "This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English." Now he's babbling someting 'bout "excuse my Englisch". Sounds hypocritical not to say weird to me. Regards I like Burke's Peerage 11:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This situation looks like this to me: Someone tells Karl that there are biased admins here on en.wiki. So he comes here expecting to find a biased admin, and whichever admin was to stumble into trying to get a handle on the budding edit war was destined to be presumed to be biased by Karl. This is a fundamental lack of good faith on Karl's part. Instead of coming here to improve the articles by working with people to get the facts right and sourced, he was instead ready to assume the worst of any admin who gets involved. We need more AGF here.
The last sentence of his email also reads like something a dedicated edit warrior would write (sort of like I don't care if I get blocked for edit warring, as long as my version of the article stays). This is disappointing coming from an experienced user from another project. NoSeptember 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like he doesn't care if he's unblocked, so why bother unblocking? After all, he got his "win". Too bad he didn't realize no one said he was wrong here. Evidently even discussing such things makes us biased now. Also, he doesn't say anything about not doing it again, and the pompous tone indicates he'll gladly do it again because his cause is just. The issue here however, was never his cause, nor was it "winning". The issue is his behaviour, his violation of WP:POINT and the consequences of that. It is obviously he doesn't get that, and I suspect he never will. pschemp | talk 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Herewith I confirm by oath he's behaving exactly the same on the German Wikipedia and almost nobody takes offence at this. Sad to say so. (see: [28]) I like Burke's Peerage 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin has about the right take on this. I don't agree with pschemp's summary of the issue. I believe that it was improper for pschemp to block someone he was edit warring with. I also think pschemp was on the wrong side of the content dispute--he was definitely pressing for POV terminology. I don't think KarlV did a breaching experiment. A breaching experiment per that description would be putting in a bad edit on purpose, trying to defend it, and seeing what happened. Pschemp may characterize KarlV's actions that way, but KarlV's edit was in my opinion a good one, maybe with some characteristics of a honeypot since he wanted to see if anyone would revert it back to the bad version (which Pschemp did). I like ChrisO's new article very much and ChrisO's terminology is similar to KarlV's. KarlV did use the word experiment on the German page several times, but I think that aspect is being overblown in this discussion. The English article used a loaded POV term that needed to be fixed on way or another. I defer to the better German speakers whether Konzentrationslager is less loaded in German than "concentration camp" is in English, but there was edit warring over it there too (interestingly, it was introduced to the German article by someone with the handle "ProIsrael"). KarlV seems to understand the headache this all caused, so I think he should be unblocked. The edit war on the German article was not very pleasant and I hope Pschemp was not involved in it. Phr (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Phr: Your beef about the block is now with me, not pschemp, ok? It's my block now, not hers. I unblocked and reblocked so as to have the block come from an uninvolved admin. If you read over what you say, it's pretty clear that you yourself are enumerating the very reasons that she and I both saw for imposing this block... honey pots, experimenting, edit warring, and so forth. He might now understand the headache caused, but that's true of just about every troll and vandal, isn't it? What is lacking is any statement that what he did was wrong, any statement that he understands that the rules apply, any undertaking not to do it again, or any remorse at the wasted effort and time he's cost the project. Given that, this is a good block. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Following up on Phr's point, were any of the editors involved in this situation also involved in the edit war on the German article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: other than KarlV, I don't know. There were two or three registered accounts and a couple of IP's on de: trying to use "konzentrationslager", "folterlager" (torture camp), etc., but those account names weren't in the en: war. There were some similarities of purpose which is why I said I hoped pschemp wasn't one of the people (under a different account name; note that I wouldn't consider using different names on en and de to be sockpuppeting until we get SUL). Lar: that was a pretty lame excuse for an edit war (4 total edits) and should get a normal 24 hour 3RR block. As for "experimenting", hmm, suppose someone is reverting me in several politics-related articles and I think he's stalking me, so I go edit some mathematics articles and sure enough he reverts me there too, confirming my suspicion. Does that "honeypot" call for an indef block, if all the edits were good in their own right? I don't think you should list "honeypot" and "experiment" separately in that string of amplifications since they both refer to the same thing. Leaving aside any issues with pschemp's block, I have concerns about pschemp's conduct in the edit war (not just warring per se, but specifically warring in favor of POV-pushing propaganda terms) and pschemp's initial report which I see as having presented a somewhat warped view of what had happened. Maybe we need an RFC. Phr (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Phr. Perhaps pschemp or Samsara could say whether they were involved in the editing on the German Wikipedia. I agree with your analysis of what he did: honeypot seems more accurate than breaching experiment. Or if we stop using jargon entirely, he got annoyed about the POV pushing on the German WP and came here to correct the same error, wondering whether his correction would be allowed to stand. I'm having difficulty seeing that as disruptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, yes, Samsara was involved: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Nenndorf&action=history

I was mostly concerned about whether pschemp was involved and I forgot about Samsara. Phr (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

mmm...witch hunting again. lovely. I've in fact never edited de.wiki, but with all the bad faith going on around here, I doubt you'll believe me. pschemp | talk 01:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think anybody disputes that the basic underlying motivation was good. However, with any amount of AGF, I have a difficulty seeing how an experienced editor would forgo a longer debate on the talk page, WP:3O, WP:RFC, the mailing list and WP:JIMBO in favour of edit warring after initially encountering resistance unless disruption was the intent. —xyzzy_n 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The sad truth about this whole affair

Had KarlV done the exact same thing, but instead gone to an article and replaced internment camp with concentration camp (tests the same hypothesis in the same manner) and announced it as an experiment on de.wiki, no one would be out here defending him. The truth is that people are blinded by the emotionally charged content and thus unable to see the true issue here. This knee jerk reaction to obliterate even discussion about what is correct and defend someone who set out in their editing not to improve Wikipedia but to prove a WP:POINT because you happen to agree with their point of view is disturbing. If you can't look at your personal biases objectively, you shouldn't be editing here.pschemp | talk 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on. You were defending original research and POV editing. The sources did not say the camp was a "concentration camp," yet that was the wording you initially defended. KarlV wanted to change it to what the sources say. In so doing, he was improving Wikipedia, regardless of any other factor. If that's a "breaching" experiment, long may they reign. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

nope. I am defending letting Wikipedia editors work out what is correct by following the discussion process. This is exactly what happened, and the final version of the article ended up NPOV, again, exactly what out process is supposed to result in. Additionally, by going back to ranting about content, you proved my point perfectly that you are unable to separate the two. 3RR isn't excused because of content, nor is WP:POINT. Are you suggesting they should be? pschemp | talk 01:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to find somebody in possession of the truth, rare feat, and I'm sorry you're sad. "This knee jerk reaction to obliterate even discussion": please point me to a diff where Karl, or anybody here involved, tried to hinder you discussing issues.

@Kylu:

1. "When a blocked user makes a sockpuppet and makes an edit, you're supposed to revert the edit [...] So, we already have a precedent that states that intent does matter.": What article did he edit after having been blocked? I don't know of any such instance. Please point me to a diff.
2. What Sockpuppet did he create after having been blocked? I don't know of any.
3. "ther fact that the user is an admin on a different Wikipedia actually should make the charge even more grave. They know better than to pull this sort of thing.": what "fact" are you speaking of? He isn't, he didn't claim so, neither did I and I don't know of anybody who did.
4. "This user had the intent to disrupt English Wikipedia": per the allegations and the false assessment above it doesn't follow at all. As stated before, his statement shows the intent of editing for sound reasons as he saw it, and, as it turns out, this is the version that prevailed after thourough debatte. He expected to be hindered, right, and he, somewhat pompously, labeled that expectation a "social experiment".

Kylu, if you don't substantiate your claims, it amounts to slander. And you actually base your point on these claims.

@NoSeptember: "...and whichever admin was to stumble into trying to get a handle on the budding edit war was destined to be presumed to be biased by Karl": an allegation, "whichever" being a distortion. What he expected were some admins trying to protect POV per edit war, as he had been warned in threatening tones on German wikipedia not even to try it, lest he wished to run into serious trouble. What was he to do? Announcing, "hi folks, edits xyz are wrong, but I'm one kraut and ought not to interfere - bye"? For what can be said at the moment, I_like_Burke%27s_Peerage forged a source into the contrary of what it said and admin Samsara edited it in a way that makes it likely that he understood what the source said. pschemp reverted to that version fo no valid concern. When I asked for the forger to come up, pschemp answered with uncivil blurb. He refrained from getting to the source however - until SV asked for it, eventually. As I see it, there's no reason to allege that admins haplessly "stumbled into trying" something, that's one possible outcome. Certainly there is quite a number of users eager not to wait for results.

Seeing Burke's accusing Karl of "provok[ing] a[n] interwikiwar" is rich. He forged, Karl corrected (possibly unwittingly, merely looking for POV), others tried to hinder Karl - where's the interwiki war? Is it me, as I support his edits? I contribute in a dozen or so wikis and I got 1348 edits on en:main since 2005/01. Call me lazy, but I'm no warring Sockpuppet, am I? Some people on German wiki support him too - do they come over to fight? Kylu'd rather less of my contributions on this page - I don't cherish his at all, see above. Is that an interwiki war?

Burke's, of all users, alleges German wiki celebrates "Karl as a kind of interwiki-heroe in social investigation", asking to "please inform the German Wikipedia about Karl's infinite block". Lar swiftly complied. Judging by his English language posts there he wasn't in a position to evaluate Burke's allegation's factuality. Burke's is wrong, all I can find is this comment by de:user Braveheart:

"Was mich aber nachdenklich stimmt ist die zeitliche Überschneidung mit einer Demo in Bad Nenndorf. Ich würde die Stellungnahme vielleicht auch noch an prominenterer Stelle anbringen, um ein Bewusstsein für solche Fälle zu schaffen"

(What strikes me is the chronological convergence [of the WP ongoins] with a protest march [by right wingers] in Bad Nenndorf. I'd rather post the [KarlIV's] statement more prominently, to rise awareness for such incidents)

One might not cherish that user's activism, however, where's "German wiki's celebration", where's the interwikiwar? Burke's edit forgery is as unbecoming as his incitement of what I'd call a turf war. If he doesn't substantiate his claim of krauts celebrating I'll call it a lie. I'd rather not see him "[h]erewith confirm[ing] by oath" Karl's behaviour "on the German Wikipedia" - or anything.

Again, I ask repliers to cite and answer, not to interpost. --tickle me 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin has repeatedly, intentionally confounded the issue by making the incorrect assertion that the block had something to do with the 3RR technicality, which neither the original indef block, nor Lar's reblock had anything to do with. To say that I question his neutrality (or any pretense of neutrality) would be the understatement of the year. It seems as if he (User:SlimVirgin) thinks that NPOV is insignificant, when in fact, it is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. User:Tickle me, User:Phr and other fished-for support, seem to be making the same misplaced arguments. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with my supposedly thinking that "NPOV is insignificant"? This situation is getting more bizarre by the minute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"It seems as if he (SlimVirgin) thinks that NPOV is insignificant [...] Tickle me, Phr and other fished-for support, seem to be making the same misplaced arguments. ": No, Karl has a POV, but he doesn't like POVed edits, and he has a history of doing so, if krautland is to be trusted. As far as you can tell, I support Karl in this. Besides, if you feel that we merely "seem to" err, may I suggest you, ugh, make up your mind first and edit later? Else you might want to point to details, asking us to clarify, so we can stand up to your compelling reasoning. Besides, as a fished-for support, I'm relieved to understand that you're a fish that doesn't stink, undoubtedly. --tickle me 22:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tickle, I was using an existing policy to try to show precedent, not stating he did such things. Look here at the context:

"When a blocked user makes a sockpuppet and makes an edit, you're supposed to revert the edit, because regardless of how wonderfully brilliant the edit is, the problem is that it's being made by a user who isn't supposed to be editing at all, right? So, we already have a precedent that states that intent does matter. This user had the intent to disrupt English Wikipedia, and rather than it being a mitigating circumstance, ther fact that the user is an admin on a different Wikipedia actually should make the charge even more grave. They know better than to pull this sort of thing."

You're taking my comment out of context. I'm trying to show that the intent of the person does matter. You seem bright enough to comprehend this point, so please discontinue the line of reasoning that says I'm calling the user a sockpuppeter. I have a feeling that there are better things you could be doing than trying to dredge up false accusations of slander against admins, please go do them instead. I'm afraid you've exhausted my patience and I have no intention of replying to you on this matter again. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To whomever it may concern then: Kylu is right, I didn't read that thouroughly enough, the points 1&2 of my post don't apply. He thinks I dredged that up, I say it was rash editing and thus a mistake, sorry though. I didn't accuse him of slander yet, as I asked to substantiate his claims first. He did that now with 1&2 in a way unexpected by me, but he did. However, I stand to call his flawed adminship fact rash editing too, and that minutiae was a point of his reasoning. The SP issue, which I misunderstood, was substantial to me considering slander. I don't concur with the rest of his post, but that's different opinions.

As for the intent that matters: yes, it does. However, Karl's intent was a bias against right wingers, wikipedically unwelcome as any bias, but not to be compared to a SP's malevolent intentions, much less to those of a blocked user's SP - thus not to be sanctioned likewise. Somebody else should throw the first stone anyway. We're all biased, in real life and here, check our contribs: will we revert 20-50% of WP and block the perps?

His alleged intent of experimenting with WP, a grave issue, is a construction based on a bragging metaphor he used. His edit's on German WP center indeed on right wing POV and distortions, so if he edits likewise here, it may well be assumed that he does for the same motives. From his edits centering on certain subjects we may infer on his motives too- so what follows? indef block? --tickle me 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not getting it here. KarlV made good edits, defending WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and was reverted. Eventually was blocked by one of the admins who was warring with him, though KarlV himself did not violate 3RR. The next day KarlV posts something saying he was editing on English Wikipedia to see if the same bias that he thought was present on German Wikipedia was also present on English Wikipedia. A second admin who was edit-warring with him then blocks him indefinitely. Then people here say those 4 proper edits were some sort of breaching experiment, and defend the blocks. Can anyone else see the problems here? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Did he even violate 3RR? The summary below indicates that he didn't (I haven't checked the diffs myself). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems he did violate it. KarlV made his first edit to Bad Nenndorf changing "concentration camp" to "internment camp" at 14:18 on July 31. This was not a revert. (Note: the sources used in the article did not call it a "concentration camp.") He was reverted by User:I like Burke's Peerage. An anon IP, probably KarlV, reverted at at 14:29 July 31. I like Burke's reverted for a second time. KarlV reverted, also his second revert, at 14:38 July 31. Burke's reverted him for a third time; KarlV reverted for a third time at 14:41 July 31. User:Samsara reverted, and KarlV reverted for a fourth time at 19:54 July 31. Samsara then blocked him for 3RR at 20:03 July 31. The block was made in violation of WP:BLOCK, because Samsara was one of the editors reverting against him. He should also arguably have been warned before being blocked, as it's not clear from his contributions that he had been advised before about 3RR.

KarlV made no further edits that could be described as disruptive. User: pschemp, who was also involved in editing Bad Nenndorf, blocked him indefinitely on August 2 after he made this edit announcing that he was about to make a statement on the German Wikipedia about what had happened. He subsequently posted on the German Wikipedia that he had been warned he might have difficulty making the concentration/internment camp edit on the English WP, and so he had come here to see whether that was true. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary

Since the above discussion is a mess for anyone who has not been following it until now, I’d like to attempt a summary, as pertaining to the interaction with User:KarlV. I hope the following is a helpful partial overview.

Events

1. The incident developed at Bad Nenndorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
2. The article describes a controversial former British facility. Its description as a concentration camp was in question.
3. User:I like Burke's Peerage was the first to describe the facility that way.[29]
4. User:Samsara moved that description into the article’s text.[30]
5. User:KarlV changed the description from ‘concentration camp’ to ‘internment camp’.[31]
6. User:I like Burke's Peerage reverted User:KarlV’s edit with the summary ‘revert, vandalism’.[32]
7. User:84.152.216.62, presumably User:KarlV, returned the accusation of vandalism and reverted the revert.[33]
8. An edit war developed with User:Samsara and User:Pschemp supporting User:I like Burke's Peerage.
9. User:KarlV was blocked for WP:3RR by User:Samsara.
10. User:KarlV posted a statement.[34]
11. User:KarlV was blocked for WP:POINT by User:Pschemp.

Statements of motivation

• User:KarlV was running an ‘experiment’ connected to alleged rumours of neo-Nazi POV-pushing on the English Wikipedia.[35]
• User:Samsara argued using for the label ‘concentration camp’ from the relevant Wikipedia article, Concentration camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in violation of WP:RS.[36]
• User:Pschemp favoured the ‘concentration camp’ label despite admitting to not having a source for it, in violation of WP:V.[37]

My own POV (hey, you knew this was coming…)

• The blocks of User:KarlV by User:Samsara and User:Pschemp were dubious because of the users’ heavy involvement in the incident. Per WP:BLOCK, controversial blocks should be brought to this forum, not executed singlehandedly. WP:3RR explicitely advises against blocking when involved in the article.
• The WP:3RR block was also arithmetically dubious. User:KarlV made four edits in total to the article and the user’s first edit is not an obvious revert, so, together with the aforementioned issue, User:Samsara should have consulted WP:AN3 instead of blocking.
• The wording advocated by User:KarlV seems less POV than ‘concentration camp’ with respect to the sources.
• User:KarlV did not engage in vandalism at Bad Nenndorf.
• User:I like Burke's Peerage immediately accused User:KarlV of vandalism in breach of WP:AGF (which is still a policy).

For xyzzy, as requested. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:KarlV returned the accusation, breaching ibid.
• User:KarlV failed to follow WP:DR, which is another policy.
• User:KarlV edit warred (remember that a WP:3RR violation is not a necessary condition for this).
• User:KarlV breached Wikipedia policy for an ulterior motive (the ‘experiment’). Ergo, the user violated WP:POINT (which, surprisingly, is a mere guideline).
• User:KarlV’s comments at [38] show that the user might continue to act in the same way as at Bad Nenndorf if allowed to edit.

My conclusions

• User:KarlV was justly blocked. The duration of the block would be debatable but for the user’s own remarks ex post facto.
• User:Samsara and User:Pschemp should carefully reexamine a lot of policy pages.
• User:I like Burke's Peerage edit warred with User:KarlV and should be advised that this is not an acceptable method of editing.

Na, was ist? Keine Wunderkerzen? —xyzzy_n 22:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, xyzzy. I particularly enjoyed the ibids, the ergos, and the ex post factos. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to respond in a while, I'm doing other things right now. I believe the "events" summary is mostly right but has a few errors. I differ on about half of the conclusions. Phr (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the above merits answer, except for the notion that Burke's, again, should be advised not to forge sources, while Samsara should be asked not to edit forgeries, polishing added weaselese. Reiterating the experiment issue for the umpteenth time, even for undoubtedly nonulterior motives is well worded, jeez, but unwarranted. And telling us that "KarlV did not engage in vandalism at Bad Nenndorf" is, ugh, what? Refuting claims nobody made?. btw: I wrote a list too. --tickle me 00:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

tickleme, why don't you read WP:AGF because you are breaking it in the extreme and still making wild accusations. Your witch-hunting here is tiresome. The block is now is User:Lar 's name anyway, making your endless rants again, irrelevent. Go talk to user Lar if you don't like it. pschemp | talk 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

...Kerze? Candelam non datur, autem candelabrum aliquammultus apponere aliquo, aliqua, aliquamdiu locum potest arbitratu. --tickle me 00:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (I might have to amend that, should a native speaker pop up)

I did not mean to ask for specific measures, hence my lax use of language near the end. If you think there are persisting problems with those users, please take the issue(s) to the appropriate places. As for User:I like Burke's Peerage’s edit summaries regarding vandalism, I am sorry if my assumption that that bit was relevant here is problematic for you. Please feel free to strike out the relevant line(s) if you feel strongly about this. —xyzzy_n 01:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• User xyzzy_n, was your ommission of KarlV's declaration between steps 9 and 10 (in your summary at the beginning here) intentional? I mean, gee, it is only the most relevant detail in the entire incident, is it not? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I included it under a separate heading to emphasise its role. I have now also included it as you suggested. —xyzzy_n 14:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on block length for KarlV, Please comment

The real summary here is that the majority of admins who have commented here think the block is appropriate, and it is now in the name of an uninvolved admin. Go ahead and continue to pointless discussion if you wish, but the community hasn't changed it's mind about the validity of the block. pschemp | talk 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most admins who commented agree that it shouldn't be indefinite, so the question is what to reduce it to. If a reduction can't be agreed, it will likely be lifted entirely, so people who prefer a block should chime in with their suggestion. A month appears to be the current consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen more admins supporting the block as is than a substitution of a one month block. Also take note of the admins who have commented on his talk page. NoSeptember 11:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, after reading everything, that the block is valid and should remain. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I support leaving the block as-is. No change. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am now the blocking admin so think the block is the right length, as would be expected. I'm not seeing a lot of credible calls for a reduction, or at least not a consensus for one. ++Lar: t/c 04:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I support reduction to 24 hours conditional on a promise from KarlV not to do something like this again. Phr (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you not read his vandal-like comment above? If you can draw a conclusion other than "he is unrepentant" then do explain how, please. The Wikimedia Foundation should block this guy from editing any WMF project for a week or a month, in addition to the indef block on en.wiki. As a visiting sysop, I think support Lar's indef block. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise on any length of time up to one month, though I'd prefer that he be unblocked now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like there are more of us desiring he stay blocked than be immediately unblocked, actually. I'd really rather suggest that instead of unilaterally unblocking him (with or without consensus) that perhaps we all wait until there are a few more admins commenting on this? Pretend for a moment we settle on one month, what's a few more days of discussion about it going to hurt if we include this discussion within that blocked timeframe? No rush. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's no rush. I believe he's out of town for the next few days anyway, so there's time to discuss. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Since he waited 3 months between editing efforts this last time, we can certainly wait until he returns and has a chance to properly explain himself better than his unrepentent denial above. NoSeptember 11:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a month too - there simply is no way that an indefinite block is appropriate in this situation. I'd like to point out that WP:POINT states the following: "Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive." An indefinite block is far beyond what the guidelines specify. -- ChrisO 10:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what... we block people indefinitely all the time, for lots of different reasons, including "exhausted the community's patience", so this is a good block. Don't stand on precise wording, remember that doing the right thing is more important than being slavishly adherent to policy. That said I'd be willing (very relucatantly and only if there was a clear consensus) to go to a month with the following proviso. Before the block ends, I expect to see a statement from KarlV (with no quibbling, excuses, "but I had my reasons", "you're wrong but I'm saying this anyway to comply" sort of wording in it) that said; he was wrong, he understands he was wrong, he understands that he did a breaching experiment, he understands it was inappropriate, he undertakes never ever to do it or any other disruptive thing again, he is sorry that he did it, he is sorry that he wasted everyone's time, and that if he ever does it or any other disruptive thing again he will be blocked indefinitely. The current statement falls far short of that, it basically says he was justified in his actions which I strongly dispute. That mindset of his has to go. If he said all those above things and I was convinced he was sincere and had internalised the issues, I'd go along, but would swiftly reblock on sign of any breech of the agreement. Anything short of that is unsatisfactory to me. By the way, nice work on the rewrite, ChrisO... ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The user has not yet given a good reason for a shortening of the block. He has not apologized, he has not promised to not do this sort of disruption again, despite being aware of this discussion. This episode is the only thing this user has done at en.wiki in more than 3 months. This user's account has barely been used ever and is essentially a throw away disruption only account, at least until he promises not to continue to use it that way. Let's hear something positive from the user before we do anything, until then leave this disruption only account blocked indef. NoSeptember 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Just so everyone knows, there's about an hour's worth of a backlog over at AIV. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you looking at the same WP:AIV I am? I only see three entries on there. joshbuddy, talk 21:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And now there's none. But there were around six or seven, the earliest from an hour ago. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson DUI Vandalism

74.136.34.182 has been vandalizing the Mel Gibson DUI Incident page. This user was also blocked Aug 1 and should know by now not to be doing this

Pilotguy has blocked it. JoshuaZ 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Elliott Larkfield

I have been having a bit of a problem with User:Elliott Larkfield. We are having an edit war over Jack Canfora and other articles where he is adding unsourced information, and when I have attempted to discuss the situation with him he has done nothing but insult me on my talk page and his talk page, as well as the edit summaries in the Jack Canfora page history. Any thoughts? Academic Challenger 22:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him to avoid personnal attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to block him for a week. Between the obvious vandalism and two violations of WP:CIVIL. here and here, he deserves as much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeat call for checking behaviour of Splash (talk · contribs)

I'm going to repeat my call for someone to check on the behaviour of this admin. He's been blocking several users for sockpuppetry indef with tenuous if at all existent connections. I asked about this a couple days ago and it was ignored. Another admin questions him [39] and is rewarded with a rather hostile reply for what I see as a very valid question. The sockpuppetry is not obvious if its at all existent to the depths he's claiming. I also question the need he has to blank the talk page of everyone he labels a sockpuppet then revert the talk pages when someone questions that [40] without even so much as an explanation when it was questioned by the same admin. There is an evidence link on spotteddog here [41] and I do not see the connection between for example the behaviour there and that exhibited by Kramden4700 (talk · contribs) who's evidence is solely "contributions".--Crossmr 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned with the "attitude" in the first edit, but I don't know the context. I don't see anything in the other two edits you provides. Please further explain your position with diffs. --mboverload@ 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm showing you is the extent of it. He's blocked several users in the past little while with claims that they are sockpuppets Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Spotteddogsdotorg. All the evidence seems to be of the nature "contributions" or "obvious". After reading through the evidence link that I gave above on spotteddogs behaviour (which mind is from a year ago), I'm not seeing this obvious connections, and he's not providing anymore justification other than "contributions". He also repeatedly blanks individuals talk pages. The second diff I showed you was him reverting another admin for unblanking the talk page. I'm not saying these individuals are or aren't all sockpuppets, I'm just saying the way he's going about it leaves much to be desired.--Crossmr 23:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This has already been reviewed. [42] -- SCZenz 23:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No it hasn't. That was one specific block. It didn't review the entirety of his behaviour.--Crossmr 23:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note that happycamper didn't weigh in on whether or not that individual was a sockpuppet, just that he supported the block. Two very different things.--Crossmr 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The key risk with diving in here is that i)Sockpuppeteers have a classic technique of trying to find an admin who doesn't know the details and pleading with them about User:Abusive admin and ii)User:Crossmr has a line on his userpage proclaiming the lovelytude of the banned User:Ste4k. The reason for blanking the talk pages is that the puppetmaster has taken to holding conversations with himself and 1 or 2 opposing users to give the impression to the opposing users that the numerics are in his favour. Crossmr didn't mention that I had already explained this fact on my talk page, [43]. Really, going back over all 35 accounts and writing an essay on each of them would be an enormous waste of my time, but there are some diffs where I explain a number of them such as the particularly detailed [44] and the immense amount of 'archaeological' history in Crossmr 3rd diff. It is important not to waste greater time than is absolutely required on this; Spotteddogsdotorg (possibly the puppetmaster, or possibly a puppet) is just a sockpuppeteer who has tried increasingly creative approaches and didn't succeed yet. No feeding, hmm? (PS. Crossmr didn't mention this thread to me.) -Splash - tk 23:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proclaiming the lovelytude? I was dealing with a longterm vandal which no adminstrator wanted to address and had a mountain of pages to clean up. There were another 15 pages or so beyond what was listed on my user page for cleanup. I tagged them and am slowly working my way back through them. That user and User:Wolf_ODonnell both cleaned up that page without my asking. But I notice you didn't mention him. Maybe you should start explaining the sockpuppetry allegations because it is questioned and not as obvious as you claim it to be.--Crossmr 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have actually explained it in some detail for a smallish subset of the users in that diff up there; the others have their reasons in their blocklogs. To a puppet, they have been used to do a combination of i)mislead the community on AfD ii)mislead the community on policy/guideline discussion pages iii)mislead individuals as to the level of support in talk page discussions iv)appear as multiple users in Arbitration proceedings against the opponent v)complain to multiple people who don't know the detail that one of their number got blocked and iv)to do as their 20th edit or so. Really, honestly, providing a bunch of diffs for all 36 puppets is a waste of time. You can examine their contributions, your own link to Mothpersons' page, their block logs and the detailed forensics in the diff I already posted. -Splash - tk 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The old puppets are well documented, its the new puppets that I'm questioning. Even SCZenz points out that he doesn't think its quite obvious from the contribs[45]. While some of them may have been disruptive or otherwise so, I'm not seeing the actual connection to spotteddog with all of them. This is whats being questioned here. No one is asking you to document all 36, how about a couple recent ones like Kramden7400 who actually had quite a few edits under his belt? --Crossmr 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz also says he is willing to believe me. But you're not. I am not going to waste time on a serial sockpuppeteer, who has previously expressed his delight at just such time wasting [46] (and you really shouldn't be asking me to). There is good information available at User_talk:Mothperson/Litterbox which is really very compelling and feeds very strongly into the following forensics for Kramden4700 (talk · contribs):

1. He matches the tendency to edit sharply around Philadelphia and related areas [47] [48], [49], [50] etc.
2. He matched the tendency, more specifically, to focus on TV (and sometimes other) personalities in the Philadelphia and related areas [51], [52], [53].
3. He participates in all the same AfDs as a number of the other socks (not necessarily always on the same side, in an early display of the usual sockpuppeteers hallmarks): [54], [55], [56] and, going back much further he has even nominated one of them for adminship [57].
4. He appeared very shortly after my first sock-block round: created on June 12, I blocked a bunch on June 11 e.g. [58].
5. He has participated vocally in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration CoolKatt number 99999 [59] as have at least several of the others.
6. In an attempt to acquire credibility, he makes a few sub-minor edits e.g. wikification, linkification etc to a few articles. Earlier, these would be Philadelphia related; more recently, the sophistication has risen but, like all sockpuppeteers, it wouldn't be worth his while if he avoided the areas of interest: [60], [61] etc. Note also the Philadelphia theme.

There is no need for checkuser in such obvious cases as this, and such requests have previously been made and declined. Would you have me repeat the above exercise for the remaining 35 sockpuppets, or do you now believe that I have the evidence available? -Splash - tk 00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So a user who may be from philadelphia and thus interested in it and happens to like TV is a sock puppet of spotteddog? Philadelphia is a big city. A lot of users have been involved with CK over the months, he's a long term problem user who attacks anyone who shows the slightest disagreement with him. CK also happens to be highly interested in TV so its no wonder that he would have butted heads with Kramden or any other TV interested editor. CFIF, the one who's been feeding you several puppets it seems was the most vocal on the RfAr and without checking, I would guess involved in a lot of those AfDs. The nomination for adminship as you noticed I caught when I first encountered Kramden and checked his contribs. It seemed off to me, I'm curious why no one has removed it. One thing I didn't see from thos diffs is any big disruption. The comment you linked to on the AfD about creating two sub-pages seemed like a genuine suggestion and not something intended. While you've established this user is likely from Philadelphia and is interested in TV, there seemed to be much more to Spotteddog, which I'm not seeing here.--Crossmr 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that obviously wasn't what I said, was it? Your sentence has two clauses, and my post has 6 at a minimum. CFIF has edited my page twice: both times today, and I blocked one username he pointed out and rejected the other. -Splash - tk 00:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And several of your points revolve around the same thing, that the user likes philadelphia, and participated in some pages with other suspected sock puppets. My point is that beyond that, I'm not seeing the disruption thats allegedly occuring here.--Crossmr 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't just about users interested in Philly and Philly TV, this is about users who sign up, and on their first few edits, put Philly TV and other television personality articles up for deletion, either regular or speedy. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about Kramden, not Jose. Jose did that if I recall. Did Kramden also do that? I would also put forth that the one AfD I did look at that Jose did, the individual did seem to fail Bio.--Crossmr 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To cap the concerns here once and for all, I'll volunteer to look at the entire list of sockpuppets. I would like to understand this set of sockpuppets. However, what is being asked for would be very time consuming, and at this point, I am inclined to think that not much will be written about them. Since there is a limited number of resources to address everyone's concerns here, the best I can do from my perspective is to say that there is certain level of trust that is involved here, and that is something that hopefully the community can still rely on. If it turns out that these accounts have been treated without proper jurisprudence, then naturally, some action needs to be taken to rectify the situation.

Now, I would like to say that I am not particularly fond of invoking this trust "trump card" - it carries a number of loaded connotations, and when it does not work amicably, it can be disasterous for both the account holder and the community. However, as a long time Wikipedian, I have little else to offer in this situation, and I suspect, this is why an overwhelming number of users on Wikipedia care very much about how they are treated, and how they are perceived.

Even if one account is done per day, it will take more than a month to go through everything. I have the Wikipedian Me, and the Real Me to take care of, and I am not sure what learning curve is invovled here. With that said, anyone is welcome to check up with me to see how things are going. I hope this is sufficient to end the concerns here, but if not, then another Wikipedian will need to take the initiative and try other alternatives. --HappyCamper 00:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, don't bother. I can do the above kind of forensics for all of them, and am 100% certain of each and every one of them. Don't fall into the trap. -Splash - tk 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can skip all the ones covered in the evidence link from last year. Those appear to be well established. He's also provided some evidence for a couple of new accounts (in terms of suspicious behaviour, but no actual connection to spottedddog). I still don't think the blanking of talk pages is appropriate, regardless of whetehr or not he believes this person likes to hold conversations with himself. Some of the talk pages do have content from other editors on it. My chief concern here is the attitude shown to another admin when it was questioned and then when the question is finally acknowledged, the mud-slinging by saying I said something nice about a banned user (well I said it long before he was banned and he did something nice, so sue me), and his continually saying it would be a waste of time to check on these. If you think explaining your actions are a waste of time, maybe you shouldn't do them. It just seemed like there were a lot of these bans very rapidly, and with little to actual connection made regardless of whate else they might have done to warrant a ban. If they needed to be banned that is one thing, slapping them in with some old vandal is another if its not true.--Crossmr 00:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he is not a vandal, and it's important to tell the difference. He is a sockpuppeteer who makes superficially good edits with a view to misleading genuinue users and process (all the way to adminship and Arbitration, in this case). It would be a waste of time for me to repeat my evidenciary basis (now posted both here and in the diff I have to DRV (check it, it's overwhelmingy)) for all these account, and indeed, every time the socks persuade someone to feel sympathetic towards them. The series of bans come in bunches: that's how socks are naturally deployed (they're no good, otherwise, after all), and they are related to Spotteddogsdotorg, by simple backtracking in e.g. Kramden4700's case from the other users he is associated with, their contribs, their hallmarks and the hallmarks of the others back over a long period. -Splash - tk 00:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So where is the evidence of this supposed misleading thats occuring? I saw none of that in any of the diffs provided.--Crossmr 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, go and read them properly. -Splash - tk 00:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I read them. I see a lot of copyediting of the city/state name, and a couple comments on some AfDs. I see no evidence of any kind of "misleading" going on.--Crossmr 00:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my sentiment from User talk:Splash: if this puppet master is so prolific that Splash can't even take the time to document it all to puzzled observers (like myself), then a page at WP:LTA may be in order. Then, there will be a centralized repository of information which others who get sucked in (like myself) can view and get up to speed on the situation quickly. We won't have to waste time at User talk:Splash or here or wherever. We'll all know the behavior and can join in fending off the vandal rather than fighting about him. Instead, an innocent bystander, JianLi (talk • contribs), has been accused of being a puppet even though s/he made over 1,000 edits before being singled out for using the term "cruft". What a terrible insult and what a spectacular waste of time for a half-dozen people or more just today. This vandal must be laughing his ass off. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. I don't think the process that is occuring here is benefiting wikipedia and it is not very transparant--Crossmr 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, key point there! I rejected the suggestion that Jian Li should be blocked, twice. I'm not some sort of automaton, and I do not apply blocks when some random user I've never met before asks me to. I study things first, and then I do it, if I think it's right to do so. You don't have to fight with me, and I don't think we have fought; you just jumped into unblanking talk page of a user who uses them abusively, but you didn't know that. I'll repeat that abuse pages are a bad idea. They lend credibility, they provide a target, they make for competition and they give corporeality to something that should not be. And again, he is not a vandal. -Splash - tk 00:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to trust Splash's judgement at this point. If we spend more time dealing with trolls than they spend trolling, then we are feeding them. All admin actions are subject to review, but nowhere does it say that all admin actions require extensive documentation. -- SCZenz 00:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but a reasonable person should be able reach the same conclusion they did. And with the diffs provided, I Don't see it. I see some diffs on copyediting a city name, and a couple comments on an AfD that do not look out of place.--Crossmr 00:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And a reasonable person would be able to by a little investigative journalism from the 10-odd diffs I just posted, particularly by not overlooking the fact that I explicitly said that Kramden4700 edited the same debates as a good number of other socks of the same user, also now indef blocked. But allow us to be clear, Crossmr: you want the sockpuppets unblocked. If you don't, what is the purpose of continuing this discussion, other than to put food in the foodbowl? -Splash - tk 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Although they don't mean much individually, taken together the six points he gave look persuasive to me. -- SCZenz 00:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I want to be sure that the blocks were all appropriate, and that the allegation of being puppets of spotteddog are actually correct. the 10 diffs you provided and the evidence they supposedly support, certainly doesn't do that for me. --Crossmr 00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And I want to ensure this doesn't happen again. A quick point of clarification, I didn't imply that Splash accused JianLi of being a sock - but someone else did. That could have been prevented if the accuser had known something about the puppet master s/he was accusing JianLi of being. IMHO, it would be more helpful to the community if all this research and evidence of sockpuppetry were shared somewhere - rather than snippy comments like the first that Crossmr pointed out. I wouldn't have to waste my time doing the research if you simply posted yours somewhere. Otherwise, you get vigilantes like JianLi's accuser and you get very confused people like several people here, including myself. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI

SPUI is ONCE AGAIN violating his probation and engaging in edit wars on various state highway articles such as Nevada State Route 28. This is in BLATANT disregard for the arbcom ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways. He is entitled to a block of some kind as he's most definitely OUT OF WARNINGs. Please engage his Arbcom sanctioned block at the earliest convenience. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I told him to keep his head down. --mboverload@ 22:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WHY? How many fucking chances does this guy get? He's been blatantly violating his probation mutliple times weekly at this rate. Why the fuck have an arbcom if it's rulings mean jack shit? He doesn't care you told him to keep his head down. He'll ignore you starting again tomorrow just like he always does. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to go find it, but I left him a nice paragraph of advice about not getting into fights and keeping a low profile, so he can return to the public area with a hopefully clean slate. wtf is with this guy and highways? --mboverload@ 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three words, "I'm always right". That's his attitude on everything. He could give a rats ass that any of us exist. His MO hasn't changed since I first met him. He edit wars people until the either give up or in many cases he drives users off the project(see Jimbo's talk page for the list of his victims). And the admin staff at this site seems content to keep giving him gentle warnings and leave it at that and he treats those warnings like what they are, a joke. Even though he's now got 2 fucking Arbcom probations one specifically for edit warring on highway articles he's yet to have one block initiated on him that's stuck more then 2 hours before his buddy buddy admins unblock his ass. This is absurd! I don't care if he single handedly is writing half this encyclopedia. Editcount doesn't give him the right to discount other users and the arbcom like he has. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little frustrated here. SPUI, I don't know any of your history but you seem like a detirmined user. Why not just focus on another section of the encyclopedia? You know that fighting over highway names just brings more disdain for yourself. I'm not going to take a position on any possible blocking, but please take my advice. I have had to walk away from a few disputes, there's nothing shameful in it. --mboverload@ 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Highways are my area of expertise. --SPUI (T - C) 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue with that and nor will any of the people you've driven off the project, but it's your attitude toward your fellow Wikipedians that is both disruptive and frankly no longer welcome. You treat everyone else's opinion like it is shit if it's doesn't agree with yours. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm ok. I don't know what's going to happen here, but try and use better edit summaries and talk with the user before you edit war with them. --mboverload@ 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation by SPUI?

See this article history. --mboverload@ 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I peaked, and I know I'll get jumped for this anyway but I first noticed two things:

• He has reverted 4 times, but the 4th occured more than 24 hours after the 3rd.
• He did not initiate the name change, which is Remedy 6 from the Highways arb case.

I also note from the talk page for that one, he's also the first to initiate discussion on this. Mind you, it looks to have been posted after his third revert. I think he should have reverted only once, posted to the talk page, and brought it here, all at once. But if we're throwing the Highways case around here, I don't think he's broken it so much as strained it quite a bit. It's far too easy to push his buttons. Just my two cents from the peanut gallery. --InkSplotch 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it not a violation. Edit warring is by definition disruption. He is BANNED from making any disruptive edits to ANY highway articles. This surely qualifies. Or can you clearly state that I too am not bound by the probation and can make similar edits to highway articles? If that's the case then arbcom means nothing. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the violation was by FLWfan, who has not been using talk pages despite my request to do so. I didn't report him because no one had told him about the 3RR yet. --SPUI (T - C) 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact you're violating the arbcom ruling by edit warring with him. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation, SPUI could be banned from editing Nevada_State_Route_28 for editwarring. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally! Thank you for pointing that out~ (just a note though, I've not edited that page ;) ) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

FLWfan could also be blocked for his moves: "In the case of such moves by other editors, they shall be warned and/or blocked at administrator discretion." It's a two-way street here. --SPUI (T - C) 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also true. But it doesn't again change the fact that you should be blocked for this. You've violated the arbcom for at least the third time that I'm directly aware of since it was enacted. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur, and also for the crap that happened at Minnesota State Highway 33, the Ohio state highways list, List of Nevada State Routes, and more. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest, then, that you copy this notice to WP:AE, this time avoiding vulgar language. A description of the disruption with Diffs and a wikilink to the arbCom Remedies will suffice. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We have 4 times now. They've yielded NO results and have been deleted off that board. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Infact if you go there now there is another posting about him. It has thus far been IGNORED. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:SPUI blocked for 31 hrs for editwarring on Nevada_State_Route_28 in violation of probation.

* User:JohnnyBGood blocked for 31 hrs for moves without consensus as per Highways#Enforcement_of_moves_without_consensus ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but could you elaborate on the second one here? I've just been peeking around Johnny's contribs and logs and I'm not seeing anything matching "moves without consensus." --InkSplotch 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Corrected. I have informed the user and apologized for my mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Rschen7754 has been doing exactly the same thing on many more articles. See his edits with summary "fix". --SPUI (T - C) 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon edits at Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

This user has been warned already several times about disruption related to the Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States article:

• Three times as 71.74.209.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Twice as 198.97.67.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Twice as 198.97.67.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other possible IPs used:

• 198.97.67.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and
• 198.97.67.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite being asked several times to get a username, anon user refuses, on the basis that there is no obligation to register to edit WP, which is correct. On the other hand, user has been warned seven times for disruption, advocay, and blanking. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As an outside observer here who is not the same anon as the IPs above, Jossi's attitude on that article has been one of WP:OWN, rudeness toward anyone who is not there to push a pro-immigration POV but enthusiastically welcoming toward anyone who is, misuse of the "test" script in a patronizing manner, has told several people that they need to calm down and take a break when Jossi seems to be the only person there pushing a POV and using Wikipedia as a battleground, and frequently tries to order anon editors to get accounts. Is this Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone (anon IPs included) can edit, or is it not? I for one do not believe that anyone who thinks anon IPs should have to register to edit has any business continuing to be an admin. This also goes for admins who treat edits from anon IPs differently (as in more likely to revert) than they would do with edits from registered users. If somebody doesn't believe anonymous IPs should be editing Wikipedia, that person is unfit to be an admin on Wikipedia. Jossi should either step down as an admin or change his/her attitude toward anon IPs. 70.108.96.254 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally welcome many anon editors that contribute to the project. But I also warn newcomers when their edits are disruptive. My first interaction in this article was while in duty at RC patrol. In many instances I provide anons with information on how to make useful contributions . In this specific case, one user editing under multiple IP addresses has been warned repeatedly by other admins as well for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the trouble with anon editors is that we never know who we're talking to. The anon above is an example. He seems to have strong opinions, yet there is no edit history to know whether or not it's the same guy. It complicates tracking 3RR, mkaes it impossible to know if the user has been warned for previous behavior, etc. While anon editors are welcome, if someomne is going to make contentious edits, engage in talk page discussions, and hang around here then it would be very helpful if they created some kind of consistent identity. This editor seems to be going out of his way to use changing IPs, and his editing is so aggressive that it adds up to disruptive behavior. The polite requests by other users to register or otherwise identify himself have been rebuffed. That isn't helpful when the method of Wikipedia is to work to consensus. -Will Beback 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd add to the list:

71.74.209.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

70.108.100.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-Will Beback 03:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

70.108.100.130 was me and is completely unrelated to the 71.74.*.* and 198.97.*.* IPs, who are also probably two different persons. Look, if somebody has either DSL or dialup the IPs are going to change with each connection to the Internet. Your portrayal of this as some kind of deliberately deceptive practive, "This editor seems to be going out of his way to use changing IPs", shows a lack of knowledge of how Internet connections work. 70.108.96.254 09:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be a hard case to assume good faith here, anon .130. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard assuming good faith about you either, ever since you left that patronizing "test" script and reverted in response to removal of catholic pro-illegal immigrant advocacy linkspam from the article. Then you were also dubious and standoffish toward Morlesg when he/she showed up, until that person made it clear that they think the article isn't slanted enough in favor of illegal aliens at which point you suddenly became very enthusiastic: Aye, Aye, Morlesg! be bold and improve the article. the key to NPOV is to describe significant viewpoints without asserting them. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Happy editing. I have a hard time concluding that you are a neutral party with regard to that article or immigration in general. 70.108.96.254 21:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you'd get a username it'd be easier to keep track of who is who. Otherwise we have to go by editing patterns, which seem to connect these IPs. "Hey you" gets old very quickly, exspecially if we don't know if the "you" of today is the same of the "you" of yesterday. -Will Beback 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And what if I already have a username, but just don't feel like signing in when editing immigration related articles knowing that it will earn my otherwise noncontroversial username emnity from certain admins who think they WP:OWN all the immigration related articles? 70.108.96.254 21:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Playing with Image copyright tags

I'm having a problem with the user AllTalking regarding the tagging of an image he uploaded. At the begining, he seemed to be acting in good faith, and just a little bit lost about image tagging in Wikipedia. But after he mentionned his willinnes to keep playing with the copyright tags "forever", I stepped out the case to ask for help here. The case is as follows:

The image was originaly marked as a {{Magazinecover}} (although it do not looks like a magazine cover) with no source information. Then I questioned the lack of source (with {{no source}}) and user AllTalking added the information that the image was "Scanned from a Butterick catalog from 1930" and used the deprecated {{fairuse}} tag, and then the {{fair use in}} tag (poiting to 1930, as it is the article where the image is used).

All the fair use image tags require "all available copyright information" and "a detailed fair use rationale", what was not present. So I marked the image with {{no license}}. Please, note that I had explained the issue in the Edit Summary". AllTalking then changed his mind and said the image was in public domain because it was published without a copyright notice "as required by law". He then used the also deprecated {{PD}} tag. After that, he combined this information in the more appropriated {{PD-because}} tag.

As the user's reasoning was not true, I reverted his editions and explained his mistake in the "Edit Summary", even including a link to the paragraph on the Copyright article explaing why the reasoning was mistaken.

The user AllTalking then added some info on that the copyright may or may not belong to someone called "Butterick" and (correcly, I would say) marked it as {{Unknown}}. But then again he changed his mind and asserted the image was a {{Newspapercover}} (but it really doesn't look like one to me).

At this point, I noticed that maybe it was completely beyond AllTalking's capabilities to determine the image's real copyright status. Then I reverted his changes again back to the original "no source" notice and begged him, in the Edit Summary, to "avoid playng with the copyright tags" if "unsure of image origins and copyright status".

AllTalking's only reply was to replace the No Source notice with the deprecated {{PD}} tag, and replace this one for the {{PD-ineligible}} tag.

I reverted back to the "No Source" tag, explaing him in the Edit Summary that that tag are only meant for images that "consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship", which was not the case.

AllTalking insisted on the {{PD-ineligible}} tag, and again on the {{Newspapercover}} tag.

I explained in the edit summary that (1) the image do not seems like a newspaper cover, (2) even if it was a newspaper cover, it couldn't be used the way it was being used (in the 1930s article), and (3) that the image was being called both a Newspaper cover and a fashion catalog.

At this point, for the first time used the Edit summary, and decided to use that to make jokes. In his next three edits he made jokes about his willing to "dance the whole night thru" a "NAUGHTY WALTZ". In these editions, he managed to mark the image as {{PD-ineligible}}, {{PD-Art}} and even {{PD-self}} (what's an willing untruth).

At this point I gave up. Would someone have the williness to explain this user that such an beautifull image (yes, that's my opinion) may be removed from Wikipedia if he keeps avoiding to correctly tag it? --Abu Badali 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked him for 24h for disruption. Abu, maybe you will help the user to write a proper copyright rationale for the picture assuming it was scanned from a 1930 catalog. abakharev 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• You might get better results if you talked to each other on Talk pages instead of in edit summaries. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Username

User: Stephen M. Colbert is violating username policy. Has also vandalized George Washington. --Natalie 01:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Stephen M. Colbert" is already blocked. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

21:06, 3 August 2006 DakotaKahn (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Stephen M. Colbert (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jbpo (talk · contribs)

User:Jbpo (aka 24.13.84.218 (talk · contribs), admitted here) has, over the course of several months on more than one talk page, conducted him/herself uncivilly in our interactions. Jbpo was not overly caustic for the most part, though perhaps uncivil at times.

Today, however, Jbpo posted these comments to Talk:Estate tax (United States). In the comments, Jbpo is uncivil toward three other editors (myself included), then attacks me, (1) he/she implies that the other editors are all being illogical, or at least not using "adult logic skills", (2) Jbpo "congratulates" the editors who rephrased his/her additions to the article for making it "convoluted" and stating "If convolution is the key to harmony on Wikipedia, then I applaud the convultion", (3) Jbpo accuses me of a "disinformation campaign to make Wikipedia into his personal set of definitions", and (4) Jbpo says the following about me, "I think he has reached a point where his entries are disurptive and disinformative to the nature and goodwill of the editors of this and many other entries". Essentially all of these comments appear to violate WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL.

I understand that I'm supposed to warn Jbpo about this behavior, which I did today. In retaliation, Jbpo posted the same warning template on my talk page.

For other examples of incivility on the part of Jbpo, see Talk:Barack Obama, such as this comment.

Jbpo and I do not see eye to eye on politics, it's fair for me to assume. However, I would never report someone here merely because I disagreed with a point they were attempting to argue in a logical, rational discussion on a talk page. Jbpo, through his/her persistent incvility and, now, personal attacks, has crossed the line from rational debate into unconstructive mudslinging. Because I am one of the only users, apparently, who have interacted regularly with Jbpo, I am posting this here instead of as a user conduct Rfc. Perhaps an administrator could asses the situation. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the incivility in the diff you provide from the Talk:Barack Obama page, but the Estate Tax diff is incivil. I'm not sure that I'd characterise them as personal attacks (which is the template you used on his talk page) but I can see why others might characterise it as such. If the real problem with this editor is that the sources they provide to avoid OR do not actually support the assertions made, then go ahead and gather the evidence carefully, and use it for an RFC or some such. my 2c. Pete.Hurd 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you do not see any incivility in this comment? May I ask, then, what you believe Jbpo to be communicating in the comment? It says "If you insist on claiming POV on any post not written in the style of a PR flak, go ahead", which I was not doing. Jbpo is mischaracterizing my position to make me sound like an extremist. I'd say that is incivil, wouldn't you?

Regarding attacks, may I ask how you interpret "I think he has reached a point where his entries are disurptive and disinformative to the nature and goodwill of the editors of this and many other entries" and accusing me of conducting a "disinformation campaign"? Even if these aren't personal attacks, and I believe they are, they are quite incivil at the very least. Jbpo is saying that I am disrupting the Wikipedia community and that I am on a "disinformation campaign." This is a comment on me, not content or my arguments. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that all criticism qualifies as a personal attack in the sense of WP:NPA. Note that "Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel." is an example of a petty WP:CIVIL violation, not a serious WP:CIVIL violation, and not a WP:NPA violation. You & Jbpo are having an disagreement, and it could, and should, be conducted with more civility, but I don't see anything that clearly has crossed the lime of WP:NPA. FWIW, I consider the accusation made against Jbpo that he misrepresents his sources to be a serious accusation. If I were you, and I could back it up, that's what I would go with. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I should have filed a user conduct Rfc to begin with as I initially thought. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

An AfD kept

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz

This AfD was closed earlier, by a non admin, and appears to be closed improperly. There seems to be a question of sock's by others in the discussion (note:I am not in the discussion). Its my understanding that this should have been left up to an admin to decide, so I'm bringing it here for investigation. SynergeticMaggot 02:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. The user was an admin (checked their log), and its now changed. The admin said they were 'a contributor and editor' so I took that for granted. SynergeticMaggot 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was an old AFD, from last September. New nominator didn't know how to renominate. I fixed the current nom. (If renom is as bad a sockfest as the last one, God help us.) Fan-1967 02:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI: non-admins are entitle and encouraged by WP:ADMIN to participate in all aspects of Wikipedia, including closing AfD debates. Paul Cyr 02:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if the result is Keep or no consensus. If it's a delete, only an admin can do the deletion, so only an admin should close a delete result. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if the result is unambiguously keep, actually, according to the now thankfully reverted deletion process. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Current nom is actually the third, see Talk:Barbara Schwarz for links to the previous two. The article does have some attack characteristics and needs cleanup at minimum per BLP. Schwarz in my opinion is ill and articles like this aren't helping things. And I wouldn't say she's that "talked about" any more, outside of a few Usenet groups where she posts a lot. Phr (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking his own talk page

User:MonsterOfTheLake continues to blank his talk page (see User talk:MonsterOfTheLake) even after I showed him a Wikipedia message explicitly stating not to blank talk pages.

The dispute exists out of a personal argument over the article Turkification. He blocked me on AIM - I listed him here for vote stuffing and listed the chat conversation (with his username), but removed it after I was told it was in bad form to post it. Later I learned that people aren't supposed to revert their userpages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperToMe (talk • contribs)

You are obviously prohibited from making public personal chat logs on Wikipedia without the expressed permission of all parties involved. And you seem too involved to act as an administrator here. Please assemble a comprehensible account so another admin can step in. El_C 03:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not post the chat again. This is what happened: MOTL IM'ed me and asked me for help - he wanted me to vote "yes" to delete "Turkification" - He first asked me to vote in the article - I voted to keep the article - then he specifically told me to vote "yes" after I said "YES" on the chat - He and I debated. Then he asked me I voted yes when he told me not to, I said that I did, but I can reconsider. He blocked me from AIM.

I then contacted him on his talk page, (see edit history [62] ) - I first posted just to explain what we (the community) were going to do with the article [63] - He removed my message and responded "Don't add messages. You're not invited to post in this talk page."

While talking on Wikipedia's IRC channel I was told that "vote stacking" is to be frowned upon, so I posted [64] - A threat to put him on RFC, but I offered not to if I was unblocked. He responded: "Don't add messages to my talk page. Note to WhisperToMe: Who are you? I don't know you, nor did I ask you for in anything (who ARE you??). Piss off please." [65] I responded that I was who I was [66] He responded "--DO NOT ADD MESSAGES HERE-- I don't know who you are. Stop BSing my talk page please.)"

I found that I couldn't list him on RFC, so I opted to put him on the noticeboard [67] - There I posted the full chat log. I notified him of what I did. He replied that the chat log was fake and asked how I got hold of his username. User:RJN reverted his blanking, and he reverted back. I removed the chat log after I learned on IRC that it was in bad form. The Notice was archived. I talked on IRC and learned that blanking user talk pages is bad, so I responded that he wasn't supposed to blank userpages. He kept reverting my edits and edits of other Wikipedians (i.e. reverting of blanks) - I know why now: he thinks that userpages and user talk pages fall under the same rules. WhisperToMe 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering the chat-log incident, I'd say he is entitled to blank his talk page. There's no rule against blanking, except for admin notices. If the user continues to exhibit problematic conduct, let me know or place another notice on this board. El_C 05:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Banzai! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly removing a {{nsd}} tag from Image:IMG_3006_crop.jpg despite my very clear explanation of what needs to be specified on the image. Another pair of eyes could be handy on this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 03:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that User:Banzai! reuploaded this image after it's prior deletion by Zanimum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (→Netscott) 03:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Zanimum appears to have speedily deleted this image because of User:Netscott’s insistence that it lacks a source and cannot be considered public domain, which is something of a stretch given the description on the image page as originally uploaded. I have no idea of the motives behind Netscott's vendetta against this image, and honestly I wouldn't much care, except that (judging from this page) he's now trying to besmirch my reputation where he thinks I won't see it. Which is just fantastic.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 03:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted Banzai! (talk · contribs) removal of the {{nsd}} tag per avoidant vandalism. (→Netscott) 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Only the person who took the photo can upload it, unless they've sold the rights. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, of course, if the photo is in the public domain, as is Image:IMG_3006 crop.jpg. See Wikipedia:Public domain.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 03:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll note that at least one other user has also removed the {{no-source}} tag (“I don't understand - source information is provided on the image page. I'm removing the no source template.” from Image_talk:IMG_3006_crop.jpg). The image page does include ample source information, as noted, so User:Netscott's insistence on keeping this tag remains a mystery.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 03:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And who put this image in the public domain? Where has this been announced? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My roommate took the photo earlier this year and, as of yesterday, has released it into the public domain at my request. Full details are announced on the image page itself; I suppose we could furnish additional proof (a signed and notarized letter of release, for instance) but as a practical matter, I don't think we'd want to bother. And even supposing we did, what’s to stop User:Netscott from saying he can’t be sure we didn’t just fabricate such a letter of release? He’d have a point, too.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just ask your roommate to open an account and upload the image herself. Alternatively I think there's a way for her to confirm by email that it's a PD image. Phr (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point all that matters is that users of Wikipedia will be able to properly establish the public domain status of the image. Citing some friend named "Claire K." does not allow for this. (→Netscott) 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Only the person who took the photo can upload it, unless they've sold the rights.

Why must there be a sale? Copyright mentions that rights can be assigned by a copyright holder to others. Could not Clare K. just assign the rights to Banzai!, who as the freshly minted copyright holder could then proceed to release the image into the public domain? Lupin|talk|popups 04:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

When I asked over on the Village Pump a couple of months ago if my sister could take some photos for me to upload, I was told no, unless she sold me the rights. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott and Image:IMG_3006 crop.jpg

Hello. User:Netscott has repeatedly inserted a {{no-source}} tag at the top of Image:IMG_3006 crop.jpg and removed the image from the source of the relevant page, despite the inclusion of proper source, date, location, and permission (with text statement) to release this image in the public domain. Netscott's behavior, while inexplicable to me, is extremely annoying, and has already resulted in the same image being deleted yesterday by an administrator who probably didn't notice that the no-source claim was then, as now, entirely spurious.

Can somebody remove the {{no-source}} tag from the top of Image:IMG_3006 crop.jpg and lock the page against further edits by User:Netscott? Thanks.

 —Banzai! (talk) @ 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but some friend of yours named "Claire K." does not a source make. (→Netscott) 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, Netscott, I see I'm not the first person (last three sections) whose perfectly free-use Mel Gibson photo you've tagged for deletion. I give up, since you appear to be determined (for whatever bizarre reason) to make sure Mel Gibson, and only Mel Gibson, has no headshot in his article. All I wanted to do was provide a public domain image for Wikipedia's use. Even if you don't appreciate Clare's generosity, I certainly do, and in fact I plan to go take advantage of that same "generosity" right now. Toodles!  —Banzai! (talk) @ 04:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, is it "Clare K." or "Claire K."? The Mel Gibson article is rather high profile right now and as such it's normal that such attention is paid to it. (→Netscott) 04:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Her name is Clare, as I've previously indicated to you on my talk page. The only person who persists in calling her "Claire," I think, is you. Anyway—like I said—I'm not going to bother with this anymore. (I've restored the image one final time. Have at it, NetScott, if you insist.)  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I see, I suppose it was where you said, "Come to think of it, even if these requirements were standard policy, they would be entirely useless. What's to stop someone from just making up these details? What's to stop me from making them up for Claire right here, right now? (Other than my impeccable sense of moral duty, of course.) :-P" that got me wondering about "Clare" vs. "Claire". Nothing has changed. Some friend of yours named "Clare K." is not a verifiable source. (→Netscott) 06:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it looks like I misspelled her name there. (sheepish grin)

However, WP:V doesn't apply here. She's not a source in the WP:Verifiable source sense. She's the source of the photo, i.e. the photographer. You're misusing the word "source"—or did you think only the New York Times is allowed to upload images?

 —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some friend of yours named "Clare K." cannot be verified as a source for this image, therefore the "public domain" status of this image cannot be verified. (→Netscott) 06:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Um. How is the status of any other public domain image verified? You don't seriously think they're all uploaded by large publishing outfits?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave this final word and then leave WP:ANI to its business (this isn't a place for discussion). You uploaded the image originally citing the source as "My friend" then when pressed it became "my friend Clare", and when further pressed it became "My friend Clare K." ... with such a pattern of edits the true status (public domain or not) of this image is highly questionable. With no such details, no one can possibly independently verify the status of the original image you cropped as being in the public domain. Therefore the {{nsd}} tag on the image is entirely appropriate. (→Netscott) 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I find this to be incredibly foolish. KWH 08:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert Inspired Vandalism Wave at Lutheranism

It appears that Colbert's lmapoon of Wikipedia not only unleashed a wave of attacks on the Elephant article, but has spilled over on to the Lutheranism article. Would someone do us the favor of s-protecting it for awhile? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 03:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection is now on. --JWSchmidt 03:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Might it be good to try to deflect vandals by mentioning that their entries would be more welcome at the Colbert wiki, wikiality.com? A sort of "(don't) fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" kind of thing? JDoorjam Talk 03:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Raven Symone

Raven Symone (talk · contribs) is claiming to be the real actress. I'm assuming good faith, but we may want some verification. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to ensure that no impersonation is taking place here. El_C 03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the user a note with a request; no AGFffff breached, I hope! El_C 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I believe you'll find that the first version of the user's page probably told more truth than fiction. It wasn't until 3 August 2006 (3 months after the account was created) that they chose to act as if they were Raven Symone. Not to say they aren't, but food for thought. ju66l3r 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked for username. And WP:RFCU on User:Cute 1 4 u -- Samir धर्म 03:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be missing the RFCU... Essjay (Talk) 04:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Decided against it. I suspect that user made User:Raven Symone and was messaging various talk pages purporting to be the actress. The issue is somewhat moot now that User:Raven Symone is blocked. -- Samir धर्म 05:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so we're not checking into whether Cute 1 4 u is Raven Symone? Essjay (Talk) 05:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Looked into it some more. Looks like a prank pulled by Cute 1 4 u on Lindsay1980, but I still think it's egregious. I posted on WP:RFCU. Thanks. -- Samir धर्म 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[68] [69] shows she is not Raven but an impostor of Raven. Again, I urge someone to file a checkuser on User:Cute 1 4 u.--Bonafide.hustla 04:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, I'm not one to assume bad faith, but note the similarities. It's a possibility that it's one user with several sockpuppets... talking with itself to defend itself, or they could be separate users who simply liked the templates the other was using. A checkuser might have some use in determining if one user is trying to pretend they are someone they are not, but it's a strange issue. Cowman109^Talk 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. User:Gemini531 also seems to be part of this group. see userpage and this peculiar comment [70]. Note that many of the friends listed on Cute 1 4 U are possible sockpuppets.--Bonafide.hustla 06:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Direct proof of connection between Lindsay and Cute 1 4 U. Proved Cowman's point. User alledgedly changed the signature. [71]--Bonafide.hustla 06:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• As indicated on RfCU, Cute 1 4 u = Raven Symone = Gemini531. Lindsay1980 appears to be a distinct editor. Essjay (Talk) 06:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There might be more sleeper socks. All of the friends listed on Cute 1 4 U's userpage should be under strong suspicion. I also urge admins to block Cute 1 4 u, Gemini 531 accordingly. (Raven Symone is already blocked indef.) Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If there were sleeper socks, they should have shown up on checkuser. I could find no other accounts besides these; any specific suspects should be added to the RFCU. Essjay (Talk) 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:WritersCramp/User:SirIsaacBrock evading community ban

WritersCramp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely on the 14th of july. Now it appears that a new user Black Mamba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared with the exact same style of edits (single word user page, like all of the many many writerscramp sockpuppets) and he is editing the same pages - dog fighting, nazi pages, monkey-baiting/other baiting. Although they haven't caused any problems as yet - it seems pretty obvious to me that this is the same user, and by the the request for check user policy we should be able to block without doing a formal checkuser. Some admins might wanna see if they agree that this is the user evading his block, and do the needful thing. - Trysha ^(talk) 03:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely an exact same pattern of editing. Given Black Mamba (talk · contribs)'s relatively short editing history it would not be unreasonable to indefinitely block this sockpuppet too. (→Netscott) 05:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Investigated, concur. I have blocked Black Mamba. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

assistance please

We have a copyvio issue on Mummy, see [72][73] and surounding difs. I need to go now and so don't have time to deal with it, so if someone would delete the section or rewrite accordingly it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 05:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio found: It was introduced 13:22, 27 June 2006 by User:202.160.34.63. I've removed the copyrighted material, as the Chinese source clearly retains copyright. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move vandalism?

Uh, anyone up for checking the contributions of Cyber Lopez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Acefireburst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I'm in over my head in following what they're doing. --Calton | Talk 07:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Cyber lopez is blocked. Moving userpages isn't so bad in itself, but moving them into article space definitely is. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Moving userpages that don't belong to you anywhere *is* a big deal; I can't think of a reason that a legitimate contributor would be moving around userpages that don't belong to them. Essjay (Talk) 07:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about the Redwolf24 incident. Not legitimate, but definitely not a big deal. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Geez, that was a long time ago, took me a minute to remember. I could see making an exception for a longstanding contributor who was having a bit of fun (though I seem to remember giving him a 17 second symbolic block a la Jimbo to remind him to avoid such things), but I don't think this really falls under the standard of giving an exception. To resort to cliche, such things should be exceptions, not the rule. (By the way, why are we using bullets?) Essjay (Talk) 07:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There's been some edit warring in Hillman's user pages lately, but that's an unusual situation. Phr (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Stalking Polish way

The Polish stalker is back after me, persecuting me and revert warring on dozens articles using scores of IPs. Today's examples: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. Editing in such circumstances is unsupportable and the admins indifference is appaling. The issue has been raised here more than once but no action was taken against the malicious sockpuppet. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I might as well be a Vietnamese expat. I invite any admin to look at my contributions and judge them fairly, such as alphabetical orders, language tweaks, etc. Today's harvest: 83.5.221.19 07:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. I am setting up an account to knock the sockpuppet argument out, having attained veteran IP status. I would ask that a neutral admin (Mikka ;))judge this "persecution". P.S.S. You might want to tone down the sterotyping and racial inflammatory remarks. Regards.

Your talk is cheap. Even if you set another account like User:Reichenbach, it wouldn't change your ways of scanning my contributions and reverting arbitrarily every other one. That's what is called disruption and stalking here. Although all the IPs that you abuse are based in Warsaw, I don't rush to conclude that the Poles continue their crusade aimed at ousting me from editing Wikipedia, although that's what it looks like. If you think that the Poles are a different race from Russians and that my complaint at your stalking and inexplicable revert warring is "racial inflammatory", I congratulate you with it. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey I thought I was user:Molobo! Now Im user:Reichenbach! Unfortunately I set up an account to stem your slanderous accusations from now on and collect evidence of my contributions. And I suggest you put on a tin foil hat or the Poles are going to get you! And as to your racist remarks like at the French Wikipedia, where you profile blacks and Arabs, please explain how is stalking the Polish-way diferent from the Russian-way? Exactly my point. Truthseeker 85.5 08:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eeep. Ghirla, that kind of thing really doesn't help. Why do you do this? (It says something like "I'd like to come to France sometime, but I hear the French prefer Arabs and Blacks, so it's better that I stay where I am!"). Phr (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Spahbod/Darkred

User:Spahbod (talk, contribs) previously known as User:Darkred (talk, contribs) is actively reverting edits for no other reason than because they are by me (Last 24 hours: [79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]).

In addition, Spahbod appears to have switched to the present account to bypass an indefinite block on Darkred [90]. Spahbod's admission that he was Darkred is here

Also, as is evident from a) his edit comments ^[1,2] b) from his comments on my talk page c) his comments to others (on my talk page and elsewhere),

• Spahbod repeatedly fails to be civil
• Harasses other users when they refuse to give in to his bullying.
• Stalks their contributions just to revert them
• foments discord [91][92]
• repeatedly accuses other users of "vandalism" [93][94][95][96][97][98], and fails to cite WP:VANDAL when prompted to do so by users or admins.
• is malicious towards users/admins who intervene on behalf of others [99]
• threatens users when these warn him for incivility. Spahbod's tactic in dealing with warnings appears to be to turn those around to appear as if he is the one being unfairly treated. As such, its to be expected that he'll do that here as well. [100][101] (in the first link he also makes it appear as if his position is supported by an admin).

I personally don't care if he calls me any names he likes, but the blind reverting is totally out of line. Spahbod's bypass of his block is (for me, here, now) secondary. -- Fullstop 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, the avoidance of his block is primary. He's been indefblocked, relying on the block set by User:InShaneee for its justification. Please bring this matter to the attention of ArbCom. ~Kylu (u|t) 10:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but at the top of WP:AE it says: Reporting of other types of incidents (e.g. blocked users evading blocks, etc) that do not involve the Arbitration Committee is done on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I). -- Fullstop 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard and the Arbitration Committee. Kylu isn't suggesting taking it to WP:AN/AE, she's suggesting taking it to WP:RFAR. Essjay (Talk) 12:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly aren't we just indef blocking for block evasion? --InShaneee 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I did, based on your block in fact. The reason I asked for ArbCom to be notified is because the user I blocked is currently involved in an RFAr case. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, alright, I misunderstood you. Much appreciated. --InShaneee 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Damburger

I blocked User:Damburger for continued incivility and disruption at September 11, 2001 attacks and its related talk page. The user does not believe the term "terrorist" should be used to describe the 19 hijackers who carried out the attacks that day, and though he very clearly does not have consensus to make the edit he wishes to, insists that he does have consensus and makes the edits in question anyway. His final edit on the 9/11 talk page, before I blocked him, demonstrated an unfortunately typical disregard for our civility policies. (Incidentally, the "threats" he refers to seem to be in reference to this message from Golbez warning him to seek consensus and to stop pretending he has it. I submit this block for further administrator review. JDoorjam Talk 09:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not unreasonable, although I would have just gone for 12 or 24 hours, as blocking is for prevention, not punishment. However, it's extremely important not to use rollback on his edits, as they are not vandalism. Against consensus, unreasonable, and even partisan, but not vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:List Expert

List_Expert (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has written a rant accusing those who seek to delete articles such as list of sexual slurs as "policy enforcing zealots", and spammed it onto dozens of article Talk pages. I have reverted the majority of these as unnecessarily aggressive. What the hell is wrong with enforcing policy anyway? Other than the fact that, per policy, some content this editor likes is clearly problematic? This appears to be a ssingle-purpose account. I have warned for incivility. Just zis Guy you know? 11:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some reason to believe that this user is a reincarnation of perma-banned user:Primetime/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. Primetime was an active editor and zealous defender of List of ethnic slurs and List of sexual slurs. -Will Beback 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Review of 2 indefinite blocks please

Based on looking through Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr and the creation of:

• Russian military ranks history.
• Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation.
• Military ranks of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
• Military ranks of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
• Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation.
• Naval ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation.
• Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation.

I have blocked User:Tors and User:Rostiki as being sockpuppets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs)

Good call. Ties in with Wikibofh's indef-block of spektorsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

YourCousin sockpuppeteering

Current accounts/IPs

• YourCousin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• YourOtherCousin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Repmart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.174.216.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.114.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.113.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.124.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.17.33.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) \
• 86.29.117.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) \
• 86.29.112.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) |- Possible, not certain.
• 86.29.120.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) /
• 86.29.120.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) /
• 86.29.121.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.118.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.116.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.174.214.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.125.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.174.209.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.118.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.112.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.174.211.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.126.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.113.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.116.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.115.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.117.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.119.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.114.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.126.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.113.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• ZyuRanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Uncertain as to this one, as he made vandalous edits at a page I watch, and various known IPs have reverted to this version. Ryūlóng 23:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• 86.29.121.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) reverting my edits, again. Ryūlóng 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 86.29.113.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) See above. Ryūlóng 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 81.174.216.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Another subnet vandal. Ryūlóng 00:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 81.174.213.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Another one... Ryūlóng 00:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 213.130.142.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.225.141.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.114.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.115.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.117.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Added possible socks as they are both related to vandal User:Repmart which is also him, see AfD edits and talk messages of them.--Andeh 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Add 86.29.118.28 too! WhisperToMe 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of YourCousin (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Repmart (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). And appears to have lead a personal regime against Ryulong who currently has an RfA going. Reverted most of the vandals edits, users RfA may have sockpuppets under oppose votes.--Andeh 15:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just struck out an oppose vote from an anonymous user on Ryulong's RfA claiming to be YourCousin. Put 86.29.113.71 on the sockpuppet list too. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

YourOtherCousin (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) another one of the users accounts going after the RfA.--Andeh 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have extended YourCousin's block by a week and indef blocked YourOtherCousin. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

86.29.124.77 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) another one of the users IPs.--Andeh 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget 81.174.216.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), too. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This could go on for pages; he claims to have access to over 30 IPs. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Have blocked 2 so far, will monitor but I'm not here for too much longer. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let him, there's always semi-protection. Don't know if there's much point in blocking the users IPs if they are dynamic and have generated a new IP since.--Andeh 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He's posting to a bunch of talk pages trying to curry support in his favor - he posted to my talk page. Let's just say that ploy won't work. WhisperToMe 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am 'YourCousin'. This mess stems from a small group of Anti American editors that monitor the Jeremy Clarkson page. I noticed on the 3rd of August that this Jeremy Clarkson quote had been added: "when you buy an American car, you must afterwards have sex with your cousin, because that's what [Americans] do.". I looked on GOOGLE and The BBC and could not find any such quote so I deleted it as the editor had NO SOURCE. I believe that if you are going to quote someone as saying that an entire nation is INCESTUOS, that you should CITE THE SOURCE and back it up.

User Ryulong did not agree. Ryulong began to revert my edits and said that Jeremy 'probably did say it" and that "It sounds like something he'd say". Jeremy had his admin buddies block my username and he reverted the article back to the status where it said that ALL AMERICANS ARE INCESTUOS. The actual quote is "if you buy an American car you're gonna have to commit acts of love with your cousin". The actual quote as you can see is VERY different than the SPICED UP version that Ryulong tried to edit into a factual document. He insisited and went to great lengths spending over 3 hours trying to get it to stick. The page now has the correct quote AND the source. I'd say that my contribution to the page far outweighs RYULONG's politically and ego motivated contributions.

You wanna block me and count up my thousands of IPs and block them then be my guest. I am only writing this because I think it's wrong that such a WIKIBULLY could possibly be considered for ADMIN. It's a joke. INCEST IS NEVER FUNNY and falsely claiming that an entire nation is incestuous and going to great lengths to keep it that way, is nothing but XENOPHOBIC.

I have a proper USER ID with nearly 2,000 edits. I will never use it to edit pages with politi-wiki-bullies monitoring them. I prefer it this way.

You don't have to doubt my story OR wonder about it. Go to Jeremy Clarkson and look at the history and also the DISCUSSION history. You will see no holes in my story. Make ADMIN out of that guy? TOO CROOKED!

Thanks for reading.

YourCousin - --86.29.116.209 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a dose of WP:POINT will hopefully show YourCousin that his activities only worsen his reputation. WhisperToMe 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I have explained, there is no reputation. I noticed that when you edit the Anti American rhetoric out of theJeremy Clarkson page that the Anti-American editors chase you down undoing your work, marking you articles for deletion and haveing you blocked for fictional violations. I would never affiliate my real username with nearly 2,000 edits with this mess. I went to battle with some people that were using the page for their own political purposes and I have succeeded. The fictional INCEST quote has been fixed. I have no beef anymore. I'm just watching all you busybodies having some good fun pretending to block me. You guys are soooo cool to hang out with. Thanks for the smug little comment WhisperTome... I'll think about the 'YourCousin' reputation tonight when I'm laughing myself to sleep.

YourCousin--86.29.118.28 20:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no fictional incest quote. Jeremy Clarkson said everything about Americans and incest on his show. No one is being Anti-American (other than Clarkson, himself). I am, in fact, American. I don't use "coloured" pencils, I use "colored" pencils. I don't go to the "cinema" I go to the "movie theater". I drive on the right (not left) side of the road. I was born in New York, and I have never left the North American continent. If you continue to harass me, as well as do vandalous edits at pages I watch, you will continue to be blocked for your actions. Ryūlóng 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey everybody! I found his ISP - It is "NTL" - If he continues, we can contact NTL. WhisperToMe 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok FOLKS! Ryulong is determined to confuse this issue with word trickery. Here it is in plain English. When I looked at the Jeremy Clarkson page the quote said : "when you buy an American car, you must afterwards have sex with your cousin, because that's what [Americans] do." -

JEREMY NEVER SAID THIS - But what it does say is that "THAT's WHAT AMERICANS DO", in English, this means THAT's WHAT AMERICANS DO... anyone confused? It says that all Americans have incest VERY CLEARLY.

The ACTUAL quote is (the one on the page now thanks to ME): "if you buy an American car you're gonna have to commit acts of love with your cousin". see? anyone confused? The ACTUAL quote does not say anything about what Americans do... See the difference?

So, Ryulong, wrong again. The misquote that you tried so hard to uphold, the one that I was suspended for reverting, is exactly what I said it is, UNTRUE. You fought hard and long stating that "HE PROBABLY SIAD IT" and that "IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING HE WOULD'VE SAID"... these are not the decisive words of Wikipedia Admin.

Your rebuttal above shows that you are craft, devious, dishonest and that you intend to use Wikipedia for your own POLITICAL agenda and to bully people with opinons different to yours... in my case, my opinion was fact...yours was politically and egotistically motivated. You are a WIKI-THUG... and definietly not ADMIN material.

YourCousin--86.29.118.28 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He gave me a threat on my talk page - See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=cur - And contact NTL here http://bbplus.ntlworld.com/NetReport/index.php WhisperToMe 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

YourCousin: you need to learn about citing quotes. When something is between brackets (like these: []) then that means the information within the brackets is being clarified. Clarkson may not have said "Americans" on his show for that clip, but he did mean it. Ryūlóng 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He gave me another threat at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=67707541&oldid=67706514 WhisperToMe 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a threat. I've found the NOTICEBOARD to be inneffective and emailing "The BOARD" results in computer generated emails when dealing with crooked people, so I devised my own method for punishing bullies. It's VERY effective. I have already had 3 bullies abandon their accounts, one with more than 7,000 edits. I have never vandalised a page once, but I have upset certain politically motivated wiki-bullies with fact backed up by sources. I advise anyone else to do the same. Get tons of ISP accounts!!! They're free and they nullify WIki-Bully blocks. It's a good bit of fun. Now stop bullying me and look at the history taht I so eloquently described above so that you can see what has been going on on the histroy pages. THE TRUTH KICKS ASS!

P.S. to Charlie Chan who discovered that NTL (BRITAINS LARGEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY) is the ISP provider to DIXONS, TSCO, PC WORLD, CURRYS, COMET, BOOTS and MANY MORE!! GOOD WORK BOY WONDER!! GOOD LUCK!

YourLovinCousin--81.174.209.116 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[102] WhisperToMe 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong, I tried to communicate with you last night. That didn't work so I tried to open a TOPIC on the discussion page at Jeremy Clarkson and you just deleted it SEVEN TIMES so that nobody could talk about it then had me blocked!!...

Now that we have an audience you're a lovely gentleman.. this is much better!

Well I'm sorry .. it's too little, too late. You proved that you're crooked time and time again. It's even in the histories. I don't care what kind of quotes are used for what... one paragrpah above that you were claiming that there was no FICTIONAL QUOTE... now that I've pasted it you are saying.. 'yeh there was one but the brakcets blah blah blah..." ... you are making it worse for yourself. It's two paragrpahs up.,.. now you are arguing with yourself?

No fictional quote? Now you say "Yeah but"?... I'm sorry... you are clearly not WIKI ADMIN material. You are dishonest, weaselly and devious.

It's not only above in YOUR own words, but also in the histories of the pages that I have referred to above. Don't try so hard. It doesn't pay to be a crooked bully. Dishonesty always gets found out. How long did you think you could keep the page like that? you must know that Americans would be looking at it.

You may have turned the tables and had me suspended etc.,.. but you are the liar. You have contradicted yourself HEAVILY on this very page.

YourCousin--86.29.112.67 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you constantly say I'm not American? And I did not delete it seven times. And even in each time it was a rant against me. I have watched the clip about the Dodge Charger, and the video does not continue to where Clarkson would have said anything. The part where it mentions "sexual acts with your cousin" is gone. However, he did mention incest when he was talking about the Ford F150, and that quote will stay. Your actions are not proving you to be a serious editor with evading your block by constantly changing your IP, and with your constant harassments of myself, WhisperToMe, and any user who did anything at my RFA, you will find your ISP pulled. Ryūlóng 21:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to resolve the issue with the anon IP on his talk page, but am waiting for a reply. --TheM62Manchester 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong LIES AGAIN when he says he didn't delete my TOPIC seven times. It's right on the DISCUSSION HISTORY of the Jeremy Clarkson page. I even started to note the amount of times he deleted it within the EDIT SUMMARY and at the top of the TOPIC each time.

Also, RYULONG opens the above statement with "Why do you constantly say I'm not American?"... I have NEVER said this and you won't find him pointing you to any HISTORY page to say I did because this is the exact calibre of MIS-INFORMATION that this ADMIN NOMINEE thrives on!

This guy is lying now. You only have to look at the HISTORY OF THE PAGE to see who is telling the truth. Please people.... you just have to look! Ryulong tried desperately to make the page say that ALL AMERICANS PRACTICE incest. It's CLEAR for all to see in the history.

For the new people, I was suspended for reverting this quote that Ryulong FOUGHT HEAVILY to preserve: "when you buy an American car, you must afterwards have sex with your cousin, because that's what [Americans] do."

I told him many, many times that the quote was wrong and tried to get him to find the real quote and cite the source (ITS ALL IN THE HISTORY)... he refused, deleted it and had his admin buddies block me and even made SMUG remarks about me, JASON SMITH in the edit history. Yes, He put MY NAME in the edit history! ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS LOOK!! This person is WAAAY too devious to be ADMIN... lies on the page here.. and all the lies I've claimed he's said, are SUBSTANTIATED IN THE HISTORY... you only have to look.

Thanks TheM62Manchester! You are the first person to contact me that didn't want to bully, threaten or make a smug comment. It's nice to see a productive and polite Wikipedian. I will take your advice and I look forward to a long future editing. I have contributed to 41 articles today under my real account. Thanks again mate... You calmed things a bit...

RYULONG... You have lied 3 times on this page.. challenge me to point them out? I can cite sources if you like?

Wiki-bullies are weak.

This guym TheM62Manchester should be nominated for ADMIN, he is cool calm and collected... seems like an honest chap too!

Peace everybody, even the corrupt and egotistical.

YourCousin--86.29.112.67 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have apologized to you, including removing the content you questioned, and this is the response you gave me on my talk page and this is your response here? I did not remove the information seven times. I only did it twice. You should check the history. I am not Blah3. I am not a wikibully. You are with your constant false accusations. Ryūlóng 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK CHECK THIS OUT!!!: RYULONG has just emailed me to say that actually NEITHER QUOTES ARE TRUE!!! THIS IS CLASSIC!! WHY THE HELL AM I SUSPENDED??? Because Ryulong had has Admin buddies do it to me... here is what he JUST pasted on my page:

“ I watched the clip that ChicosBailBonds cited as to have the comment about "when you buy an American car..." and the quote was not in the video clip. I have removed that quote, per your constant wishes and (constant) attacks on my status as a good editor. However, the "Whatever they do..." from the Ford F150 clip will remain, as that is explicity stated in the clip. I hope that now that I have discovered the truth about this whole nonsense (for now), that you can stop slandering me. Ryūlóng 21:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) ”

So BOTH QUOTES are bogus AND the source that they CITED NEVER SAID IT!!!

Anyone? apologies?

THIS GUY IS A WEASEL!! ANYONE THAT VOTES FOR HIM IS PROBABLY HIS BUDDY ALREADY!! THE FACTS ARE SCREAMING!!!

ALL THIS MESS FOR NOTHING!!! CLARKSON NEVER SAID ANY OF IT!! THESE GUYS MADE IT UP AND HAD ME SUSPENDED FOR POINTING IT OUT!!!

WHEN THE HEAT GOT HOT, RYULONG, ADMIN NOMNINEE CAME CLEAN!!

It took 2516 blocks, but look... he has admitted that IT WAS NEVER SAID AT ALL!!

YourHonestCousin(I'm still standing you BULLY!)--86.29.112.67 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that both quotes are bogus. I said that the original quote that was questioned is not in the video clip that was cited for it. Read closer. Watch the video for the Ford F150 clip. Ryūlóng 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

RYULONG, not only were you wrong the WHOLE time, but you had your admin friends suspend me for trying to correct your anti-american sentiments that you and your friends made up. the quote cannot be sourced because you made it up. Everytime I tried to start a discussion you deleted it 7 TIMES@!! IT'S IN THE HISTORY ON THE JEREMY CLARKSON PAGE!!

You didn't like to be corrected for your fictional fantasies so you had your friends block and ban me for removing mis-information that you yourelf have just removed!!

ANYONE THAT VOTES FOR THIS GUY TO BE ADMIN IS PROBABLY RELATED TO HIM!!

CROOKED WIKI BULLY!!! BEWARE!!! DONT LET THE HIGH NUMBER OF EDITS FOOL YOU!!

QUALITY NOT QUANTITY!!!

Ryulong, everytime you respond you leak out another little lie or cover up... why don't you just go away now... I do not require a response from you. The page has been corrected, yet you are still bitchin! wjy not let it rest!? We can see by this page alone that you are dishonest, that you operate with mis-information and that you like a rigged deck... you like to move the goal posts.... NOT IF I CAN HELP IT!

BOOK 'IM DAN-O!!

YourGloriusCousinStillEditingUnderMyRealIdSoF.O.--86.29.119.4 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that both quotes were never said. I merely said that the quote that was cited from the Dodge Charger segment was not seen in the video clip that ChicosBailBond provided. Ryūlóng 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FOR ANYONE JUST TUNING IN, I HAVE BEEN BLOCKED AND SUSPENDED FOR REVERTING VANDALISM THAT RYULONG AND HIS FRIENDS MADE UP! NOW THAT THE ISSUE IS ON THIS PAGE, RYULONG HAS DECIDED TO ADMIT THAT THE QUOTE ABOUT ALL AMERICANS PRACTICING INCEST IS FALSE AND TOTALLY FICTIONAL. THIS PERSON IS ALSO CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED FOR ADMIN! FUNNY WORLD HUH!!

LOOK AT THE TOP OF THIS COLUMN, LOOK AT ALL THE TIME WASTED BLOCKING ALL THOSE IPs JUST BECAUSE THIS GUY WANTED HIS FICTIONAL INCEST FANTASIES TO BE REPRESENTED IN THE JEREMY CLARKSON ARTICLE! THIS TIME WASTING, DISHONEST USER DOES NOT CONSITUTE WIKIPEDIA ADMIN MATERIAL!

YOURDAMNCOUSIN--86.29.126.132 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This guy is now vandalizing articles that I watch. See the history at Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Ryūlóng 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I watch Jeremy Clarkson and you and your friends made up a QUOTE and cited it is AUTHENTIC when you knew that the source DIDN't CONTAIN the quote. The quote involved INCEST... yeh very funny! So you are VANDALISING the Jeremy Clarkson page AND you are a nominee for ADMIN? I think that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You have lied countless times on this page alone... if people bother to check the history of the Jeremy Clarkson and it's discussion page, we can see what fun you are when your comments are not appearing on the ADMIN NOTICEBOARD. You made up two different quotes and then cited a source that didn't substantiate your PHONEY quote... YOU ARE THE VANDAL! Only difference is...l you think you are admin material... which after people look at the history I speak of, will be a laughing matter.

So why not LEAVE ME ALONE Ryulong and stop sending stupid threats that you can't uphold to me... it's innane... You lost. The quote that you insisted was true has now been corrected by yourself solely because of MY comments on this page and your fear of it affecting your ADMIN nomination.

Go away little boy... go away!

YourCousin--86.29.113.26 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn, this guy has gone back and reverted legitimate edits of mine in the last few minutes, calling them vandalism. Ryūlóng 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've placed another rangeblock. Hopefully this will stop for now. Naconkantari 00:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This guy has several ranges that he can utilize.

• 81.174.200.0/24 through 81.174.220.0/24
• 86.29.110.0/24 though 81.174.130.0/24
• The only one that appears unrelated is 82.17.33.199

There has to be a way to keep him blocked, but still allow the most amount of users to be unblocked. I think the last time there was such a vandal an /18 was used. Ryūlóng 00:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

He's recently editted under another subnet completely, 213.130.142.5. Ryūlóng 01:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Ryulong!!! You won't distract too many people from the fact that you FALSIFIED AN INCEST QUOTE AND HAD ME SUSPENDED FOR REVERTING IT AND CHALLENGING YOU! WHEN I TRIED TO BRING IT UP ON THE Jeremy Clarkson DISCUSSION PAGE YOU DLETED IT SEVEN TIMES(IT'S IN THE HISTORY) TO PREVENT ME FROM BLOCKING IT AND YOUR LITTLE FRIENDS HAVE EVEN TRIED TO DELETE THIS THREAD OF THIS PAGE (IT'S ION THE HISTORY) CROOKED/CROOKED/CROOKED

LOOK AT THE HISTORY AND PLEASE, IF YOU HAVE THE PATIENCE.... READ THE ABOVE AND YOU WILL SEE THE INNER WORKINGS OF A TRUE WEASEL...

THIS GUY IS TRYING TO DISTRACT FROM THE FACT THAT HE IS A WIKI-BULLY UP FOR ADMIN NOMINATION RIGHT NOW BUT THIS PAGE GIVES AWAY THE TRUTH THAT HE IS A WIKI BULLY THAT USES THE SITE FOR POLITICAL REASONS AND THAT HIS EDITS ARE OF A QUANTITY NATURE RATHER THAN QUALITY.

PLEASE READ ABOVE AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THE HISTORY SECTION OF THE JEREMY CLARKSON ARTICLE AND DISCUSSION SHOWS THAT THIS USER IS A MILLION MILES FROM ADMIN MATERIAL!! A REAL EGOMANIAC STALKER AND BULLY!

DONT LET THE COVER-UP GANG DELETE THIS THREAD!!! PUT IT ON YOUR WATCHLIST!! IT HAS BEEN DELETeD ONCE, UNLIKE MY DISCUSSION TOPIC ON THE JEREMY CLARKSON PAGE WHICH WAS DELETED SEVEN TIMES BY RYULONG WHO WANTED HIS FALSE INCEST QUOTE TO REMAIN!!!

yOURcOUSIN--80.225.141.223 02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, another IP this guy is using...and he screwed up his caps. Ryūlóng 02:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This guy is Repmart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He just sent me a very inappropriate email from repmart at repmart.com. Ryūlóng 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking User:Homeontherange sockpuppets

On July 23 User:Homeontherange claimed to have left Wikipedia and asked to have his account blocked, in order to avoid an arbitration case that was being brought against him for various abuses, including sockpuppeting. As it turns out, even while the case was being considered, and before he claimed to have left, he was creating even more sockpuppets, and since then this has continued. In all he has created at least a dozen sockpuppets, some of which he has used to harass former "enemies", and some of which ended up being blocked for various kinds of disruptive behavior. Yesterday, while following up on one of the accounts that had been blocked as a sockpuppet of WordBomb, I discovered the extent of Homeontherange's behavior. I consulted with the Arbitration Committee list, and in agreement with them I have now tagged and blocked all of his sockpuppets (well, all the sockuppets that weren't already blocked by others). The entire list of sockpuppets can be found here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Homeontherange. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good move. FeloniousMonk 15:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if one of the checkuser clerks would open a case page on this (or append to an existing one, if there is one). Essjay (Talk) 15:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You rang? Thatcher131 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed Homeontherange has been desysopped. Was this at his request or was it an emergency measure? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was at his request, see his talk page. --TheM62Manchester 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

a) User:Homeontherange is a defunct account, I do not have access to it since I don't have the password. The account was never banned but was blocked and desysopped on my request as I no longer had access to it and as I suspected someone else had gained access to it at some point meaning it was not secure.

b) Jay is incorrect to say that I left wikipedia to avoid an RFA, I explicitly said that the RFA should not be discontinued because I was leaving and that if it continued I'd be happy to stay and fight it. However, since I no longer had access to the account and since there were several imposters, one of whom I believe was User:Dervish Tsaddik (who posted as "daughterofzion" and signed several anon IP posts as "sonofzion" and may have also been the original User:Sonofzion) there was no way to be certain on which of the IPs posting to the RFA were actually "Homeontherange".

c) the Homeonetherange account was not banned and was not going to be banned (the RFA was on desysopping) hence it is absurd to accuse that account of having sockpuppets, particularly when the account is defunct.

d) Jayjg is completely mischaracterising the behaviour of the alleged sockpuppets. If one actually looks at their edits they are not controversial. Jay wrongly implies that numerous of the accounts were blocked because they were being "disruptive". In fact, only one of these alleged sockpuppets was blocked and that was because it was, incorrectly, accused of belonging to Wordbomb since it asked whether the checkuser for Mantanmoreland was going to be posted (it's beyond me why such a query is considered "disruptive" as a checkuser was run on Mantanmoreland and came out positive).

e) the alleged sockpuppets were not editing the same articles and were not doing anything in violation of WP:SOCK

f) the accounts were not being operated by a single person though they were using a shared semi-public IP in the computer room of a co-op. User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish and User:4thright, for instance, were not the same person who used User:Homeontherange. I did use a few of the alleged sockpuppets after I junked Homeontherange but did so on a temporary basis (ie one day each) without bothering to retain the password as I do not wish to return to wikipedia permanently. 69.158.191.248 22:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

At some point, this spinning will have to stop. User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish just happened to find and question PinchasC's mediation nomination. [103] PinchasC was one of the admins who filed the recent RfAr against Homeontherange. Why would a new user who was not a sock or meat puppet of Homeontherange home in on precisely that page? User:Hunting Thomas also just happened to find PETA, an article Homeontherange had stalked me to before. [104] Hunting Thomas then posted on Talk:William Connolley pretending to be a new user who didn't understand 3RR, [105] which makes the use of the account deceptive and a violation of WP:SOCK. And there's no question that User:Sonofzion was Homeontherange evading his block for 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And what was the question asked of PinchasC? Whether he'd ever informally mediated, wasn't it[106]? That's hardly an abusive question slim, the way it came about was I mentioned to Fluffy that Pinchas didn't strike me as suited for mediation and so he asked if he had ever mediated before. As for the edits to PETA, your exact comment about the Hunting Thomas edit was:

Yes, I agree that this is a legitimate section, and well written. It's good so long as the references are, which I haven't checked, because these comments are about a living person, so WP:BLP applies. When writing up references, please use the ref tag, and enter: Name of author, URL, headline, name of publication, date of publication if available, and date you retrieved it if you can be bothered (the last thing isn't necessary). Otherwise, it's good. Thank you for writing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[107]

If the edit was abusive or harassing you would have hardly thanked one for it. Editing one article of yours is hardly stalking, stop being so proprietorial, particularly when the edit improved the article and resulted in your thanks. Edits that improve wikipedia are hardly abuses.72.60.227.118 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You won't believe me, but I wrote that because I knew it was you, and I guessed that the thing that'd annoy you more than anything was if I thanked you for the edit that you were hoping I'd object to. There is something quite distinctive that you almost always do, Homey, when you post, even when you're trying to hide it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean I didn't think the edit was fine, because I did. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

SV has a point about the 3RR, I shouldn't have asked William Connelly to review whether or not there had been a violation and used feigned newbiness as a conceit - I should have just asked him to review the edits or filed a 3RR report directly without any pretence. My apologies. However, I did not keep up the pretence and when you asked whether the account belonged to an existing user I said it was an alternate account as permitted under SOCK.[108]. 72.60.227.118 05:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Homey, an apology is not enough. Your actions have been disruptive. Myself and other admins spent hours of our time trying sort out your sockpuppet accounts. Your actions confused the situation, making it more difficult to accurately enforce a ban against WordBomb, an indef banned user. Sorry but I agree with a community ban. You can ask the Arbcomm and Jimbo to review it. --FloNight ^talk 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

I propose that we declare a community ban of User:Homeontherange, in all past, present and future incarnations, whether sockpuppet or single purpose account, for exhausting our patience. That should remove any further need for wikilawyering about Jayjg's blocking your accounts, whether they are technically socks by the letter of the policy, etc. ad nauseum. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's you who is doing the wikilawyering and retroactively trying to justify an unjustified ban. See Post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you want to ban me then go to the ArbComm rather than trying to sneak it in by the back door (I've opened an RFA on Jay and Pinchas' behaviour). The so-called sock puppets were non-abusive - if you want me to only edit with one account fine, I'll do that (though my edits have been tapering off, actually, and will continue to do so) but retroactively declaring Homeontherange banned is an abuse of process as is trying to distort policy to justify an action - it's pretty easy to throw out the concept of due process and rule of law by arguing that these things are "lawyerly" traits but it's a dangerous route for wikipedia to go down Thatcher131. 72.60.227.118 03:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Home is clearing attempting to still edit while avoid going through his ArbCom. The chutzpah to accuses the admins trying to deal with the situation of wikilawyering is outstanding. He has already attempted to bring his own RfAr (which of course is on his terms). I support a community ban and an end to this nonsense. JoshuaZ 04:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting things Joshua. The RFA against me had to do *only* with being an admin - as PinchasC wrote in the confirmation section "Not applicable. This is a request for review of admin status." I am no longer an admin by my own request so that RFA is moot. If you don't want an RFA to be avoided then let's go to the ArbComm by all means rather than acting arbitrarily against non-abusive edits. Anyway, as you should well know, an RFA is really never on anyone's terms but the ArbComm so your commont "of course is on his terms" is nonsense. If you think I'm trying to edit while "avoid going through his ArbCom" then fine, lets go to the ArbComm. Given User:Homeontherange's long history and the relatively good status that account enjoyed until just a few months ago acting in an arbitrary manner without going to an RFA is unjustified, particularly given the fact that we are not dealing with personal attacks but with edits which even SV conceded were "legitimate" and "good" in the case of the PETA article. Again, if you want to ban me then go to ArbComm rather than banning through the back door. 72.60.227.118 04:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Homey, as I wrote above, an apology is not good enough this time to get you out of trouble. I support a community ban for disruptive sockpuppets. Your actions interfered with other editors and admins ability to go about their business writing the encyclopedia. --FloNight ^talk 05:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very serious against this. This is a typical case that needs to be done by the ArbCom. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry was seriously abusive. There were RfArs being filed, then withdrawn; requests for desysopping that no one knew whether to trust; interference in trying to keep track of WordBomb, an abusive user who was engaged in on- and off-wiki harassment; one of the sockpuppets accused me of admin abuse because I blocked a WordBomb account after he had tried to "out" an editor; the attempt to interfere with PinchasC's nomination. I can't see why a ban would not be appropriate, because these things drain trust. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I just wonder what is Kim van der Linde role in all this: She came in as "neutral" honset mediator but clearly tried tio tilt the mediation to one side, eventually, after causing much disruption to the mediation process (deadedned) she ended the dragged on mediation and joined one side, filled nomerous "evidence" trying to cause great hardship to admins and editors who tried to resolve the situation. In the process she tried again to absolve some sock puppets by using some non public "tools" that no one but her can see the results. All this time the Wikipedia article on "israeli partheid" gained in number of google popularity something (that if I remeber correctly and if i am mistaken I appologize on the spot) Kim at some point argued that it is favorable result. This whole set of articles by Homey (with the support he got from Kim) has resulted in great great disruption to everyone involved. maybe Kim should just censor her self fro a month or two and let the disruption clear itself out ? Zeq 08:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

PS this is also part of the sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=70.48.89.229 Zeq 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, thank you, you made very clear why this should not go by community support, but by ArbCom. The case is way to complicated for a simple community ban. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Kim: Your own contribution is indeed complex. This is why I wondered what is your own role ? I suggested you save everyone some time and censor yourself for 1-2 month. As for Homey, it is pretty simple. A person that has over dozen sockppupets is not acting in good faith. Zeq 09:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, Jayjg posted on the check-user page that he had consulted with the Arbitration Committee before taking action against the accounts, so they're aware of the situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not on the CU page, but above. Jayjg wrote: "I consulted with the Arbitration Committee list, and in agreement with them I have now tagged and blocked all of his sockpuppets (well, all the sockuppets that weren't already blocked by others)." And they did already know that Homey said he couldn't use user:Homeontherange anymore, so they presumably understood that this meant all his accounts were being blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me point out that in the past, he had said he was leaving, but obviously has not done so. He has posted from IPs and then claimed they were impersonating him. He says he has used single purpose accounts to make constructive edits, but at least one of them (User:Barbamama) was highly disruptive, and others have targeted his previous foes' edits. In fact, if it were not for Barbamama, the rest of his accounts probably never would have been found out, so he only has himself to blame. However, since there are admins who still defend him, Arbitration is probably the best route. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a situation that is not simple, and I think that a community ban should be used only in cases where the story is clear. As such, yes I oppose this proposed community ban. Whether they for that reason want to start a ArbCom case is their decision, although I have added a note to the pending ArbCom case about that this proposed community ban, and suggested it should be merged. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should be all too obvious that Kim has her own reasons for not wanting a community ban of Homey. She has found herself on the same side of him in every single situation where they have come into contact, and they were the only ones that supported one another's terribly one-sided proposals in the apartheid arbitration case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the definition of a community ban is "no one objects." Thatcher131 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It can't be the definition that not a single person objects, because there are always one or two who object to these things. The question is whether there's consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and for me, the reactions I get that are not dealing with the substance, but contain all kind of baseless accusations towards me to justify that I should have no voice in this makes it very clear that this case has gone way beyond a simple community ban. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You defend Homey no matter what. We know that he has recently posted using 15 sockpuppets and 20 anon IPs. These are only the ones we know about; and still you defend him. That's why your credibility has been reduced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, but I am sure it will be near imposible to convice you of my motivations in anything I do, as you have clearly made up your mind about me (and Homey for that matter). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You've done nothing but cause trouble for weeks. You've teamed up with Homeontherange to try to impose sanctions on editors who tried to oppose his disruption. You claim to have left but still hang around to propose arbcom cases, make snide remarks, and edit your user subpages. You're an admin and yet you support a highly disruptive user who engages in abusive sockpuppetry. I don't see how my knowing your intentions would change what I can see you actually doing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Kim, I find it odd that you have first tried to defend Homey's fringe political views (during after the mediation in which you were supposed to the honest broker) and continued to defend his behaviour. Is it really his behaviour that you find justifiable ? or is that you share his political views and to push such views in wikipedia you willling to accept any kind of behaviour ? Zeq 15:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a copy of my statement put on ArbCase that EX-Homey filed.

IMO that User:Homeontherange is currently under a community ban. All of User:Homeontherange's user accounts are indef blocked on sight by myself and other admins. No other admins have undone these blocks. This type of behavior by the community is by definition a community ban. If they so desire, the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo can review our ban. If the Arb com wants to open a case and modify the community ban they can. Until an admin reverses one of User:Homeontherange's blocked account, hopefully with full community consensus, I consider him under a community ban and will continue to block his sockpuppet user accounts. FloNight ^talk 14:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked ExHomey

Move up the page so discussion is together. Blocked ExHomey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Claims to be Homeontherange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Blocked as imposter/username problem among other reasons such as abusive socks. --FloNight ^talk 02:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked him to participate in the arbitration case. He has been requested to limit his editing to arbitration pages. Fred Bauder 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

afd

Im writing regarding a very controversial subject that is being afd'd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem-reaction-solution.

Basically, people are lining up to vote "delete -> RS", claiming there are no reliable sources. At the same time, there are no actual claims of factuality made in the article itself, it just reports opinions of people, and what the people cited view the term stands for and what were it is manifested.

As i understand it, Reliable Sources are needed if one is to claim something as factual. For example, if i say "Iraq has wmd's", i need to have a very reputable source claiming it, for example multiple mainstream publications.

But that is not the case for a opinion. If someone is quoted as having a opinion, then his own admission is enough as being a reliable source for that opinion.

Now, people are arguing to delete that article with arguments like: "The examples provided are not factual, and there is no RS for claiming that they are. The people cited are not RS"

This is problematic in many ways, in my view. First, the article is not claiming them to be factual, it only states that people hold those views. Further, they admit that the people cited hold that view, agreeing that there is no dispute regarding the people holding those views, but they proceed to argue that those peoples view is not a reliable source for the factuality of the claims. But the article does not claim the events to be factual to start with!'

This is nothing more than twisting words. They make a false claim, and then argue that the article needs to go based on that false claim, while at the same time agreeing to what the article actually stats: That it is a term used by conspiracy theorists.

The claims of the term being a neology is refuted, and so is the claim of it being a non-notable, so people are just throwing false arguments in order to get it deleted.

But what is more: The article itself is about a term. Even if the entire "Example" section was to be deleted as non-RS, it would still not merit to delete the article, since it is representing a real-life phenomena: the use of the term, and what it means: the very basic function of a encyclopedia.--Striver 11:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• A few things here. First, Striver, I think it is courteous to post new comments to the bottom of the page (I'm not moving this, however, because I don't want to cause problems). Next, an encyclopaedia does not need to report on opinions. It needs to report on facts, so if the article makes no factual claims, then it shouldn't be here. Last, an encyclopaedia does not give "the meaning and use of terms", as you suggest above. A dictionary does that, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In short, I don't see why this merits a posting on the Admin noticeboard, really. Byrgenwulf 11:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry, i did'nt know that. As for "Next, an encyclopaedia does not need to report on opinions.", then what is International reactions to the 2006 Qana airstrike? Or Jewish view of Jesus? They are nothing else than "factual opinions". What i mean is that the non-opinion facts, such as "x was Problem-Reaction-Solution" is not stated as fact, rather as "y views x as Problem-Reaction-Solution", and then quotes y's personal admision as a sources. Since nobody disputes that Y belives that, there is no valid reason to claim there is a lack of RS. With that said, "It needs to report on facts" is fullfilled. WP:NPOV:

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results

And that is exactly what the article does. As for "the meaning and use of terms", see Islamofascist, it has a "Application" section and also a "Origins and usage" and a "Examples of use in public discourse" section. When the exact same thing is done in the Problem-reaction-solution article, then all hell is breaking loose. Im bringin this issue here in hope of geting some actual argumentations, since the people on the afd and talk page give arguements that display an unaccaptable level of ignorance for wikipedia policies, and i was hoping to find a higher level of argumentation here.--Striver 14:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what intervention by administrators do you want? Continuing the AfD argument on this page is completely inappropriate. --ajn (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am hoping to either be shown were i am misstaken, or to agree with me that there is a problem of a majority imposing its will with bogus arguements, and that being a problem for the integrity of wikipedia. --Striver 17:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should let the AfD run its course, and then utilize the deletion review process if you don't like the outcome. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And please, stop attacking everyone who votes "delete" Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 10:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Acadamenorth

Acadamenorth (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was indef-blocked by Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as having indicated a determination not to respect policy (see also this threat and the usual talk page whitewashing). Actually what the user says is "I have thoroughly read the wikipedia policies and I have decided I have not broken any of those". So that's alright then... Anyway, he's now unblocked (again by Friday) due to collateral damage caused by autoblocks. I think the block should stand; not only was his first action after the unblock to come and start harassing me again, he's a serial reposter of deleted content, Acadame north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acadame north) was indeed a repost of Acadame North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and I think it also appeared under other variants of spacing and capitalisation. Just zis Guy you know? 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd been hoping he wouldn't notice he'd been unblocked. I've no objection to anyone reblocking. Friday (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at his edits this morning since the unblock. Not exactly vandalism, but still pretty much worthless. Look at his idea of an acceptable article to create, which has since been basically wiped out by editors with knowledge of the subject at hand (Tito). Fan-1967 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian

Criticism is not allowed. Admin refuses to even allow the NPOV tag despite multiple users complaining about the glorification of The Guardian. Admin will no doubt deny everything and post ridiculous rationale/excuse for his/her actions. Same old nonsense. Almost gets boring. Almost. Tchadienne 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. No administrative action has been taken, and none seems to be needed. If you are interested in getting more editors involved in the article, please see WP:RFC. Jkelly 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If I didnt want administrative action to be taken, then why would I mention this? I'm asking for the page to be protected, at the bare minimum. If possible I'd like an administrator's intervention/opinion on the matter on the page in question. Tchadienne 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Except for protecting pages during heated edit wars, administrators have no special authority to intervene in content disputes. As stated above, this is a content dispute which users must work out between themselves. If some of those users are also admins, they are not acting in their administrative capacity—to do so would be against policy. -- SCZenz 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tchadienne's version has been opposed by everyone who has shown up so far. But it's not that everyone tries to cover up any criticism the way he wants it to seem. The points others made on the talk page should make it clear that they act in good faith. To end the war, one probably only has to block him because his adding back the dispute-tag can be seen as a revert, which is his fourth today. And he's promised to go on. Sciurinæ 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think there's a 3RR violation, report it on WP:AN/3RR, please. -- SCZenz 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I, for my part, won't. Reporting always wastes an incredible amount of precious time and I've got to go. Sciurinæ 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WTH? How is adding the NPOV tag a rv? Explain that. Tchadienne 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected Discussion Page?

The discussion page for Matrixism has been protected and can only be accessed by administrators. I can understand why someone might want to protect the Matrixism entry itself but to protect the discussion page seems to be very much against the spirit of Wikipedia. D166ER 18:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the article has been deleted, discussion should be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Talk pages of deleted pages can be legitimately deleted per the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page, and then protected if the content is recreated repeatedly. -- SCZenz 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack by User:Sarastro777

The user has gone on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Defense Forces using human shields and accused users voting delete of the following: Most of the ridiculous delete arguments are made by Israelis and in line with a massive propaganda operation [| Operation Megaphone] being orchestrated by the Israeli Gov't. [109] Not only is does this break with WP:Civility but it also breaks with WP:NPA which specifically states that "Accusatory comments", such as thing one that accuse users of being "Israeli spies", are personal attacks. --Jersey Devil 18:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The accusations made by User:Sarastro777 really is in line with everthing else he has written. His entire reason for editing wikipedia seems to center around the addition of anything negative about Israel, often violating civility and good faith and indeed reason and common sense in process. Sarastro is a problematic user to the extreme.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but he justifies his personal attacks, and claims that pointing them out is actually an attack on him! [110] Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is an administrator going to respond to this?--Jersey Devil 23:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

His user page says, "A lot of these "activists" are "Administrators" on Wikipedia and if following the orders of the Israeli Gov't will collude to ban and intimidate you, despite how it affects Wikipedia." I think I'm supposed to suggest that someone on good terms with him ask nicely that he rephrase that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Way International

This is an interesting situation. A user keeps on pushing his or her own version of the article, claiming it to be the "truthful point of view". Now, the user is making threats that he or she will "refer Wikipedia and its users to the Way International for review". Now, knowing this religious organization (and being an ex-member), it's quite possible they may try to make something out of it — how should we proceed? I was talking with Phil, and he's also interested in this lengthy development. — Deckiller 18:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to it later. I've indefinitely blocked the user for vandalism and censorship--not meant to be an infinite block, but I don't think we should set an expiration date on this issue just yet. I'll report back after I look into it more. — Philwelch t 18:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted a notice on the user's talkpage; s/he seems to be calmer now, but we await his/her reply. — Deckiller 19:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I also placed a one week block on 68.191.110.65 for similar vandalism and censorship. The IP has never contributed any edits not related to this issue, but I felt an indefinite block was not in order due to it being an IP. I think what we have here is a Scientology/LaRouche/US Congress-style attempt at censoring out information unfavorable to the organization being written about. I saw multiple cited claims removed from the article, and from what I've gathered, this organization is something of a cult, which lends certain Scientology/LaRouche-esque overtones to these removals. The content should be investigated by established and trusted members of the community. It should also be noted that the blocked user (User:Stanleygoodspeed777) left veiled legal threats in his edit summaries ("Wikipedia and each libelist is being referred to The Way International for review"). If TWI's legal team is anything like Scientology's, that's a potent threat indeed. — Philwelch t 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have looked over some of the cited material that was removed and it looks well within WP:RS and other guidelines. I've added the page to my watchlist and I suggest other admins do so as well. JoshuaZ 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The user appearently calmed down on his talk page, citing that he didn't know about the article's talk page and thought there was no room for discussion. Think we should life the block on Stanley and give him another chance, or take his info with a grain of salt (even though it came just before the block?). — Deckiller 20:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'd say give him one more chance. The user doesn't have any edits to the talk page so it is a minimally plausible explanation. But make it clear to him that any further attacks or threats will not be tolerated. JoshuaZ 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No way. We aren't losing anything by keeping this guy blocked, and if we unblock him we're only going to incur more risk. He's crossed the line to legal threats, and that line just doesn't get uncrossed. When I first blocked him I thought maybe there was a chance for unblocking him later. But now that I think about it, we're going to have an edit war on our hands at best. That, plus the fact that he's already made legal threats, makes it very imprudent to unblock at this time. — Philwelch t 20:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Could we have some other admins give their opinions on the matter please? JoshuaZ 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a message on his talk page to get this guy's word that he isn't going to be disruptive or continue to make legal threats. Once he responds, I'll post a note here and we can decide then. It would be a mistake to unblock him before he unambiguously and clearly promises to stop being disruptive. — Philwelch t 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a decent idea. Like I said, the last thing I want to do is get into the blocking mess, especially as a previous member of this group and an old contributor to this article ;-) — Deckiller 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• This seems reasonable. I'll also CC the message to the IP address he was using in case he looks there. JoshuaZ 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

His response seems reasonable, but I am still unsure whether it would be prudent to unblock yet. Legal threats are one thing where we have to be very, very cautious. If he is unblocked, he must be placed under strict probation and immediately reblocked if he acts up again. Given that these two concerns of mine are addressed, I think we might be able to unblock. — Philwelch t 21:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd agree with probation, perhaps along the lines of "Please note you're under strict "no legal threats" probation. Any further legal threats will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia for an indefinite amount of time." - opinions? ~Kylu (u|t) 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this solution. JoshuaZ 04:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Evilowen (talk · contribs)

Just back from a 24-hour block for vandalizing AFD's of his articles, user is now creating multiple copies of the articles under AFD, with slightly different names, and also one which was speedied yesterday. Warnings are ignored. Fan-1967 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked by User:Syrthiss for 48 hours. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I might have blocked him on general principles for creating 500 articles with variations on a name...but then he removed afd notices from his new articles which is what he was blocked for yesterday. I think in general we should indef block him and salt the earth on his various articles assuming that they indeed are deleted, which is where they are heading currently. Syrthiss 19:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as an amusing side note, one of his copies didn't need to be retagged for AFD. He copied the article, intact, with the AFD tag still on it. Fan-1967 20:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

lol. Syrthiss 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Now he's back, evading block, as Evilowen2 (talk · contribs), recreating deleted articles, and continuing to edit. Fan-1967 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• After being blocked again under the new name he's asked for an unblock, on User talk:Evilowen2. He claims the first ID was his assistant. Fan-1967 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bobbyp69 (talk · contribs)

Bobbyp69 seems to be an account created solely to circumvent the anonymous editing ban on the article Penis. Other than that he has vandalized Penncrest High School. [Those are all his contributions so far]. As we are dealing with an obvious troll here, I did not want to give the matter more attention than it was worth and simply wanted to bring it to the attention of any Admin so he can quickly deal with the matter. — Mütze 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Already dealt with, in fact. [111] -- SCZenz 20:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're quick.

Revert war at rapcore

There's a rather silly-looking revert war in progress at rapcore. Basically this is 3RR fodder, but I mention it here rather than there as a) I've already blocked both parties (more briefly than might be wise, given the excessive reversion on one side, and the counter-productive edit summaries and "entitlement to revert" logic on the other), and will re-block if this continues and b) there already seems to be significant sock/meat-puppetry at work, so if someone else keeps an eye out, that would be handy. Alai 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Further to which, I've blocked User:Hans Schwarc for 24h (and am tempted to make that "indefinite"). Recently created account that seems to exist only to act to revert in line with User:LUCPOL, has a "forged" talk page (copied over from User_talk:Dcflyer) to give the impression of having been around longer than the day-and-a-bit he's actually been editing for, and to top it all off, does content-disputes reverts "in the style of" admin rollback. Alai 00:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• The forged talk page is impersonation, so I'd say that is an indef. block situation. If you want to do a nominally limited block (say, 3 months) that is actual infinity to a troll, that would be appropriate as well. Essentially, the particular quality of the particular edits is one thing, but the attempt to deceive about status and longevity is another. Geogre 13:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Template deleted per IAR; review sought

I invite other admins to review my deletion (and protection, after recreation) of Template:Dignity. See also this edit to my page and WP:VPN#Yay!. In my opinion, 99 Red Baboons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a troll and should be blocked, but I think it's best to leave that to others. -- SCZenz 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Indef blocked, given that every edit but one was pure mischief. Now would you do me a favour, and not cite "per IAR" as a rationale for actions (especially, admin actions), given that it a) explains nothing, and b) "justifies" (or at least in some vague sense of "covers") absolutely everything? Thanks. Just a pet peeve of my inner logical positivist. Alai 23:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no rule that I'm aware of, that justifies speedy-deleting something for "obvious trolling." And for good reason—"obvious trolling" is in the eye of the beholder! But this was very obvious trolling, so I deleted it (despite the lack of explicit policy justification) for the good of the encyclopedia. What do I call it other than "per WP:IAR"..? My specific reasoning was clearer on other pages, but most of all it was obvious from what I did. -- SCZenz 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The point is, to be clear, that I don't like to apply IAR much at all. Since I did, I wanted to emphasize it and have it reviewed. -- SCZenz 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • IAR may be the applicable "rule", but it's not much of an explanation. I agree with your actions, btw, I just think that for clarity, one should say "invoking IAR, I did X for reason Y", rather than citing IAR as if it were a reason. e.g. "exists only for baiting and annoyance purposes" might not be a CSD, but it's certainly a reason, whereas IAR is not. (For my money, CSD G1 pretty much covers it in this case, anyway.) Alai 00:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You raise a valid point. I was in a bit of a hurry, and had a vague inclination (since the user was complaining emphatically and superficially reasonably, in the way of trolls) that I would pass off the facts without prejudicing the discussion by explaining my reasons properly. It worked, but I admit it was a bit silly; obviously IAR isn't the reason one does anything. -- SCZenz 04:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

IP 12.10.34.242

That IP is held by a large law firm. It seems someone at the firm has recently discovered how to edit Wikipedia articles. Most of their edits are really vandalism ast listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=12.10.34.242 I sent an email to the law firm and someone else warned them on their talk page.

User:Stevecolbert

Should this account be blocked as an improper (famous person) name? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The account is already blocked because of his vandalous edits. Ryūlóng 23:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Friday

An announcement. If User:Friday doesn't stop undoing my admin actions, I will start wheel warring. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Template:User_System_Administrator. Friday (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I will back up Friday's unblock. Putting aside your frivolous reason for blocking him in the first place, the block tool is meant to be preventative and not punitive. Ashibaka tock 02:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Passing onself off as a Wikipedia sysadmin is not a frivolous reason for blocking. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If User:Torinir had gone around misrepresenting his status as being a Wikipedia sysadmin, I can understand why someone might be justified in thinking that the userbox was inappropriate, but you haven't posted any sign that they did that. The userbox is just a professional description - there are millions of sysadmins out here. Threatening to wheel war over a reversion of a poorly explained, apparently policy violating block and edit war on someone's homepage is bizarre. Threatening to wheel war before you explained your side of the situation in detail, why it was bad and the block or removals were justified? That's just uncalled for. If Torinir did something wrong in particular show us. Georgewilliamherbert 03:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, I don't see why you're placing the burden on Zoe rather than Friday. Obviously Zoe is active tonight. Did Friday attempt to contact her? Thatcher131 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone disagrees with what I've done here, I invite them to adjust the situation as necessary. Zoe- I apologize for reverting your action. In my defense, I saw what looked to me like a compelling reason to do so. Friday (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have said all I will say on this subject. The next time any of my admin actions is undone without prior discussion, I will revert. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a divisive userbox to me. JDoorjam Talk 03:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a poorly understood one to me. Perhaps instead of edit-warring over its inclusion or deleting it, we should make it clear that the user performs System Admin functions somewhere, just not here? Say... "This user is a professional System Admin" or "This user works as a Computer Administrator somewhere"? Then: 1. it'd be harder to pass off as a fake "I'm a Wikipedia Admin!" userbox, and 2. those who aren't trying to say they are a Wikipedia Admin don't get penalized for doing so? Zoe works very hard to try to help us out, and Friday's just trying to fix what he sees as a mistaken block. I'm of the opinion that Torinir wasn't trying to misrepresent his status, just trying to show that he is, in fact, a system admin somewhere, which technically is true of almost every person that visits this board. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a word to the userbox that should clarify the whole damned mess. --Carnildo 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is crazy! "System administrator" is a profession, or at least a trade. If someone puts a notice on their user page that says they're a plumber, that doesn't mean they're Wikipedia's plumber. If they say they're a manager, it doesn't mean they're the manager of Wikipedia. As it happens, I'm a system administrator too; I've worked as one for eight years. And while it's stereotypically a thankless job, I've never heard of anyone being harassed like this for calling themselves one ... other than by their own users. :) --FOo 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

BAD user box. If I didn't know better I would think that meant they worked on the Wikimedia servers --mboverload@ 04:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if the template is kept or not, but I changed the background color so that it doesn't look like the standard admin template. I don't understand why admins freely go around undoing other admin actions....Zoe has been around long enough to make a sound judgement on such things.--MONGO 05:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've got to agree that it's a bad box, but that's not even the issue. Zoe is reacting to being reverted without prior discussion. That's pretty much the key. It's ok to change what another admin has done, but talk about it at least at the same time, if not beforehand. When Hera struck Tiresias blind for taking Zeus's side in an argument, Zeus thought it was unfair, but he said that even he could not undo the actions of another god. Perhaps we should take the Olympian Solution to go with our German solution. Geogre 13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This could have ended better with no face lost if you two would have just talked to eachother. IRC is your friend =D. All admins should be required to use it as far as I'm concerned =P --mboverload@ 13:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So all admins are required to have good net access? Secretlondon 15:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ban all known members of the IRC cartel! Seriously, I believe wiki business is best done here, and at college I'm firewalled and can't even use IRC - nor do I want to. --kingboyk 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I only see two possible ways to go: Either the burden should be on the admin taking the action to justify it to the satisfaction of anyone who objects, or the burden should be on the admin who would undo another's action to justify why it has to be undone right now, without prior discussion with the blocking admin. Obviously everyone's actions are subject to review and discussion, and we all act as a check on each other. If Friday and Zoe had talked and agreed, we would not be here. It's not about undoing a block, it's about not talking and listening first. And too, I agree with Geogre above and Geni elsewhere. If someone undoes my block without asking first, I assume they had a good reason to, and I would not re-impose it without talking first. We all need to give the other guy the presumption of competence, acknowledge our own fallibility, and take it slow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Many good points. I agree some discussion is needed, one or the other should have initiated it at some point before things got icky. I am not sure I agree that all admins should HAVE to use IRC though... that may not be a fair requirement. but some lines of communication should be open, somehow... and not just talk pages, sometimes offwiki is the way to go. ++Lar: t/c

Possible vandalism reported on AIV that isn't clear cut

Copying report from WP:AIV:

• Liam alagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After warnings from myself & other users he continues to put in copyright text & deliberately introduces incorrect information. --Feedyourfeet 01:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Malki1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeatedly posting articles about fake shows and networks. --Wafulz 01:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This wasn't simple vandalism, so I'm moving it over here. JoshuaZ 03:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot too restrictive, stirring up trouble

There has been a lot of discussion (mainly negative feedback) regarding a Wikipedia bot created by user Carnildo named OrphanBot. OrphanBot seeks images that it feels are not licensed, or licensed as "fair use," and pegs them up for deletion. Another bot created by Carnildo, User:FairuseBot operates in a similar manner.

The issue seems to be that the bot is not programmed to be "smart" enough to recognize enough parameters to make wise judgments in pegging an image for deletion. It does not parse the text comments made in justifying fair use, but instead looks at an image in a binary fashion of "acceptable" or "not acceptable". Some users consider it vandalism when OrphanBot removes an image.

Examples: [112] [113]

The system it works under, as listed here [114], is to:

2) removes images with certain tags from the articles using them.

3) notify the presumed uploader of the impending deletion.

This appears to happen with any image that is not in the public domain, such as fair-use company logos [115]

As well, the Bot incorrectly writes warnings to people's talk pages, as noted here: [116]

"(it held me responsible for an image simply because I corrected a spelling in the file months earlier) "

As a side issue, I believe Carnildo's personal responses to negative (and admittedly often scathing) feedback could be worked on, as they sometimes can be biting.

I would appreciate some form of ruling about the operation of this bot.

Statistics: User:OrphanBot#Bot_statistics: As of June 1, 2006, OrphanBot has inspected 63,976 images, removing images from 33,698 articles, 1,266 portals, and 64 categories. The bot has handed out 36,988 warnings to 23,925 users. The bot has been in operation since, at the earliest, late 2005. [117]

-- Guroadrunner 10:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer that images would be deleted without removing them from articles or notifying their uploaders? Eugène van der Pijll 10:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is more about how the bot mishandles or incorrectly identifies images and actively sets up a deletion tag. It does these actions before informing the person who uploaded it to add copyright information (or giving the person some time to correct it before adding the deletion tag). --Guroadrunner 11:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases the info is not added. If you don't want iages deleted you need to make sure they are properly handled.Geni 11:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mis-identifying the original uploader is a bug, but it may be an unsolvable one, as there is no infallible method to distinguish between a minor correction of an image and a complete replacement. As for giving time to correct the error: images can be deleted 7 days after tagging. It is in the best interest of the encyclopedia to notify *everyone* that the image is going to be deleted, as often the original uploader is no longer here. Removing an image from an article is a very effective way of doing that. If this was left until the 5th or 6th day, there wouldn't be much time left for other people to research the source or license of the image. Eugène van der Pijll 11:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Some users consider it vandalism when OrphanBot removes an image", as do some when we remove personal attacks. Removal of images which don't meet our requirements is fine, same as if a human did it to if a bot does it. Your first example where someone considers it vandalim show when looked at the image clearly was tagged by a human as having an unknown source (several days earlier) and indeed was deleted by another human a couple of days later for that very reason. Your second example doesn't include anyone claiming it to be vandalism, but it does seem to be a simple case of disputed fair use claim, again same if human or bot doing this. Can't track the example of a warning which seemed to have been misdirected since they don't say which image it was. "This appears to happen with any image that is not in the public domain, such as fair-use company logos" - not sure what your point is here, we need correct information regarding any image.

A can't actually see any problem here except people who upload/use images without the correct tagging seem to get upset that they aren't permitted to do so, OrphanBot does a donkey work task which would only be done manually if not done by the bot. --pgk^(talk) 11:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you're an optimist and wrong. It wouldn't be done manually, leading to ugly red missing image links in articles and angry unnotified uploaders. Eugène van der Pijll 11:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed: By the image use policy, this bot is merely making sure that people follow the standard procedures for uploading images. Given the scrutiny that bots go through, I suspect this one has been vetted to be perfectly "proper." I don't see the bot as "warning" people in the way a user would warn another for vandalism; it's informing the person that his or her upload is not up to the proper standards, and that he or she should address the matter. It doesn't seem like it's doing anything "incorrect" so much as it happens to annoy people when they can't be bothered to read the instructions. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 11:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are correct I was stating a best case scenario, but the point being that the bot only does what needs to be done. --pgk^(talk) 11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

<< I don't see the bot as "warning" people in the way a user would warn another for vandalism; it's informing the person that his or her upload is not up to the proper standards, and that he or she should address the matter >>

I should disclose that I haven't had any personal contact with the bot, but would it not be useful for the bot to contact the uploader first and give the uploader time to add copyright information, and then put up the image for deletion if the issue is not fixed? Say, a 14-day span instead of automatically adding it for deletion -- The image is not up for deletion for 7 days after the bot finds it and notifies the user, and then is up for deletion for 7 days, meaning the user has 14 days to fix it.

Right now, it seems the bot first puts it up for deletion and notifies the person who uploaded it as an afterthought.

As well, the bot appears to be contacting the last person to edit the image page, who may or may not be the first person who uploaded it. -- Guroadrunner 11:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

<< In the vast majority of cases the info is not added. If you don't want iages deleted you need to make sure they are properly handled.Geni 11:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC) >>

To address this outside of OrphanBot's actions, is it possible to code Wikipedia to force users to include all copyright information before an upload is accepted by the server? -- Guroadrunner 11:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure your understanding of who it warns is correct, I believe it warns the last person to upload rather than merely comment, which by nature for renaming images may not be the original uploader. I cannot see how you can code Wikipedia to force users to include all the information, how would it know it is correct? We'd just get people filling in any old rubbish to keep the software happy. I would suggest that would actually be worse. The onl y solution to this problem is a human one, people should include accurate information when they upload files, people should only use fair use claims when absolutely necessary, people should attempt to find alternate images to make the use of fair use redundant, people shouldn't get annoyed with a bot which does a vital task in wikipedia attempting to keep it clean of images used without proper permission or justification. --pgk^(talk) 13:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"how you can code Wikipedia to force users to include all the information, how would it know it is correct?" <-- I think the point is that currently Wikipedia does not force people to provide any information when a file is uploaded. If it is required that users provide information on licensing then why is it even possible to upload with the default "None selected"? The answer from pgk seems to be that Wikipedia does this so that it is easy to trap bad-faith contributors into uploading images that can then easily be deleted by a bot. The danger in making wiki interface design decisions so as to deal with users who cause problems is that we end up having an interface that does not best serve the needs of honest contributors. We end up with a file upload system that HAS MUCH SHOUTING rather than a gentle system of guiding contributors through an easy point and click process. --JWSchmidt 15:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I am saying that is the reason wikipedia does it, I'm saying that is something the interface currently affords us. I am also only focussing on the criticism being levelled at OrphanBot and it's aim (to help with the issue of poor or missing copyright information) rather than the more general issue of mediawiki usability. --pgk^(talk) 15:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tennis vandals

(posted on AIV)

• Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The past two days someone has been vandalizing articles about tennis players by changing the terminology and templates for grand slam tournaments to something other than the consensus. He/She also removed the warnings from the user page and used these I.P addresses as well:

• 4.230.123.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 204.64.129.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 4.230.123.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 204.64.113.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Igorrr 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

CTYI

Demiurge has constantly removed a section from the CTYI article. I need someone to protect the page or give a warning to Demiurge. If there are any former CTY or CTYI administrators out there please help.

Shanequinlan01

Nonsense Warnings

• In the tradition of the VaughanWatch Socks, JohnnyCanuck has once again put a nonsense warning where he once again accuses me of vandalism (again without any proof) on my talk page. Could an admin please remove it? -- pm_shef 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown

Anyone want to explain why none of the accounts under "Original names" (EBlack, D.Right, and Agiantman) have never been blocked? That's kind of concerning... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)