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. 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:Cute 1 4 u

This user is part of a complex blocking web and is currently requesting an unblock. I'm passing on it and am curious what the consensus of other admins is on this situation and the block. More information is here[1]. Yanksox 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin myself, but I hope my opinion is still valid. :) I wasn't aware that one had to be a certain age to edit Wikipedia, so I think blocking for that is rather odd. A checkuser filed came back inconclusive, so she's probably not the same person as S-man, as was speculated. However, she was in cahoots with S-man and his project to vandalize other Wikimedia projects. So I think that as long as S-man retains his block, Cute 1 4 u should, too, since they were blocked for the same thing. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the block was based upon speculation, but in some manners she has exhausted some of our patience with certain actions. I'm not sure if this has to do with age or the possibility of trolling(?). The whole we'll vandalise other projects was the icing on the cake for me, maybe she needs mentorship in order to better understand the project. Yanksox 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

She claimed on her talk page that she didn't vandalize, and from what I can tell on Simple Wikipedia, she's telling the truth. Maybe we should reconsider...? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

She has impersonated celebrities (see User:Raven Symone), and from what I've seen, she is exhausting the patience of a lot of people. While I do support the indefinite block, the user is just young, so a shorter, several month block may also work. I wouldn't say unblock, but lessen the block? Perhaps. Cowman109^Talk 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to lessening the block, but we would also have to consider the other younger users which all seem to be connected to each other. I've been curious about how all of these different users met each other, was it through here, a colberation? I'm not sure, there has been some exhaustion of community patience. Yanksox 21:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a shorter (that is, a definite) block. We should also remember that assuming this person really is the age claimed, it seems to take longer for time to pass when you are young. That said, I'd fully support a permanent ban if there's any further problem behaviour from this user and furthermore, I explicitly agree with what Yanksox says immediately above this. We should also remind the user that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It's also worth noting that I am probably functioning as a hopeless optimist. --Yamla 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(De-indenting) (edit conflict) Perhaps the Wikipedia Youth Foundation had something to do with them meeting up? They're not the same person, according to CheckUser. But I do agree, their use of Wikipedia as a social networking site was inappropriate. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser was inconculsive, not definitive, we don't know wheter or not they are related. Yanksox 21:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you suppose a checkuser should be filed with just S-man and Cute 1 4 u? The others in the first one may have thrown it off... --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You can try it, I'm don't know how any checkuser will respond. Yanksox 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

((edit conflict)) Here I go again, butting in even though I'm not an admin. I saw all the ruckus on Cute's talk page and have to voice my opinion. From what I can gather, she never vandalized or intended to vandalize an article, project, category, template, etc., on Wikipedia. In light of this, and being WP:BOLD, my suggestion is: block for a short period of time (1 week, perhaps), indefblock her from the other project that she intended to vandalize, and set her up with a mentor (I'll volunteer). Srose (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. I don't think she has bad intentions, but merely age-related ignorance. I think mentorship would be a very good alternative to an indefblock - it's worked in the past. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me!<;/sub> 21:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this, it's a much better idea than the block alone in my opinion. I also support this for any other user blocked under these terms provided a mentor volunteers (please don't look at me, I'm not good at this sort of thing, though I'll chip in from time to time). I doubt we need anything particularly official set up. We probably need to run this past the original blocking admin, mind you. --Yamla 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've notified The Anome. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that no one set themselves up as "internet mentors" for eleven year old children named "Cute 1 4 u" without discussing the matter privately with the WF. Jkelly 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst well-intentioned, this would be worse that the original problem. Children should only be supervised by their parents or other legal guardians, not random strangers from the Internet, no matter how well-intentioned. I also agree that this issue should referred to the Wikimedia Foundation. -- The Anome 21:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on my part as well. I hadn't thought of the unpleasant legal circumstances. Srose (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. Aren't the servers in the US and under US law? Aren't all users required to be 13 years old unless they provide signed consent from their parents? I know Maxis requires anyone who signs up for the BBS that are under 13 years old to have their parents fax in the consent. Anyone found to be under 13 and without consent is banned.--Crossmr 17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We should get an answer from the Foundation once and for all about how old you have to be to edit Wikipedia, and therefore interact with other users. I do not think mentorship has to be anything other than communicating through talk pages, so I do not see why anything special would have to be done for it. Some people want all those under 18 or 21 excluded (from comments on the Village Pump), but I doubt that is going to happen. Blocking those that admit to be under 13 would be the most extreme thing I see the Foundation doing. Although, there is the problem of a person who is too young editing through a shared IP with lots of people on it, a dynamic IP or ultradynamic IP (an IP that changes with every page load). Also, there are school IPs that have people with a wide range of ages editing on them, from elementary students, to high school students and faculty. -- Kjkolb 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what the foundation says, if there is law in place wikipedia will need to comply with it at a minimum so working from that is a starting spot. I'm not an American but I often see mention of it on sites hosted in the US, but I don't know the specifics of the law, if anyone has them handy it would be a launching point for a decision.--Crossmr 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is what I mean. We would ask the Foundation and they would ask their legal counsel. -- Kjkolb 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the world's leading expert on this but I believe this 13-years-old thing only applies if the site wishes to collect personal information from the user (name, age, location, etc). Wikipedia asks for none of that so there's no problem. -- Steel 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I found it here [2]. Personally I'm not sure how wikipedia falls under this. We don't necessarily demand personal info to use the site, but on the other hand, we're aware that we do have it (especially if this user can be e-mailed, than we do indeed have their e-mail and fall under coppa).--Crossmr 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Age question aside, blocks should be preventative rather than punitive. If she's learned her lesson about sockpuppets, then I think she should get another chance. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The age question is sort of central here. If I interpret coppa one way, she should be blocked indef until we have consent on hand from her parents that she's allowed to edit here.--Crossmr 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, shouldn't she only be blocked until she's 18? =) Powers ^T 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Till she's 13 actually, so 2 years. Which would probably end up being indef as its unlikely they'd return to that account after 2 years.--Crossmr 23:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this discussion to User:BradPatrick. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should be clear on the law so our policy is consistent with it. In the future, we may also want to post some suggestions to all young users when we notice them (Don't post your name, address, and other personal information. Don't upload personal pictures, etc...), sometimes the user is just not thinking of the potential consequences of being too open. NoSeptember 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a template is in order? Template:Younguser or something like that?--Crossmr 23:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's just be careful with the templates; make sure they're not too obvious... I don't think Wikipedia is pedophile-free. (No site on the Internet is anymore.) Srose (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer a more general securityreminder welcome which mentions this. There are three benefits: First, it would be flexible enough to be used with people who just post a lot of personal info regardless of age. Second, it would not work as a flag to pedophiles. Third, users given the template will be less likely to be offended by it. JoshuaZ 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, we can work with that regardless of what happens in this situation. I still think we need to address the issue of Coppa though.--Crossmr 02:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

removed unhelpful speculation Jkelly 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that User:BradPatrick has been informed of this issue, we can wait for direction from the Foundation, and publishing further speculation here is unlikely to be helpful. Jkelly 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, folks, could some explain what is meant by "coppa" here? It seems to be a central issue, yet no explanation is given, no links provided, and there is no WP:COPPA. It seems to be related to underage children registering on websites with parental consent, but I haven't been able to find any Wikipedia policy on this issue. This is an important issue at en:Wikiquote, where q:User:Cute 1 4 u is an active editor and has even requested adminship (which I can say rather certainly will not happen). But I apparently need some pointers to critical info. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC), en:Wikiquote admin

COPA is the Child Online Protection Act - a law in the United States that forbids the collection of information online from minors under the age of 13. — Werdna talk criticism 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Child Online Protection Act --kingboyk 09:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), not Child Online Protection Act (COPA). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 10:02Z

Thanks! Do you have any links to any policy or discussions within the Wikimedia Foundation or its projects that pertain to how to protect both underage editors and the Foundation itself? For example, how are we supposed to confirm parental consent, when our editors are anonymous, even if they claim to be so-and-so? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Unfortunately, I didn't see anything in the article or the FTC external link "How to Comply With The Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule" that covers Wikimedia's situation. We don't collect, let alone distribute, any personal information other than an optional email. The real problem is that children (and quite a few adults, too, but they're on their own) are often unwise enough to post all sorts of personal information about themselves. (I could write a few paragraphs of bio about "Cute 1 4 u" based on the info she's provided on WP, WQ, and linked sites, which would scare the hell out of me if I were her parent.) This is not information we collect, so it doesn't seem to be covered. Nor is it clear how Wikipedia could obtain "verifiable parental consent" when we don't even really know who the editors in question are. (All that bio info could be made up; "Cute" could be a 35-year-old male, for all we know.) Surely somewhere in Wikidom there is a discussion going on about how we address, or are planning to address, this issue? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As to the point I made above and COPPA it doesn't require that you intentionally collect the information, but if you know that it has been provided i.e. someone admits to being under 13 and they've entered their e-mail address in their account, then you've violated COPPA. A site could be COPPA compliant and then 5 minutes later not be because an under age individual has shown up and entered their e-mail without parental consent. In order to remain compliant you have to either remove the individual's account or get parental permission.--Crossmr 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm a Wikiquote admin. I have reason to believe Cute is 11. Does Wikiquote have her email address? I can't query the database to find out. I could try to email her, but I will only know if she has one if she responds. If she doesn't, I still don't know. Assuming that Wikiquote is violating COPPA by allowing her personal information (unrequested, but on her user page) to be displayed, who do I contact to get permission? Do I become a stalker to track down her last name and address, then write a letter to her parents? Or do I remove this information, ask her not to repost it, and block her from editing if she doesn't provide a means to confirm consent? If she does this last, how do I know it's legit? We're probably not talking about kids scrawling poorly forged signatures from their parents about being unable to do their homework. These and many other questions and their consequences must be addressed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Where is this discussion taking place? As an active admin on a WMF project, with this likely underage editor currently causing concern on WP, WQ, and possibly other projects, I would like to join this discussion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I am really concerned about the situation now. Maybe we should create a new policy that prohibits displaying personal info on a userpage. As said somewhere above, no website is safe. There could be a pedophile anywhere in Wikimedia.--Ed^{talk c E} 02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Practical suggestion

Have a policy that "No one identifiable as under-18 may have a user id on Wikipedia". This doesn't mean no under-18s can edit, or even have user pages, just that if it is possible to identify them as youngsters - what a paedophile will be looking for - then the account is immediately blocked. This is one occasion when opening another account would be perfectly OK - as long as again there is no way to determine the age of the user.

The "identifiable as under-18" criterion could be very broad: photos, mention of school, link to MySpace site with info... Anything. And it should be made clear that these measures are not punitive to the user - they are entirely protective.

There is still the issue of potential abusers sending out speculative emails to users hoping are young. But some of these emails will end up going to older folk, which will then be an indicator of who might be dodgy.

Will require policing, but may be lightweight in comparison to other solutions. Dunno how any of this will interact with the legal requirements: as said above, let's wait on what Brad says. JackyR | Talk 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this should be a matter for the Foundation and it's lawyers? Sometimes guidance has to come from up above. We're just unpaid volunteers and not (in the main) legal experts. --kingboyk 15:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is up to the Foundation. We must be secure and protective to all young Wikipedians. But maybe we shouldn't be too harsh yet. If we make this new policy, all userpages, including subpages, will be reviewed by an admin. If there is info that could pinpoint the exact location of a user, the content in question will be blanked. If the user puts it back, then we tell the user it is for their own protection. If it happens again, the user will be blocked.

I don't see the need of under-18, under 13 is what the law requires. By sticking to that we're not placing any subjective criteria on a user that would require judgement. Anyone under 13 who identifies themselves as such should be blocked until they turn 13 (without asking for birthdays, if they identify as 11, block for 2 years). --Crossmr 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I also recommend that we have a special page for dealing with harassment. That way, if a young user is contacted by a pedophile, then we can take immediate action. Also, having a centralized page for complaints and reports could make it easier for local police to view all of the incidents and take action. Note: I am not an admin.--Ed^{talk c E} 15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have an opportunity here to deal with two problems at the same time. The second problem I'm seeing is the increasing usage of this site as a social network, especially by under 18s. They have a few minor edits here and there to fairly trivial articles, but mostly a stack of userboxes and a talk page bursting with chat from other under 18s. Why don't we simply:

• Delete and prohibit all user boxes which state the user's age or year of birth (birthdays are fine, just no year)
• Delete all Wikipedians by age categories
• Automatically block anyone who states their age if it's under x, and block them until birthday x, per Crossmr.
• Strongly discourage users from revealing their age if under 18, because it detracts from our encyclopedic purpose (and will lead some people to discriminate against them too, I might add).

If these ideas, or a variation thereof, are thought workable perhaps we could put up a policy proposal page somewhere. --kingboyk 09:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a policy proposal already at WP:CHILD. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.

I've blocked Bethicalyna (talk · contribs) who seems to be here only to chat and play jokes, and who has had some interraction with cute 1. I will review if an unblock is requested. --kingboyk 07:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicgirluk

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate

Please edit the draft of Wikipedia:Policy on private photos of identifyable models including changing the name to something better than I could think of. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If the discussion was moved, what happened to some of the old comments in this thread at AN/I? I can't find some of them on that page. Kasreyn 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Self taken Provocative Photos:

If the User:Publicgirluk stops uploading sexually charged photos of herself to Wikipedia, I have volunteered to start doing so myself. My boyfriend and I love to take sexy pics! We are thinking about making one to complement the Anal Sex article.

Also, User:Anchoress has also expressed interest in making photos for Wikipedia along those lines.

Thanks :)Courtney Akins 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are hopefully aware that you might be tripping up WP:POINT. Hbdragon88 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, WP:TROLL. Blocked indefinitely for disruption. El_C 04:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that her edits have been wise... but is an indefinite block really appropriate? Based on the user's contribution history, she seems interested in a) decreasing the Myspace-ness of the Wiki (using a few measures that have been proposed by others, a few not) and b) increasing Wikipedia's coverage of sexuality, particularly borderline practices. For that matter, the behavior you've mentioned hardly seems to come close to WP:BLOCK's description of disruption, and an indefinite block of a user with a couple hundred edits (many of which have been productive) without a community ban is highly irregular. As an admin of long standing, you've earned community trust... but is there something that I'm not seeing here? Would it not have been more productive to raise your concerns with the editor before blocking? Captainktainer * Talk 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely - this block seems very irregular. El C, please reconsider it. -- ChrisO 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify something - I think the editor was in the wrong with her proposal, and I think she was a little haughty and arrogant. But I don't feel that haughtiness and arrogance merit a complete and unilateral ban from the community. I think it might be helpful to talk to the user in question, warn her to spend more time in the community before making policy proposals - a very brief block to cool things off, if there was considerable disruption, I think might have been appropriate. She clearly has a lot to learn about Wikipedia policies. But, barring information that El_C has that I don't, I have to question the proportionality of the response. Captainktainer * Talk 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

While I have tried to mentor the above user, I feel that El C's block is pretty much in order. There were things that El C explained to me, via email, that gave me enough reason to believe the block was just. Sure, I tried to help Courtney out and gave her pointers and all of that stuff. But even with my advice, she is doing this, so I am not sure if in the long run if she will be a good contributor or I will be burned at the stake at some random RFAr. However, if this user is unblocked, I would still like to mentor her, but I need something with teeth, because I can admit that Courtney is a wild gal, I just need something to tame her. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay... I think there's something to be said for trust and respecting the long history of established admins in this matter. Perhaps ArbCom would be willing to place a temporary injunction on her, enjoining her not to make policy proposals until they can review her case? That way she can continue to edit while they consider her case. Alternatively, if she's willing to accept mediation, perhaps she could be talked into accepting that sort of remedy voluntarily. Maybe these ideas are farfetched... I just think that there might be ways to handle this situation that don't end in a block. Captainktainer * Talk 08:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There were things that El C explained to me, via email - how about it's explained to the rest of us - here? Wikipedia cannot have it both ways, yes THIS editor MIGHT be trying to make WP:POINT but as a general principle, if we don't have censorship here - then within the context set-up in the previous dicussions I have seen about this issue of people uploading pornography pictures of themselves, it seems entirely straightforward and reasonable for members to say "I see the scat article does not have a picture, do you want a picture of my girlfriend shitting on my face?". (I'm actually against pornography images on wikipedia but I bow to the community on the matter). --Charlesknight 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, real pictures are highly controversial. Even drawings of anal sex and other sexual poses have been somewhat contentious; real photos would be even more controversial. Wikipedia is not officially censored, but consensus dictates what goes into an article or not (like, for instance, whether the drawing in Missionary position should have the teddy bear or not). Hbdragon88 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This person is talking about what they might do. How is that "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point"? Not finding the word "troll" on WP:BP I am guessing this block is warranted under "exhausting the communitiy's patience" and I must admit to not being familiar with this editor's past but with only one block (this one) to her name I don't really see how the community's patience block applies here. Could someone spell out specifically which section of the blocking policy this block falls under? Thanks. (→Netscott) 09:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The commonsense part? Tyrenius 09:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a "common sense" clause in WP:BLOCK, for good reason; the blocking tool is powerful and can potentially cause great havoc, so all blocks should be done with care and forethought. The closest that comes is "Disruption," which has a 24-hour max for the first block. Captainktainer * Talk 09:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get everyone to look through all of this user's edits and then go for exhausting the community's patience. Tyrenius 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am so glad someone's had the initiative to indef block this blatant troll. A few hours ago I went through all of this user's edits, and it was unmistakable. This is not a novice. This person knows their way round all the nooks and crannies of wikipedia. Within the first two days they had not only created their first article on "Throat gaggers" oral sex porn film, but had proposed it as a featured article, describing it as a work of "pure genius". That is just such a wind-up. Then as a new user in their first two days they put up a bit of Florida for AfD.[3]. Also in this meteoric career, also in the first two days, they found their way to Categories for deletion on the Rouge Admins template. Day 3 sees our newbie placing a NPOV template on an article on Human rights in Brazil, saying it is "99% negative" and "not sourced" (sources are given), and then, before the day is out, nominating Gay rights in Brazil as an AfD. Need I go on? An extra worry is that this person was not female at all, and was not the subject in the photo. Seems par for the course. It would also be interesting to run Checkuser on this editor and the IP vandal that posted the sexual photos on the user page. Zscout370, I emailed you about this, but didn't get a reply. Did you get my email, or does the Foundation eat them or something? Tyrenius 09:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not recieve such email, go ahead and send again. If that doesn't work, my WP talk page should be fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at some of the poster's track record, and I can see why someone might conclude that she is mainly here to take the piss engage in satire and merry japes. That said, she still has a way to go before it's a question of community patience being exhausted. I suggest she be unblocked soon on the basis that it's been long enough on this occasion. Metamagician3000 09:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do you explain that this so-called newbie finds "her" way around with a competence that takes most people weeks or months to develop, and yet, despite this obvious sophistication, manages to come out with actions that use all the right words to purport to help wikipedia and yet are all perfectly inappropriate. I've looked at every one of the edits. I suggest you do the same. It's actually highly amusing, but I don't think wikipedia's purpose is to cater for that kind of amusement. Tyrenius 09:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And if her edits continue to be mainly attempts (some moderately amusing, some not) at satirising Wikipedia, with attendant disruption, I'll probably support an indefinite block "next time". This is sort of like an RfA oppose in reverse. Metamagician3000 09:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To respond to user Tyrenius' post, if this user is an abusive/disruptive sockpuppet then indeed an indefinite block is warranted in this case. (→Netscott) 09:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should unblock "her" just to see what "she" does next. It's hilarious once you're in on it to see everyone take it so seriously. We could just keep it to ourselves. And watch. :) Tyrenius 09:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(Strike - it's not very nice that this person is exploiting people's kindness and generosity. Tyrenius 09:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

I don't take offence at Courtney bringing me into this conversation, although she slightly misrepresented me, but personally I have felt that she was on a road to inevitable blocking from the first posts I saw of her. I think she is a troll, I think she is probably a sock (I have some opinions of who but won't smear anyone), and while I don't have an opinion on a permanent block I think she'll eventually get one, one way or another. A third of her edits are great, a third are blatant - at the very least useless to the project and at worst inappropriate - attention-seeking, and a third are subtle trolling. In my interactions with her I AGF, but my opinion is that s/he's like a kid who shoots spit balls at the teacher when her back is turned, then sits there with an innocent smile the rest of the time. Anchoress 09:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bang on target. Tyrenius 09:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to read every single diff, but I looked at a few more, and it just confirms what a few of us have been saying: this user's career here is an elaborate piss-take. There may be some genuinely helpful edits somewhere, but if so they are hard to find.

I dunno. She's wasting a lot of our time, even if some of it is funny once you understand what she's up to. I suppose it's a question of whether there is any admin who is prepared to tell her that we got the joke and we'd now like to give her a chance to edit seriously. I'm not going to be that admin. Maybe someone else is more soft-hearted. If anyone does give her a second chance, I for one will watch her. If no one does, I guess that's the definition of a community ban. Either way, El_C made a good catch here. Metamagician3000 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I support an indef ban as the very first ban, for a user with a record, if that record includes productive edits. I'm inclined to agree with MM3K about the career so far but I do think someone ought to tell this user "we get the joke and here's your chance to edit seriously". So I'd give this user a second chance and watch carefully. I'm not seeing consensus either way yet though, and I'd like to hear from El C before I overturned his block, as I REALLY don't like to overturn other people's blocks. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Assume Good Faith" doesn't mean we have to act willfully stupid or credulous. I support El C's action, because this user smells like an obvious troll to me. Nandesuka 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as Lar is the one doing the watching, I'm with Lar here.(you did volunteer! ;-P) You will indef block if this person acts up again, right? Anybody strongly opposed? If not... good luck! Kim Bruning 15:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if I overturn the block I'll keep an eye on this user to the best of my ability (but welcome help). Perhaps a notice to the user to that effect by me is in order as well. Maybe even a mentorship. And yes, if something does transpire that is unacceptable, I would block indefinitely, I've blocked indefinitely before and have no issues with the concept, just didn't think it was warranted yet in this case. El C, is this acceptable to you? ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any warning related to the reasoning behind the ban, this seems out of order, and perhaps inspired by other events unrelated to the user being banned. I recently looked through this users contributions, and I see that other reasons may have been involved with the ban, however those reasons were not made clear. HighInBC 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I support the block. Based on looking at a few diffs, the user seems naive (e.g. lack of appreciation of copyright), but not dangerous. I also hope we're not blocking people just because they offer to upload pictures of anal sex. If we prefer to stick with illustrations of sexual techniques as opposed to photographs (I've no opinion on this), we can tell the user this rather than blocking them outright. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Courtney doesn't seem to be an overly disruptive user to begin with. Considering this is her first block ever and she was blocked for disrupton, seems a little suspicious. I think she would need to be mentored for Wikipedia civility, if anything. Her message above was inappropriate, yes, but blockworthy, maybe not so much. I would have tried to talk to the user about her actions, and block (for maybe 48 hours) if she continued to be disruptive, but indefblocked.. never.. for the above message. I don't know if her block was very justified in the sense of disruption, because no warnings were ever used and there doesn't seem to be many comments on her talk page about her conduct prior to her block. — The Future 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done the look-at-every diff thing. Somebody said a third of her edits are great; they aren't. Of her edits, I counted six which seemed OK, and only one, this human experimentation business she agitated about on AN/I, which truly helped the encyclopedia. My opinion is that Courtney couldn't troll us any harder if she had came back in time from the future with a cybernetic trolling machine with which to troll us. She's completely disruptive, but in a slow, methodical way that has been shy of producing any blocks. Should she be indefed? Sigh, I guess not. I suggest reducing the block to a week and letting this episode stand as a warning. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the sole purpose of this account is disruption, and I commend El_C for acting on that basis. However, it was a BOLD move and he has properly posted it here for discussion. Some other users have raised various doubts and opinion is divided. I think it is right to make sure that people are happy with admin actions. One objection is that a warning was not given for what could be seen as naivete, rather than deliberateness. I propose that this block to date should serve as that warning, and now be lifted. It is not going to do a great deal of harm now that Courtney Atkins is going to be closely watched. It won't take long to confirm things one way or the other, and it should at the very least provide some amusement. Has there ever previously been an article simultaneously a Featured Article Candidate and an Article for Deletion, I wonder? I propose also that any user should feel free to revert any action by Courtney Atkins, if they feel it is not appropriate, provided they leave an explanation on Courtney Atkins' talk page as to why they have done so, for educational purposes. Also, bearing in mind the pranks, we should not allow the uploading of any photos, unless it can be proved that these are the copyright of Courtney Atkins. Tyrenius 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That all seems reasonable to me. I'm not lifting unless 1) either I hear from El C or a clear consensus here develops, right now it's not clear to me yet, and 2) the user responds positively to my offer of mentorship. I note Zscout offered to help mentor as well. Others may choose differently but those are my criteria for lifting.++Lar: t/c 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I support Tyrenius' suggestion, upon hearing from El_C again. — The Future 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. My only fixed position is on the photos, which I feel otherwise could be a serious error. Tyrenius 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it could be. If she's unblocked, I think she should be allowed to upload Images as long as they aren't about the very pointy ones she expressed here about self-photos of her recieving anal sex. I would support of blocking of her is decided to post those Images. — The Future 23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had encounters with Courtney, and I've read this post, and I'm stongly opposed to the unblocking of Courtney. She is a WP:Point troll in the worst sense of the term I kind of just made up. She is almost dilberately hypocritical in the sense she posts about Wikipedia becoming myspace, while she has a photo of herself plastered on her userpage and makes posts like these[4][5][6][7]. I'll confess I haven't read the book, but I doubt this. Also, I find these posts just really odd[8][9]. Also, it didn't help when she suggested a Stalinist system of maintaining user accounts. She has certainly exhausted my patience, demonstrates trollish behavior, and to be perfectly blunt is up to no good in my opinion. Yanksox 00:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm an outlier here, but when I contrast this user with other "exhausted our patience" users, I'm just not seeing that we're anywhere near that point yet. I think you guys know I think of myself as firm and intolerant of trolling (some of which I do definitely see here) but I'm not seeing the exhausted part yet. I expect typically to see a larger history here, or somewhere else, before I get to "exhausted my patience" state. You can count on me to mentor this user and if it's not working out, block, and block hard. But if the community doesn't agree, that's fine too. I'd like to get to a conclusion though, if possible. I wish El C would speak up again. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

unblocked

After hearing from El C that he has no objections, I have unblocked this user. See: User_talk:Courtney_Akins#Unblocked. What I would ask from the rest of you is twofold, give me the space to mentor this user and see if they can reform and fly right... don't expect me to jump on every little thing. But on the other hand, DO please bring things to my attention, issues, advice, anything you feel I need to know. My email and talk are always open to my fellow admins. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool with me. Metamagician3000 01:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to co-operate. Tyrenius 02:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A victory for the trolls. Again, natch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So what Jeffrey? Lar has volunteered to bear the burden so you don't have to. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, every single person has to deal with "her" trolling. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to "exhaust the community's patience" to be blocked indefinitely

Catching the tail end of this on returning from a break, I just want to protest the notion that an account needs to "exhaust the community's patience" before they can be blocked indefinitely. El C clearly didn't place an "exhausted patience" block but an "all edits trolling" block. Such blocks can with perfect appropriateness be set on an account's first day. Why ever not? We frequently invoke "All edits vandalism" as a reason for pretty much immediate indefinite blocks; is there a significant difference between that and this? No. Not even if the editor was savvy enough to technically make one or two non-trolling edits just to spike our guns. Lar's wasting his time, but it's his choice. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

Chiming in to point out that I've blocked a few accounts indef (see for yourself: Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) ) in some cases with just one edit (when that single edit was by an account with a bad username that was clearly vandalism) so it's not that an account NEEDS to have exhausted the community's patience. It's just that it was asserted (or felt to me like it was asserted) that this one had, and I'm not sure that's the case, as it hasn't yet exhausted mine and I think I'm part of the community (right? er, maybe don't answer that? :) ). Note also that I didn't unilaterally lift, I got El C's concurrance first... I could well be wasting my time, who knows, we shall see. (something you've suspected me of doing in the past in other contexts, mind you) Or maybe I have other motives, as I did those other times you thought I was wasting my time. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you weren't the one barking up the Exhausted Patience tree as if it was the only one in the forest. But several other users were. A metaphor of dogs, not monkeys. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

No one objected when I indef blocked User:General Tojo without warning, for ex. Perhaps he lacked the promise of sexy pics! ;) El_C 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the fact that User:General Tojo was banned indefinitely without warning. Perhaps you are a bit too trigger happy with your ban button? Dionyseus 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Awareness is good! El_C 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Did his sockpuppeting come before or after the block of the original account? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh Samsara. Let's just say he was using Wikipedia as an experiment for trolling, but a more pro-Nazi than anti. Luckily, everything he said was in English, so it was —and remains— actually readable to us on the En-Wiki. El_C 13:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My review of General Tojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggests much more there to exhaust patience and I support the block. Note also that the indef was not the first block. Shorter blocks are a form of warning in my view. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Differential treatment for "I am an 18 year old hottie who wants you to see her body" accounts is a laughable constant on the Internet. You would think that Wikipedia would have enough folks with sufficient experience, or at least a sufficient number of "disinterested" people, to not fall for it. Courtny was one such. Publicgirluk may not have been. I did some research, and there is an account name by that handle very active in sex sites in the UK, but that doesn't confirm anything. Tojo was a troll who announced as much with his account name and then demonstrated it amply with his edits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean being a fool. Geogre 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking?

User:Netsnipe noticed suspicious activity and suggested I report it here. From my talk page: "Just a warning that a vandal might be wikistalking you. Your request to Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse has now been removed twice without explanation by IdlP (talk • contribs) and Rm104 (talk • contribs)." Followed by: "Even this message was deleted by QFMC (talk • contribs)." At Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse I had posted a request for advice along with a link to this page: User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. The only other activity by User:IdlP was to a featured list candidate where I voted on 21 August. [10] Another new account User:CF18000 deleted posts of mine from two different project talk pages on 21 August. Please investigate. Durova 14:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone else got there first. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the upshot? ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Any news? Durova 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been two days now. Could I please have some sort of response or update? At least the username of the investigating administrator? Durova 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have mistakenly assumed that Netsnipe was on the case [11] [12] was watching these users. I also erred in thinking Netsnipe was an admin. However, none of the three users have been active since 27 August, which was when Netsnipe issued his note of advice to Durova [13] and advised a checkuser. The users have been warned for their transgressions. There is no rationale for action if things remain calm - maybe someone can give a second opinion on whether a checkuser is still advisable. Otherwise, let us know if any other new users in your neighbourhood become disruptive. If this is a case of someone playing games, they're likely to try to change their cloak regularly. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. You should have really mentioned this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for the lapse. I've never been involved in anything like this before and didn't know I ought to report that here. Durova 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kmaguir1: (1) several bad faith AFDs? (2) lack of civility (3) disrespect for consensus

Because of a comment left on my talk page by another user concerning my addition of {{sockpuppeteer}} on User:Kmaguir1, I was directed to a discussion concerning this user's recent mass AFD and prod listings, as well as several AFD listings by new users that this user has voted on. While it's a bit bad faith to assume that these users are all sockpuppets, it could be that Kmaguir1 is just now an AFD browser, and not creating sockpuppets to list AFDs. These are just the AFD hits, none of the stubs that he prodded.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Yee (second nomination) (article created by LotLE×talk)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphael Samuel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymundo Baltazar This will be deleted!!-Kmaguir1 08:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Martelli (article created by LotLE×talk)
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_August_27#Category:Nominalist Wikipedians (category created by LotLE×talk)

--Ryūlóng 06:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and then there are these off color comments at the AFDs [14] and [15] and possibly [16] at the discussion about him. Ryūlóng 07:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Worse still, IMO, is Kmaguir1's gratuitous insult about Danny Yee's appearance: [17]. Yee happens to be a Wikipedian himself, but he has not been involved at all in the AfD of the article about him, nor in any of the other issues with Kmaguir1. I think Kmaguir1 feels somehow that insulting Yee's appearance is a way of attacking me for adding the image to the biography. LotLE×talk 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the comments alleged by Ryulong were even close to off color, none were personal attacks, so no problem. And I say that adding the picture was deranged--not the subject in the picture that was added. If Lulu could read well, she may well have noticed that. Furthermore, I object to lulu and ryulong and anthony krupp consistently running to admins every time they have a problem, and unjustifiably so everytime. They misrepresent and misrepresent and no longer have any objectivity on the issues. I am, as Ryulong states, a bit of an AFD browser. I like it because it's one of the easier ways to get rid of much of pointless drivel that haunts Wikipedia, without actually engaging in edits. And yes, I am a hard deletionist--but not harder than some of the people I've seen on that page. And i don't know how sockpuppetry has been alleged--I'm the one putting up all the deletions, articles which I pick either from the "random article" box or I just look at names I don't know that have been up before, or just look small and insignificant. It's time for Lulu and the rest to just be quiet and go about their business on wikipedia with a dignity that has so far not embodied them.-Kmaguir1 08:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1's characterization that I run to an admin etc. is false. His allegations of my misrepresenting lack evidence, and I would challenge him to provide them, by pointing to actual diffs, if I were not tired of disruptions. I think his AfD browsing is fine, even if it began in a meanspirited way (trolling Lulu's page creations). I joined him in one of the delete votes, objected on others, was silent on yet others. I say all of this to address his slander, above. I find his advice to be quiet and go about the business of editing to be excellent, and hope he takes it as well. Finally: I think his lack of respect for WP:CONSENSUS is more of a reason for an Admin to look into his edits. See bell hooks and its talk page for a case in point. He has yet to answer specific questions I've posed to him regarding criticisms of hooks, ones I'm willing to have included. I'm willing to play ball; I haven't seen that he is.--Anthony Krupp 15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. On his Talk page, commenting on his former meatpuppet friend being able to edit under a new user name, he wrote: "May he edit long and edit well. And may all of y'all go to he-Kmaguir1's restaurant, Tuesday night happy hour from 6-7." Perhaps an administrator can determine whether this is incivil.--Anthony Krupp 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you called me satan. I don't know how it gets more incivil than that.-Kmaguir1 18:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1's argument now seems to be that my allegedly bad behaviour excuses his. Not valid. Regarding my behavior, anyone is free to see on my Talk page that I compared Kmaguir1 to the 'ha-satan' figure ("the adversary") of the book of Job. This is not the Christian Satan, but is rather a prosecuting attorney against mankind in the heavenly court of God. That is, this figure works for God. In Goethe's Faust, the sense is that the 'satan' figure wants to disrupt but ends up doing good (i.e., God's work). In short: I made this religious history/literary reference in the context of saying that some of Kmaguir1's disruptions have actually resulted in others improving several articles in question. If any administrator regards my conversation as incivil, kindly let me know and I will take steps to make amends. But don't let Kmaguir1 throw a smoke screen over his own behaviour, which has exhausted community patience. (See comments here and elsewhere by Ryūlóng, LotLE, csloat, inter alia.)--Anthony Krupp 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the differences in the text of the Torah with respect to the way Satan is conceived and the way the devil is thought of in the New Testament. However, I happen to be a Christian, so I see them as consistent and part of God's plan and part of His inerrant Word. And regardless, it's always, without exception, a personal attack to compare someone to Satan, regardless of your historical hoop-di-doo. It was extremely unwise, and it will be yourself who opened yourself to criticism about it, not I.-Kmaguir1 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir's edits to Bell hooks have consistently ignored consensus and have been in explicit violation of WP:BLP policies, which he has been reminded of over and over. Instead of engaging in talk, he simply keeps adding the disputed material to the article once a day, when it is quickly reverted. It is taking up time from Wikipedia users who could better spend that time improving articles.--csloat 18:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User evading Indef block

• 64.231.242.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 69.156.151.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are both User:JohnnyCanuck/User:VaughanWatch trying to evade his/their indef ban. See page history for evidence. Thanks -- pm_shef 14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that these IPs are probably socks. However, there is not much more to do with this specific incident. JC/VW gets new IPs at the drop of a hat and/or uses open proxies. So, blocking these IPs won't add too much to the vandal fighing. -- JamesTeterenko 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user threatening legal action

Threats can be found on User talk:84.195.124.111

User refactored Talk:Loose Change (video) to remove all his comments, thus rendering half the discussions extremely confusing as they involved replies to statements that were no longer there. After I reverted the page to make it make sense again, he again removed his comments and threatened legal action.--Rosicrucian 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the talk page and warned the user. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The user persists in edit-warring to refactor the talkpage. [18] [19] [20] The user doesn't seem to understand why he can't do this. Will somebody please talk to him again?--Rosicrucian 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for three hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User has been warned by several admins, had it explained to him that he does not "own" the content he posts on article talkpages, and is still blanking out his comments on the article talkpage asking us to archive the page early just to suit his wounded pride. [21]--Rosicrucian 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User: Toira and incivility

I'm reporting personal attacks made by user Toira (talk · contribs), see [22].

Toira has a history of making incivil comments towards others on the Zinedine Zidane talk page, [23] [24]. Those who have participated in the discussion including myself have pretty much let those personal attacks slide, and one (of my knowledge) has asked him to calm down [25]. But as it seems this person has no interest in talking in a civilized discussion and is not willing to heed advice, what is the proper way to deal with such users? --Inahet 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How long does it take for an admin to answer a simple inquiry on this board? Sheesh! Ignore the above request, I placed a warning on toira's talk page. If personal attacks persist, I guess I'll take it up on the right board. --Inahet 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that while this kind of thing may seem urgent to you, there are many other urgent issues which require the immediate attention of administrators. Think of this page (and all related pages listed at the top) like an emergency room, where each issue is triaged and a determination is made about which issues need response NOW versus those which can wait a few hours. Placing a warning on his talk page was the correct thing to do, and doesn't require an administrator to do it.

If you think someone has made a personal attack, please report it on Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Jon_Awbrey and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

User:Jon_Awbrey has moved Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to Wikipedia:WikiCaviling, on the grounds that he claims the original title is defamatory to lawyers. However, politically-incorrect or not, "Wikilawyering" is the actual terminology that has been in use on this site's discussion areas; "WikiCaviling" is an ugly neologism with no support that I know of. Page titles should reflect actual usage instead of attempting to impose political correctness. *Dan T.* 18:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey appears not to wish to bother with such apparent wastes of time as bothering to convince others he has a point before embarking on move revert-wars. I've locked Wikipedia:WikiLawyering against such moves and suggest others check other places he may have been hard at work for similar activity, with a 24-hour block IMO being appropriate should he have been working hard enough at his quest to warrant serious admin consideration that he's been sorely disruptive - David Gerard 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Jon for 24 hours for fairly egregious trolling not only in the page move itself, but also the accompanying comments on the Wikilawyering talk page. Gwernol 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

He'd disrupted WP:NOR for something like a week now, and had just started in at WP:SR. FeloniousMonk 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've unlocked Wikipedia:WikiLawyering, but the close attention of others in 24 hours when Jon's block is up would be a good idea - David Gerard 20:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking over his recent contributions to his talk page, he's clearly trolling others there, I'm concerned about disruption when his block comes off. FeloniousMonk 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I share that concern. I'm sure there will be several eyes on John for some time to come. If he returns to his trolling behavior he should expect longer periods in his bijou prison cell. Gwernol 02:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Jon do anything besides trolling? I killfiled him on the mailing list ages ago. Just zis Guy you know? 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiLawyering - um, yeah. I won't speedy-keep this, but I really think someone else should. Speedy-keeping this is entirely apposite process IMO - David Gerard 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And fresh off his 24 hr block for disruptive page moves for the same article? I'll do it. He's exhausted the community's patience with this. FeloniousMonk 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Slowpoke. I will lengthen his vacation to 48, however, for repeat offenses. Phil Sandifer 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You've got to be quick around here... FeloniousMonk 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have given him a brief block for disruption. I have no objection to longer. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee is abusing his administrative authority

I wish to file a complaint against InShaneee for abusing his administrative authority. Under the guise of removing "personal attacks," InShanee has deleted comments he disagrees with which are not at all personal attacks. For example, one of the edits he deleted was my argument in support of another administrator, Bishonen: [26] He also removed another section further down that is critical of one of the goals of the Wikiproject Paranormal - the Wikiproject that he appears to run. My comments are directed against the sources that some Wikiproject Paranormal members insist on using for the Natasha Demkina article. Apparently, he's taking this criticism personally and is calling it a "personal attack" so that he can remove it under his authority as an administrator (and threaten me with a block if I revert it - see additional comment below).

Another editor and an administrator has joined in my objection to InShanee's actions: [27] [28] I hope other editors and administrators will also tell him that he should not abuse his administrative authority and that censorship is not a practice welcomed in Wikipedia. If his abuse of authority continues, that authority should be rescinded. Askolnick 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where you're saying he used the admin tools in doing any of this. Well, unless rollback counts, but that's just a shortcut for something anyone can do. Friday (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is about an admin who removes legitimate arguments/comments and labels the comments as a "personal attack" in order to censor this user. If this user reverts this admin's edits, I'm quite certain he will be blocked by this admin. This is unacceptable behavior for an admin, and I have seen so many complaints against Inshaneee that a desysop should be considered.

Complaints of abuse are normally signs that an admin is doing his job right, but yeah, I can't see how it constitutes as a personal attack, but it wasn't an administrative action; as Friday said, rollback is just a shortcut. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Rollback is only supposed to be used in the case of vandalism; let's get that straight right out of the gate. That particular edit probably should have been trimmed by hand, and by preference commented on rather than excised. -- nae'blis 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some consensus on that, but it is not universal, and it is not policy. Generally though, the arbcom does frown upon it. Still, it is not as cut-and-dried as you state. FeloniousMonk 22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, two administrators, User:Friday and User:Sceptre, are unaware of the fact that rollback is an admin-only feature that is supposed to be used only in cases of obvious vandalism? Dionyseus 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that people frequently say that about it, yes. Friday (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is that supposition documented? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Make that three administrators. Rollback is supposed to be used only in the case of vandalism. Dionyseus 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is neither policy nor even a guideline. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The link you reference above says this:"If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to leave an explanation...". DJ Clayworth 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also stated here: Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary. Mike Christie (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor is that policy or guideline, but an essay. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? That's not an essay. Where's the {{essay}} tag? It's a list of facts, just like Wikipedia:Editing is. Is that now an essay as well? Also, if that's enough, I point to the MarkSweep, Gunaco arbitration case, a rollback revert war that led to Gunaco's desysopping, with MarkSweep "strongly cautioned to use the administrator's rollback tool only when reverting vandalism." Hbdragon88 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it labeled guideline? Is it labeled policy? Did the arbcom say that their caution applied to all admins or was it specific to one in one particular case? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's a matter of community consensus, therefore your insistence on a formally stated "policy" is a bit misguided. As for Arbcom's take on the issue, it seem pretty clear, it's been stated in numerous arbcom cases. ([29]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As is clear from this page, no such consensus exists. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The policy that matters here, IMO, is WP:CIVIL; reverting non-vandalism edits with rollback is potentially uncivil since you are not explaining yourself. (Personal opinion; no AC consensus implied) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Is naything from the RFAR ever labeled as strict, by the rules, policy? (besides user punishments and probation). You just have to infer. Obviously the rampant misuse of the rollback, especially in a revert war, was strong enough that the ArbCom had to say something about it. And in this case, they said only vandalism. I think that applies to all admins, but if you disagree, Ic ould ask the ArbCom for clarification. Hbdragon88 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus, the edit summary of the second and third reverts clearly mention disruption. Instead of using the typical anti-admin one liners, "counting who disagrees", and using strawman arguments, why not talk about how those edits where disruptive. Disruptive flaming/vandalism can clearly be reverted. That is why the admin reverted. The actual item in dispute here is whether those edits were really "disruption", which I currently do not agree with the reverting admin on.Voice-of-All 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I left out the part about his threats to block me if I reverted his changes - or made any similar comments like those again. That's abuse of administrative power. IhShaneee appears to believe that he can use his blocking power to stiffle arguments he dislikes. Askolnick 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Bishonen. I don't see anything here obviously crappy enough to use rollback on, unless there is something I missed.Voice-of-All 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it appears that User:InShaneee is placing unwarranted blocking threats on Askolnick's talk page. [30] [31] Dionyseus 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment of an outsider: InShaneee left a warning for "No Personal Attacks" and threatening a block, pretty much immediately before this note was left of AN/I. Askolnick is not helping the situation by pretty much continuuing a verbal assualt on InShaneee on Askolnick's own talk page. While InShaneee is focusing also on other things (Unblock declining, I noticed), Askolnick is still focusing on the conflict (Hence this discussion). I have the odd feeling that this inter-editor conflict is just going to escalate if both editors remain "Unrestrained".

The first dif I see is sort of unwarranted, since removing even completely idiotic things (Like bots reverting past your revert of vandalism giving YOU a warning) from talk pages is met with (6.5 times out of 10) with a warning on not removing comments or blanking.

This has obviously escalated too fast and too far. Both editors likely fall under Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption of this Wiki. It needs to be made clear that catfights shouldn't be tolerated. Logical2u 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While Inshaneee was justified in removing some of the many Pravda.ru links (really, you could have made your point with much more brevity, or created a subpage in userspace to link to), the majority of Inshaneee's rollback was inappropriate, and the blocking threats seem questionable. While rollback can occasionally be used for edits that are not vandalism (occasionally WP:IAR does apply)), in this case it was clearly an inappropriate use of rollback. Furthermore, it seems disingenuous to describe the edits in question as personal attacks, unless Natasha or her representative has edited Wikipedia. While Askolnick needs to be cautioned to calm down and focus criticism on actions, not people, I think a formal review of the actions here is warranted. Captainktainer * Talk 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've at times both admired and found reason to criticize in InShaneee's firmness in enforcing his view of the NPA rule. In this instance, my impression is he's overstepped a line, both in the initial revert and in the way his subsequent warnings and counterwarnings have escalated the situation. I'd say an RfC might be in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My involvement with the Demkina article has been off and on for several months (it began with my admittedly bungled first attempt at a MedCab mediation). I have found that Mr. Skolnick quite often steps over the line of civility in his discussion contributions and edit summaries, and has been repeatedly guilty of personally attacking and/or insulting fellow editors, taunting, harrassing editors on their user talk pages, and making assumptions of bad faith. This is just a sample of some of the violations of WP:CIV and/or WP:NPA with which I and other editors (primarily Keith Tyler and Dreadlocke) have had to contend in our attempts to work with Mr. Skolnick to improve the article. I have only recently taken a step to officially warn Mr. Skolnick against making personal attacks, in my limited capacity as an editor.

I do not believe InShaneee's reverts are entirely without justification, as Mr. Skolnick is implying here that Dreadlocke and InShaneee are aligning themselves with "pseudoscientists, psychics, quacks, and other New Age charlatans," and is also implying that they are acting in bad faith. If I recall correctly, reversion of personal attacks is an option for dealing with them, though a controversial one. I don't think this edit rises to the level where reversion is necessary, but I can see why InShaneee would see this as a personal attack and would revert it. I do agree that this reversion was not justified. Skolnick is attacking Demkina's mother's credibility, but not another editor. I have no opinion on the specific method InShaneee used to revert ("rollback," the existence of which I am only newly aware).

Though I do not necessarily agree with InShaneee's recent reversions, I do believe that s/he has acted in good faith, and that, given Skolnick's long history of personal attacks and incivility, a warning from an administrator is long overdue, and will perhaps be heeded where mere editors' warnings have not. At worst, I think InShaneee's warnings were the right action at the wrong time. Rohirok 04:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok, you are ignoring the fact that InShaneee repeatedly threatened to block me if I reverted his improper deletion of my comments.[32] That is an abuse of his administrative authority. Administrators are not allowed to use their blocking power to threaten and intimidate editors who they disagree with. Not a single editor or administrator has supported InShaneee's claim that he removed a "personal attack." The speech he removed was speech he objects to. He then threatened to block me if I put it back. That clearly an abuse of the authority granted to him by the Wiki community. In light of the comments from other editors and administrators who say the speech he removed was not a personal attack, he has modified his reason for removing it (and threatening to block me if I restored it). He now says he removed "disrepectful" speech.[33] I believe InShaneee is further abusing his administrative powers when he stretches those powers to include blocking editors for speech he finds "disrespectful."

Nearly a century ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wisely observed that the best remedy for improper speech is more speech, not censorship. Wiki administrators should uphold that philosophy. Those who don't should not be a Wiki administrator. Askolnick 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:I just noticed that Rohirok has misrepresented my complaint by using a link to only part of the material InShaneee deleted, under the guise that it was a personal attack. Here is the one of my statements InShanee deleted and threatened to block me if I restored it:[34]

Bishonen is on solid ground in her objection to including Natasha's mother's claims that contradict the widely held views of child psychologists and pediatricians. She is also correct about Wikipedia guidelines that warn against including such dubious information without compelling support: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" and among those are "claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community."[71]

In opposition to the prevailing view of the relevant academic community of child psychologists and pediatricians, we have the claims of Natasha's mother - who has already received great profit through the promotion of her daughter as a miracle worker - and who made the clearly false statement her daughter has never ever made a false diagnosis, even though the record shows many of Demkina's diagnoses are false.

Clearly, Demkina's mother has publicly spoken falsely about her daughter's abilities. And her motive for doing so is not just a mother's pride. She and her daughter have already enjoyed great income from Demkina's readings (earning up to 40 times the average government worker's income in Saransk, with her part-time, after-school "job." [72] And she and Demkina stand to reap even greater wealth by convincing people that her daughter's diagnoses are 100 percent correct. Such exceptional, self-serving, and profiteering claims do not constitute exceptional evidence. They are far more consistant with the trumpeting of a quack. Wikipedia is not a medium to be used by quacks to promote themselves. That is why Wikipedia has guidelines concerning reputable sources - such as the one that directs editors to ignore exceptional claims that contradict prevailing views of the relevant academic community in the absence of exceptional evidence. Bishonen is absolutely right. Such self-serving and highly dubious claims do not belong in Wikipedia without compelling support from reputable sources.

I added this comment in support of administrator Bishonen's statement. Disagreeing with it, InShanee falsely called it a personal attack and deleted it. I challenge Rohirok or InShaneee to explain here how that text in any way may be forcefully removed under Wiki's No Personal Attack rule. Askolnick 17:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I struck out the incorrect statements above and I apologize to Rohirok. He brought to my attention that he had indeed mentioned the deletion of this part and that he agreed it was inappropriately removed by InShaneee. It was in a second link that I overlooked. Sorry Rohirok and thanks for bringing this to my attention. Askolnick 03:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I think is unacceptable for a Wiki administrator is to use his authority in a biased manner. Under the pretense that he was removing a personal attack, InShaneee deleted my criticism of the Wikiproject Paranormal, which he appears to be running. Yet, he is allowing one member there to repeatedly post incenderary personal attacks against editors skeptical of paranormal claims, such as these:[35]

• "Are the psuedo-Christians up to censorship, again? Andrew Homer 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)"

• "In your first day in Cultural Antropology class, your professor will inform you about oral traditions. Andrew Homer 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)"

And on the Wikiproject page itself:[36]

• "The under informed are doing their censorship and harrassment, again (as they continually do in the Astrology article). So, that's why I'm replacing valid material that the psuedo-Christians and the psuedo-academics keep deleting:"

At the risk of sounding like a "pseudo-Christian," InShaneee should remove the log from his own eye before poking his finger in the eyes of others. Leaving his fellow Wikiproject member's personal attacks alone, InShaneee removed my criticism of the Wikiproject and threatened to block me if I restored what he wrongly called a "personal attack." This is biased and inappropriate conduct, which should not be tolerated in any Wiki administrator. Askolnick 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank InShanee for taking action against User:Askolnick who is an abusive, harassing and threatening editor that engages in a constant stream of personal attacks, uncivil and disruptive behavior. Askolnick has used the Pravda.RU debate as a weapon to attack and harass other editors on their own talk pages, [37], [38] repeating the attack on Rohirok on Askolnick’s own talk page [39] and on the Natasha Demkina discussion page.

Askolnick has repeatedly posted reams of headlines and attack material against the use of the tabloid, completely unnecessary when his point was made in the first such posting – much less the fifth, six, or tenth postings of repetitive material – purely disruptive behavior, meant only to harass [40] his opponents: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] (there are more).

Instead of any RfC on InShanee, who acted in good faith and with just cause in his warnings to Askolnick, we should have a user conduct RfC on Askolnick, who has long engaged in personal attacks on other editors, even after friend and foe alike have warned him against this type of behavior. [46], [47], [48], [49], [50].

He attacked and insulted [51] a new Wikipedia editor, Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate and distinguished scientist who has his own Wikipedia article: Brian Josephson.

Askolnick has engaged in a continual stream of personal attacks, commenting on the contributors and not the content, apparently in an attempt to discredit and marginalize those that disagree with him: Here is just a small sample of Askolnick's personal attacks, there are many more: [52], [53],[54], [55], [56],[57]

He has unapologetically pushed forward with his attacks, apparently viewing himself as some type of crusader whose job it is to “drive stakes” into the hearts of his opponents. Not very Wikipedia-like behavior.

Thank you InShanee for recognizing and taking action on the abusive editing by Askolnick. More needs to be done to stop the abuse by Askolnick. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than explaining to us why he thinks InShaneee's deletions were proper and not censorship, or why InShaneee's threats to block me if I restored what was wrongly deleted is NOT an abuse of InShaneee's administrative authority, Dreadlocke has launched a long string of personal attacks, none of which is relevant to the complaint against InShaneee. If all of Dreadlocke's accusations and insults were true and I were the spawn of Satan, it still would not justify InShaneee's act of censorship and abuse of his administrative authorities. Apparently Dreadlocke believes a bad offense is more effective than a good defense. Askolnick 03:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

One question, and correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t Askolnick’s posts above [58] and [59] attacking Natasha’s mother violate WP:BLP as potentially defamatory material against a living person, or at least lack the sensitivity that Jimbo talks about, making it a comment that should be removed according to WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_negative_material? Dreadlocke ☥ 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC).

Consider yourself corrected. Askolnick 03:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Having spent a lot of time today reviewing the history of all this, I totally understand why Askolnick may feel frustrated at the tactics of some editors who have attempted to "take every point", as lawyers put it, however lacking in merit - i.e., require him to prove every little thing that should not even be controversial. On the other hand, he does seem to find it difficult to avoid attacking the good faith of opponents. There is obviously some off-wiki baggage here, but we do expect editors to leave such baggage behind, at least in what they say (we can't try to control what they merely think).

As for the specific material deleted by User:InShaneee, I think most of the material was acceptable, but a small amount of it consisted of unnecessary speculation about the dishonest motives of other editors. I think InShaneee was right to insist that that component of the material remain deleted, but not to insist that all the material remain deleted. To that extent, InShanee overstepped the bounds, IMHO, but not in a way that shows bad faith or requires some sort of investigation.

If my view prevailed, I would allow Askolnick to restore the material in a form that does not cast aspersions on the motives of anyone here. In particular, it should not contain claims to the effect that editors have dishonest ulterior motives in wanting to use particular low-repute publications as sources. It is sufficient to attack the repute of the publications themselves without speculating about the motives of other editors. If the material is restored in that modified form, which probably requires the deletion of only a small number of sentences and phrases, I would, with all respect to InShanee, be opposed to any block and be minded to undo it (but not without due discussion etc.; I'm not into wheel-warring).

I also respectfully suggest to Askolnick that he should, in future, continue to argue his position in a robust way, but without straying into incivility or personal attacks by speculating about other editors' seemingly (to him) dishonest motives. I'm sure that most of his arguments could be put forcefully and persuasively without that current running through them, however much he may feel tempted to include it. In fact, that current really seems to detract from the force of the arguments, by tending to put the focus on personalities. It also makes it difficult for administrators who might have some sympathy for the position that Askolnick finds himself in, but who are also under an obligation to keep order and stop debates from getting personal.

I welcome any views on the above comments. Metamagician3000 10:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Cretanpride and Homosexuality in ancient Greece

Cretanpride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been POV-pushing at Homosexuality in ancient Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related pages for a while now, including a bad-faith AfD, and the use of several sockpuppets.

I became involved in the matter on August 24 when I noticed a 3RR violation, and I subsequently tried to address the user's concerns in the article and on its talk page. (I think I had edited the page once or twice before in a fairly insignificant way.) I ended up contributing a fairly major rewrite/expansion of the article yesterday, because although I believe Cretanpride's position was academically unsupported, the article provided insufficient context and might be misread by someone with an insufficient understanding of the subject.

Cretanpride's most recent sockpuppet account is Ellinas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (confirmed by checkuser). As Ellinas, Cretanpride presented himself as a less extreme advocate of the positions he had previously advocated more rabidly; I don't think that the Ellinas account actually vandalized or violated any Wikipedia policies except the WP:SOCK. Aldux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Cretanpride for 48 hours after Ellinas was confirmed as a sockpuppet. I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could take a look at this situation and see whether a longer block is warranted. I don't really trust my own judgment in this case, in part because I've become an editor of the article and in part because I was fooled by the Ellinas sockpuppet, who I took at face value.

Aside from one suspect edit and one good-faith contribution from the Ellinas account, Cretanpride hasn't edited the Homosexuality in ancient Greece article since his 3RR block. I think the real issue is that Cretanpride has exhausted the patience of the article's regular contributors (see Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece). I'd appreciate any feedback on the matter. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, an anon identifying himself as User:Ellinas has now reiterated on User talk:Aldux that he is only a personal acquaintance, not a sockpuppet, of User:Cretanpride, but that he let Cretanpride use his computer to subvert the block on Cretanpride's IP ([60]). Which might plausibly explain the positive Checkuser evidence but the slightly different personal styles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, allowing the friend to use your computer is absolutely a no-no. First, it's the story usually told by people with abusive sockpuppets. Second, that makes the donor as guilty of block evasion as the recipient. Third, no single account is supposed to be multi-user. Geogre 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if Ellinas and Cretanpride are different people (which I personally doubt), Ellinas meets the definition of a meatpuppet--he has only contributed to the pages that Cretanpride did, and he said that he started an account at the invitation of Cretanpride. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

True enough. To Geogre: I think he said he let the other guy use his computer (hence positive IP identification per checkuser), not his account. But you're right about the aiding-and-abetting-block-evasion issue, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The question I suppose we should ask ourselves is whether the Ellinas account should be treated differently if it is a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet. If Ellinas is a different individual (and therefore a meatpuppet), he is guilty only of helping his friend evade the block. Right now, Cretanpride is under a 48-hour block and Ellinas is blocked indefinitely. If Ellinas is a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet, I'd say that was backwards. Allowing Cretanpride to use his computer to evade his block is a no-no, but Ellinas probably didn't know that, and doesn't deserve to be indefinitely blocked for it. Cretanpride, on the other hand, had had the sockpuppet policy explained to him on several occasions, and should have known better. Would anyone object if I unblocked Ellinas and indefinitely blocked Cretanpride? Even if Ellinas is a sockpuppet rather than a meatpuppet, that account has been much better behaved than the Cretanpride account, and the individual behind it might take this as an opportunity to reform. Or am I being too generous? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK says: "Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." Checkuser found that Ellinas is a sockpuppet; even if this is mistaken (and I doubt that it's a mistake), Ellinas is a single-purpose account. If Ellinas is unblocked, that would be more generous than the stated policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose what I'm suggesting is an application of WP:IAR in the spirit of WP:AGF. If Ellinas were unblocked, I would act as a mentor for that account. And I do think that a longer, if not indefinite, block of Cretanpride would be helpful and appropriate, given the extensive history of sockpuppetry. Put it this way: would you rather deal with Ellinas or Cretanpride on the article? As things stand now, Cretanpride will be returning in less than a day. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but all this assumes that Ellinas is really not a sock of Cretanpride. Personally I find no good reason to believe him, principally because, as, Gerge said, it's the story usually told by people with abusive sockpuppets. Also remember Cretanpride's previous record, confirmed also by checkuser; Cretanpride is habitual to sockpuppetry, and Ellinas is only the last of them. He is only quite habitual to not telling the truth: consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in ancient Greece, where Sac222, checkuser confirmed sock, says: "As for me being the same user, I'm sure the others are, but I am not. I made the account today and I started my first edits. I came across this page and voiced my opinion." Also consider the strange start of Ellinas: "I am a new user. I am not a sockpuppet of Cretanpride"; new users generally don't start with such declarations. Also he "forgot" to say that he was using the same computer of Cretanpride. In conclusion, I strongly oppose unblocking Ellinas; WP:IAR has value only when it is used to better articles, and unblocking an obvious sock will not do this. And as for WP:AGF, it is of no value for socks, and it shouldn't be extended in such an unreasonable way. As for Cretanpride, if no one objects, I will extend his block for a new block evasion, [61], the edits mentioned by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise.--Aldux 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I support Josiah Rowe on mentoring Ellinas, in the spirit of assuming good faith. One of three things will happen.

1. Ellinas is a separate person, continues to be a good contributor, and doesn't make this mistake again.
2. Ellinas is a sock, but Cretan takes the opportunity to moderate his tone and editing style.
3. Ellinas is a sock, picks up where Cretan left off, and gets swiftly blocked by Josiah Rowe.

The third case is essentially the same result as no action at this point, and the first two cases help the encyclopedia. Where's the harm? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, MIB. That's a useful and accurate summary. I assure everyone that if the Ellinas account does act up in any way (excepting today's edits from 4.245.120.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) I'll block it quickly. But I won't unblock Ellinas unless another admin supports it (right now it's one for and one against). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ellinas (posting as User:4.245.121.227) has indicated on Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece#One_last_message that he's not interested in having the ban lifted. Perhaps matters should stand as they are; Cretanpride may come back once his block expires, or perhaps he won't. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry of having to disagree in this occasion Josiah, because I greatly appreciate and admire your work, but I have learned in editing on balcan-topics that good faith should not always be assumed at all costs, when good sense tells, at least to me, exactly the opposite. When a brand new editor emerges exactly on the same day his spiritual brother has been blocked, and interrupts his edits exactly when the block expires, my knowledge of sockpuppetry tells me that the probabilities of the new account being a sock are very, very high. Dozens of socks, even when ascertained by checkuser, have continued to cry me "no, no, I'm not a sock, you're wrong". I've simply heard these stories too many times. Cretanpride has another chance, if he wants to use it; but lets not hide ourselves behind a phantomatic "good user" Ellinas.--Aldux 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well. I'm still agnostic over whether Cretanpride and Ellinas were one person or two, but given the tone of Ellinas' last posting I suppose the question is moot. The manner of Cretanpride's behavior upon his return should indicate something: as Kurt Vonnegut said, "We are who we pretend to be," so if Ellinas was a sockpuppet, then for a few days Cretanpride was a fairly respectful and civil user who showed the potential for becoming a useful Wikipedian, because that's who he was pretending to be as Ellinas. If he could do it then, he can do it upon his return. If, on the other hand, Ellinas was a different individual, then we can expect Cretanpride to be as abusive and abrasive as he was before he was blocked, possibly more so because he will have the "unjust block of his friend" to stoke his fires. (We will also, incidentally, have turned a potentially positive contributor into someone bitter and angry about Wikipedia's lack of openness, but I suppose that's a risk we take in making the "meat=sock" equation.)

It's true that I haven't had extensive experience of sockpuppetry, but I'm a little bit concerned that this time the boy crying "wolf" may be doing so because there really is one. But I won't go against the apparent consensus of my fellow Wikipedians. I suppose we'll just have to see what comes next. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Syphonbyte

Clyde Wey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was briefly blocked for being an impostor of Cyde, and then unblocked on AGF. A CheckUser I have just run shows that the account was very likely created by Syphonbyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor with whom Cyde appears to have had a dispute, for harassment. The impostor account is now reblocked, but I leave it up to you to decide what to with the creator of the account. Dmcdevit·t 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Syphon for 48 hours. I would not object if another admin feels a need to lengthen this block. JoshuaZ 18:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User has requested a review on their talk page, I reviewed it, declined to lift, and support this block. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

48 hours seems about right for a first offense of this nature. Hopefully he will realize he is now on a short leash and any more sockpuppets will escalate the ban. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you may want to check this out for more suspected sock activity. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For impersonation of an administrator and sockpuppetry (verified by RFCU ) combined with trolling this editor has been indefinitely blocked by User:Samir (The Scope):

• Endorse: This is one community ban that should be enforced. (→Netscott) 12:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Timacyde (talk · contribs)

Could someone take a look at Timacyde? It's very suspicious - he has a forged welcome note from Cyde on his talk page, and then he transcluded User:Syphonbyte/Holdem onto it. I'm thinking he may be a sockpuppet of Syphonbyte. He has more weird stuff in his contribs. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef for trolling -- Samir धर्म 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though Syphonbyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is evading his block here. This page created by Syphonbyte: User:Syphonbyte/Holdem relied upon this image Image:HoldemifJEWgotem.jpg uploaded by Timacyde. (→Netscott) 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Timacyde is now abusing the {{Stop}} template to the point of freezing browsers on his talk page, so I would recommend that that be protected. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that image had an interesting history. (→Netscott) 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Page protected by The Anome -- Samir धर्म 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Back (and blocked) as Edy_C._Syew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the same image. (→Netscott) 00:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If User:Clyde_Wey and that user name's corresponding talk page could be protected that'd be hepful too. (→Netscott) 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage has been protected. I'm not seeing any pressing issues with the respective talk page, however. El_C 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Tis a bit odd that Clyde Wey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is active at the same time as this latest batch of socks. I'm starting to think that Syphonbyte (talk · contribs) is heading for an indefinite blocking. (→Netscott) 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(Reindent): only a suspicion, but seeing his vehement defense that the latest bunch are not syphonbyte but some of his friends, he probably is right. He is always working together with User:The Raven, User:PhoenixPinion, and some other ones (User:The_Raven_is_God, User:Polfbroekstraat, User:Gotem, and to a lesser extent User:Charlesxavier). There is also some connection to User:578 alias User:EdYlC (yep, Clyde spelled backwards)... I have run into them a few times before, and they have exhausted at least my patience (which may be a lot faster than community patience, of course). Fram 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I also had an encounter with the guys Fram mentions. Most of them seem to be students at the same school. A lot of meat puppetry is going on here, I think - some of them are inactive for weeks and then re-appear out of the blue to support Syphonbute or the Raven. There is a little sockpuppetry going on too (eg I still wonder whether User:70.152.52.77 was not really one of the four guys behind the Belgian hoax articles). But no, there are real people behind most of these names (except for User:Gotem which User:Syphonbyte has acknowleged as an alias).--Pan Gerwazy 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A warm thank you for all editors / admins involved in stopping this! Fram 12:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:IPuser

Exists now, just thought I'd let you know. Happy editing--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Testing..1.2.3.. 12.234.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).--Andeh 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dangherous

As far as I know this user has been blocked from editing Wiktionary as he was a sockpuppet of the guy who deleted the Wiktionary Main Page. Should he not be blocked here too? Just FYI 86.41.133.9 00:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. So long as a user is making useful edits and not consistently breaking Wikipedia policies, he's welcome on Wikipedia. Blocks are preventative, not punitive measures. I don't like this user's contribution patterns... but nothing particularly out of order jumps out. Captainktainer * Talk 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Barefact

[[62]] The most egregious action on Barefact's part --- that I have seen, were his false accusations of sock-puppetry against me, and two users[[63]] and [[64]] , for which he had no evidence. I would consider that an attempt to game the system.

He even tried to use his false accusation of sock-puppetry(unproven and untrue) to reinstate a POV article of his [[65]] by saying that it was deleted by sock-puppetry. This is a clear example of lying and deception.

One of his former articles was deleted because of OR [[66]].

Even after an RFIC in Scythians he removed all reference to Scythians being Iranian recently.

The user Template:Barefact puts OR research from his website www.turkicworld.org. For example he disfigures quotes: [[67]]. For example the following quote: However, it retained its grammatical structure and basic lexical stock; its relationship with the Iranian family, despite considerable individual traits, does not arouse any doubt. has been taken from this book directly: [[68]] (the first link pg 6), yet he disfigures the quote that has been taken directly from the scholar to a totally opposite quote! He is putting a one man show on the ossetic language, since all the sources Britannica, Encarta, Columbia and all available English sources agree with me, yet he is taking material from his ultranationalist webpage www.turkicworld.org and cut & pasting it. Please ban this user for his disruptive behavior on multiple accounts specially OR, vandalism and false accusation of sock-puppetry and using the false allegation of sock-puppetry in order to change the mind of other administrators about the deletion of one of his false articles [[69]].

Finally there is the admittance of the vandalizing user himself from his own webpage: The following discourse addresses the reasons for the current universal acceptance by the scientific community of the preposition that the Scythians were unambiguously Indo-European, and specifically Iranian speaking, and the methods to reach this conclusion. [[70]] (note the link above is connected www.turkicworld.org and is written by this user per his own admission). Note the user believes that he can go against universal acceptance of scholarly facts in Wikipedia. I have warned him numerous times about [[71]] but with no success. He clearly admits he is going against universal accepted position of scientific community and wants to put his cooked up theories instead of accepting the universal judgment of relavent scholars of the field. --Ali doostzadeh 00:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While I share your concerns about Barefact's disruptive behaviour, I believe you'd better resolve the issue using traditional Wikipedia procedues, such as WP:RFC and WP:RFAr --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but with did an RFC on Scythians and the user still persits in ruining the entery. Also in scythia he broke the 3rr rule (actually 6 revisions within the past 24 hours). He is also making another false accusation of false suck-puppetery [72] (which is the 4th or 5th false accusation). I have reported him for the 3RR violation here: [73]. One of my other concerns is that his site is all POV and lacks scholarly caliber and yet he insists on cut & pasting materials from his site onto wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh 02:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

More Charlie Crist issues

Camroarty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Htanzler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to make similar edits to the Charlie Crist page to banned user Tywright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), removing key information from the page on his stances, an admin needs to look into this. --CFIF ☎ 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

M7 MBA / User:Opeman

Can someone check Opemans contribution history [74], I have a suspicion that their edits are recreations of deleted content. exolon 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the deletion log: [75] [76]. What exactly is the basis for your suspicions? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Found it - see [77] - I don't know if this stuff counts as recreation of that article, but should be checked. exolon 02:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't view deleted pages, unfortunately. However, from what was mentioned in the AfD, M7 MBA Business School seems like a repost of M7 (business school). I would like an admin to view the deleted page to make sure it's substantially similar, though. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, I remember this as a noob back in February. The old Afd is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M7 (business school). If this guy wants to recreate the content he needs to address the original issues (no verifiable proof that M7 is a significant and widely used term). Thatcher131 (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Still two of his contributions left, probably need deleting as well. exolon 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Massive POV and 3RR gaming by User:SledDogAC

The aforementioned user has been engaged in a pretty contained (3 articles) but unending edit war on Susan Butcher, Anchorage Daily News and Iditarod (race) for several months now. He spawned a IP sockfarm, but when semi-protection was applied, went back to his username. His contribs [78] show a limited scope, and his edits are solely POV or responding to are attempts to engage in dialogue with him. I'm requesting consideration of a community ban, or barring that, at least another block to get him to think more then the previous ones have. -M^ask 02:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Put it in the title but forgot to mention it here, his contribs also show some knowledge of policy, and him gaming it, with 4 reverts spaced out over slightly longer then 24 hours the 23rd/24th on Iditarod (race) article. -M^ask 02:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a rather long discussion with this user through email in May over this kind of edits, and she promised to try and behave. Apparently she's resumed the same behaviour since. I also warned her about 3RR on her talk page, which may explain the 3RR gaming. As far as I'm concerned, she has no useful contributions at all, and since she's been nothing but disruptive for several months, I'd recommend an indefinite block. - ulayiti (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From SledDogAC

The information I have added to the webpages is all correct and verifiable. I have provided documentation for what I write, in sharp contrast to AKMask's edits. AKMask doesn't want wikipedia to be neutral. This person has an a pro-Iditarod, pro-musher agenda that he or she only wants the public to know. If wikipedia wants to be held in high regard, it will ban administrators and editors like AKMask who act like dictators to keep facts from being told. I certainly don't deserve to be banned. Here's an example of what I've added and what has been repeatedly deleted by AKMask: (removed due to enormity)

User:Awareness of Language

Awareness of Language (talk · contribs · count) is a sockpuppet of Zen-master (talk · contribs · count). evidence: repeating same claims (reflected in user name choice), new account with 1 edit --Rikurzhen 02:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:KRBN persists in blanking, redirecting without discussion, etc.

KRBN (talk • contribs) has had a pattern of nominating articles and categories for deletion while simultaneously blanking the articles/categories. A few admins requested that he stop blanking and in addition that he familiarize himself with the criteria for speedy deletion, as a number of his nominated articles did assert notability.

A review of his edits showed some WP:POV edits with respect to certain articles and categories. For example, redirecting Maps of Northern Cyprus to Maps of Cyprus.

In good faith, a number of admins and editors have pointed out policies and guidelines.

He left a slightly cryptic query on my talk page. I replied to him on his talk page, quoting his comments. At the time, I reviewed some of his interim edits and found that he continues with the same edit pattern, which he has been warned is considered to be vandalism.

My initial inclination was to block him from editing. However, I would appreciate review by an admin (or two). Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin) But would support a block, if they've been warned countless times and still their actions don't appear to change, then the last resort is to have a short block (12/24hr?). And leave a clear statement on the users talk page of why they were blocked (not just the usual {{test5}}.--Andeh 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Await his next move. You've now given him a detailed explanation together with a clear warning. Let's see whether he takes it on board. It looks to me as if he is genuinely confused about our processes. We have to give him some chance to understand explanations. Sure, if he continues with the practice of blanking articles at the same time as he nominates them for speedy deletion, he can be given a substantial block. Metamagician3000 12:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

64.12.116.6 has vadalized some history pages

This user has put "Child Porn" a bunch of times on some history pages. Check it out here. I not sure if you can edit it or not but I thought I'd mention it. - Peregrinefisher 09:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

fixed. pschemp | talk 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Zenguru's vandalism of Shivaji

Zenguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been actively vandalising the Shivaji article for quite some time now. He puts some wrong information about the Maratha leader again and again. I have warned him twice (User talk:Zenguru) but to no avail. He has also violated the WP:3RR rule many a times. Myself, as well as other regular editors of Shivaji article have reverted his edits but he keeps on reverting it back. He put the objectionable matter here first time - [79] which was removed by me. But after that he kept on putting the matter back.

His violation of WP:3RR rule - diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6 and diff7.

Note that this is not an edit war. Since various different users have removed the matter many times. But Zenguru does it again and again. Also, the matter is highly sensitive as Shivaji is respected and followed by many in Maharashtra. Also the user is trying to force his view on the history. As it is said, if a lie is repeated many times it is believed to be truth.

After I warned him the second time, he now doesn't use his username but without logging in he makes the changes. The IP address is 203.145.159.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Here they are - diff8 and diff9.

Note that he has now changed some of the matter and he has removed a few objectionable matter esp. "But Maharaj invite a young prist from Varanasi named GagaBhatta for Coronation ritual and he agreed to do so because of heavy offering and proof which says Maharaj was belong to kshtrya kula (Sisodiya)". This false information was not put in by the IP address, seemingly to confuse us. Also check out his other edits to Jesse Glover. The IP address mentioned was blocked a few times as well.

--NRS^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 09:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the above diffs show him exceeding 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. I note that Zenguru is also adding print references for his claims, which are removed every time the coronation paragraph is taken out. Confessing my complete lack of knowledge on this subject, I would like to know why you think the references are unreliable (especially the one Zenguru says is "published by the Maharastra State Government"). Andrew Levine 09:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, not in 24 hrs but he is reverting back anyway. The links he claims as references are [{Dalitstan]]-affiliated websites and/or Independent Research organizations. However, I must say that the universally accepted version od Shivaji's history is that he was a Kshatriya and of course, he never made any reference to Sisodiya clan or any other Rajput clan. Apart from that, I may also add that Rajputs are Indo-Scythians while Marathas are Indo-Aryans, which is a major genetic difference between them and one which was known since historical times, due to which Rajputs were also referred to as Sakas or Sauryas while Marathas are referred to as Aryas. That apart, Brahmins calling Marathas as shudras is an allegation which was never proved and has no historical basis. It is just a speculation. Apart from that the other thing that he states is about the priest which is already mentioned. So, repeatation is not required. And the only reason he is repeating that is to push his POV about Marathas being shudras and alleged linkup to Sisodiyas. This I must say is massive POV pushing. And most of the things he says are speculations, rumours and falsities. I think Wikipedia is not for these things.

Anyway, if you feel that my argument isn't powerful enough, then it's alright. Let Wikipedia be filled with false information. As you would have noticed, I have stopped reverting the accused user's edits to "Shivaji" article now. See the current revision. If false information can so easily be fed into Wikipedia then what's the use of editing it. Isn't it ?

--NRS^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 10:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to let disinformation perpetuate in Wikipedia, I just want to understand the background information underlying this issue so I can come to a better understanding. Does Zenguru misrepresent the reference "Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar writings and Speeches volume 7 chapter 10, page no.156- 185 published by Maharastra State Government"? Or is Ambedkar considered an unreliable source, and if so, why? Andrew Levine 10:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As it is, from the reference title itself, we can understand. The problem here is not whether Ambedkar is a reliable source or not. The thing is whether what Ambedkar wrote about Shivaji is reliable or not. When Ambedkar wrote the thing, he wrote it as pure speculation. Also, it was a charged atmosphere. And Ambedkar being a recent convert to Buddhism had a reason to write it. The so-called lower castes shudras were ill-treated by Brahmins and he had a reason to attack Brahmins in his writings. But then, everything he wrote doesn't become the truth because of that. Then why doesn't everyone feed the articles about Hinduism, that Ambedkar wrote, into Wikipedia. That's because it cant be put, first because it is derogatory and secondly, it is false and was written in a fit of anger. That's because Babasaheb wrote it in anger and a feeling of revenge. Lest you may think otherwise, I must tell you, that I have utmost respect for Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. But just because he was Great, doesn't mean every word from his pen is the truth.

--NRS^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 11:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then couldn't the article include the information Zenguru is adding, but point out that it is based entirely on potentially damaging charges made by Dalitstan supporters and strong activists for certain castes? That is, rewording Zenguru's contributions to say something like "Some people affiliated with such-and-such movements, as well as Dr. B. R. Ambedkar shortly after his conversion to Buddhism, have speculated that not everyone at the time accepted Shivaji's coronation... (and so on) ... However, these highly charged claims have been challenged by historians like so-and-so, who say that..." This is how we normally present controversial and potentially injurious allegations made by notable groups and individuals in Wikipedia. Rather than call it the truth, we point out who's making the accusations. I trust that users like you with much better knowledge in the subject than mine are up to the task of fitting such a wording into the article. Andrew Levine 11:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Werdna deleting comments from 'publicgirluk' debate page

Hi folks. Please take a peek at User:Werdna's deletion of my comments from the Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate page. I'm heading out of town on a train and won't be back online for a few hours, so I wanted to post this here to avoid a 'revert war' with Werdna re-deleting my comments. If the comments in question were a vio of WP:NPA, I apologize in advance and welcome some advice on how to improve my debating form. However, from examining the diff link I think it's clear these comments are not personal attacks, and in no way justify deletion - and in this case the deletion of comments on a contentious page established expressly for debate is only likely to escalate tensions. Please advise, and thanks for your time. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good faith attempt at refactoring the page - whether or not it was the wisest possible move - and the user concerned seems to be in good repute. You may be in the right here, but does it matter awfully? I suggest you simply be big enough to let it go (and the same applies to everyone else who has been wounded by what happened). If you do that, why should the dispute escalate? None of the material that has been deleted is a great loss in my opinion. Really, everyone who got involved in this debate over the past few day needs to take a step back and a few deep breaths. A policy is needed for next time, and we all need to think calmly about what it should be, but endless arguments about who was "right" and who was "wrong" are not useful. Metamagician3000 13:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I believe however that the comments should stand and users not refactor selective sections of the debate (and obfuscate their meaning) - especially those of an opposing POV. . I won't escalate in either case, but let's leave the discussion intact. I'm not upset, just want the dialogue preserved and the meaning intact. And I appreciate it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd favour leaving the comments as is. Archive it if necessary (although it eems already like an archive) or provide a summary but it may be best to leave comments alone. I typically feel that way, by the way. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, my first ANI post, how exciting :-). In all seriousness, I did my utmost to make sure that the comments I deleted had no relevance to the situation. It is somewhat common practice to refactor discussions such as that, if they have descended into bickering, which they seemed to have. As the other user in the debate's block log, and back and forth accusations of bullying had little to nothing to do with the discussion, I removed them in order to keep the debate on-topic, or to move it back. I won't re-remove them, as it seems to have been contentious in some manner. — Werdna talk criticism 22:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lkinkade and Pooh-related articles

Lkinkade (talk · contribs) has been splitting out any and all Disney-related information from articles on the Winnie-the-Pooh characters. These are major changes that Lkinkade did not discuss beforehand, instead declaring "I am currently working on separating out all of the A. A. Milne characters from their more recent animated versions. The information about the original character was difficult too distinguish from the Disney character and attempts to use the article to find out about the original character were being foiled." [80] Worse, the changes are being made poorly -- the new articles have titles like Disney representation of the Milne character "Eeyore", and the old articles have no links to the new ones, resulting in the appearance of censoring Disney-related content from these articles, rather than a good-faith article split (although I am assuming good faith that the user is just unaware of good-practice rather than actively trying to hide the Disney-related content). I've asked him to stop but I wanted to put this notice up so that other editors are aware and can keep an eye on things. I also have no idea how to go about fixing this. Thanks for any help. Powers ^T 14:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to steal Lee's thunder on this one, but these changes were the result of a complaint regarding the content of Piglet. A broader investigation disclosed that most of the articles on the A. A. Milne characters suffered the same defects: a total lack of references, and a concentration on Disney's representation over the A. A. Milne originals. Disney's representations of classic literature, in many cases, are so divergent from the originals that they really deserve separate coverage, and furthermore the gross popularity and greater recent exposure of the Disney content tends to result in the originals being overwhelmed. An example of how far this goes was on Quasimodo, where a "fair use" screenshot of Disney's version was used to illustrate the article even though there are public domain illustrations in the original 1831 novel, and there may also be public domain material from the first Lon Cheney film as well. However, the editors of this article elected to use Disney's version -- which is not free by any means, and is also very unrepresentative of depictions of Quasimodo, being far less grotesque than virtually any other depiction in history -- instead of available free content. I suspect that these articles are being dominated by Disneyphiles, and as a result they are skewing these articles away from NPOV. This action benefits Wikipedia both by sequestering articles which are likely to attract the use of unlicensed media and by presenting a fuller, more complete examination of characters which have effectively led a "double life" (one as they were originally conceptualized by their original creators, and another as they have been reimagined by Disney). I think it a good thing that our readers are made aware that the Disney versions are not all that exists of these classics.

Finally, this is not really an appropriate issue for the Administrator's Noticeboard. That you ran here first over what is merely a content dispute suggests that you are attempting to strongarm Lee into backing down on this issue. Powers, I think you need to back off here and contemplate whether you are attempting to support a Disney-friendly POV on these articles. By my eyes, before Lee worked on them, they were very strongly Disney-friendly and certainly not neutral. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not really something for AN/I, although Powers did seem to want editorial attention more than administrative attention, and said "I also have no idea how to go about fixing this" so I'll assume he didn't intend to "strongarm". Take this away to the talk page, although you can ask for administrative assistance later if there are things like ugly redirects to clean up, or if dispute resolution breaks down.

To offer an editorial opinion, the treatment of the characters as they appear in Milne can certainly be improved, though it's quite clear that a separate article is not necessary; rather have two top level headings, one "In Milne" and the other "In Disney" (or words to similar effect) to distinguish the content. --bainer (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree AN is not the best place for it, but there is no single talk page on which to discuss this. I suppose I am trying to "strongarm" a bit, but only insofar as I'm trying to get him to discuss these changes before making them wholesale across the board. There's also the issue of the completely non-encyclopedic new article titles, and the complete lack of any cross-referencing between them. This looked for all the world like a situation that would only get worse if allowed to continue, and I wanted to enlist some help in reining it in until a consensus can be reached. I'd appreciate a little more assumption of good faith, Kelly. Powers ^T 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record, I did not "come here first". I posted on Lkinkade's talk page first, then came here to make sure other editors were aware of it. I apologize that I don't have Talk:Piglet (Winnie the Pooh) on my watchlist and so missed the discussion that apparently affects all Milne articles, but I maintain this is something that should not be done without broader discussion. Powers ^T 16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "Be bold"? And I've been reviewing your edit history; you're a Disneyphile, and I suspect that you're trying to push a pro-Disney POV. So I question your neutrality. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, how can I argue against that? I have maybe 20 Disney-related articles on my watchlist; if that's evidence for bias, then I guess I'm guilty. If you'd look at the actual edits, instead of just the titles, maybe you'd notice that I am not exactly a rampant pro-Disney POV pusher. I really don't appreciate this when all I'm trying to do is raise an alert to what looked to me like potentially destructive behavior. Yes, we want users to be bold, but this looked like something that would take a lot of effort to untangle, should consensus be against the split, and should be discussed first. If this split can be done correctly, I may not even have a problem with it, but the way it's being done seems reckless. Powers ^T 16:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a strange sense of "reckless", then. Oh, and the reason I said you came here first? You posted a rather irate comment on Lee's talk page, then posted here SIX MINUTES later (during which time Lee made no other edits) without first discussing the issue on any article talk page or in fact anywhere else at all. AN/I is not the place for just-started content disputes, no matter how "reckless" you think they are. (And reverting changes like the ones Lee made is actually very easy, your histrionic defense of your preferred version of these articles notwithstanding.) The tone of your second message on Lee's talk page was "I'm going to sic the administrators on you because you're being bad"; it came across to me as an attempt at intimidation. If that was not your intent, perhaps you need to be more careful in how you phrase your messages. Your conduct definitely "fanned the flames" rather than calming them. If I had to guess, from examining your conduct, I'd say that you were very emotionally upset because someone altered your preferred version of one of your favorite articles. That stinks of article ownership and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. You don't get to own articles here, and you don't get to be the defender of the "consensus version", and even more so when it's a consensus of like-minded people (which I suspect is the case here). Reading through the article's talk page, I don't see much evidence of a significant debate toward consensus, except for one episode where you argued vehemently toward favoring Disney's representation over all others. More evidence toward the conclusion that you're biasing the article in Disney's favor. I really do think you're letting your personal affinity for the Disney franchise cloud your judgment here, and that you really should back away from this issue. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly is correct - reverting many of those changes was reasonably trivial and required no adminstrative intervention, and Kelly was also correct that you are being overly protective of your preferred version. I know nothing, nor care at all, about the reputed contravercy over ownership, but I will help all parties in interest craft well worded articles at the names of the characters, without the creation of POV forks, that describe all of the relevent positions on who exactly Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore and Tigger are. I would support blanking this section of AN/I, and was considering doing it myself. JBKramer 17:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the impression that I'm being overly protective of "my preferred version". Winnie-the-Pooh is in no sense "one of my favorite articles;" I think it's bloated, overly long, and attempts to discuss both the franchise and the character without fully succeeding at both. I fully support any effort to improve the quality of the article, but the way this split was done appeared hasty and ill-advised. I also apologize for posting this discussion here; as I've already said, it was not the most appropriate place, but likewise I didn't know where else to discuss it (since more than just one article was affected). Despite appearances, I can only offer my sincere assurances that this was not an attempt to protect a favored version, nor to unreasonably promote a pro-Disney POV. I can't prove it, since it's impossible to prove a negative, so I can only offer the record of my contributions and disucssions as evidence of my sincerity. Powers ^T 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, if there is a need for separate articles about the Disney versions of the characters, they should be named in the standard Wikipedia disambiguated way, like "Winnie-the-pooh (Disney character)", instead of the clumsy names that are being used now. *Dan T.* 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Note AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winnie The Pooh (Disney). Powers ^T 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Political Cantankery

I have a slight hunch that a local politician may have attempted to use Wikipedia for his own political gain. I know this isn't exactly vandalism, but I am unfamiliar with the protocol in place for this situation. The user in question is Stampedem. The contributions in question have to do with the Eliot Shapleigh, and Dee Margo articles. These two men are both candidates for a seat in the Texas Senate, and as you can imagine, this sort of conduct has arrisen. I reverted some of the changes this user made too the Shapleigh article, and am currently researching the portions of his/her contributions I did not revert. I will document my findings on any other revert on the article's talk page. I also left a message on their talk page on the topic. Getting to the Margo article, what raises concern is that not all the contents of the article are exactly true. I have already tagged the article with {{Unreferenced}} and {{Not verified}}, and will be going through it over the next couple of days to check the facts. Also, although the author attacked the Shapleigh article with a sort of smear-campaign-style contribution, only a sentence of the Margo article deals with the upcoming election. In all honesty, Margo is somewhat of an unnotable person--although accomplished, his most notable quality is that he is running for a position as Texas senator. Hence, I also marked the article with {{Importance}}. I need to know how to attain the IP of a user, that way, I may run a trace to see if this user is indeed who I think they are. Please, if you have a moment, look into this situation. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Somnabot 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Only people with checkuser permission can do that... See Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser. Otherwise, it seems like you're doing the right thing by yourself. You can also warn them about WP:NPOV and possibly WP:AUTO. If the problem persists after that, come back here. Grandmasterka 01:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for an IP Ban

I request that the following IP address's are banned from Wikipedia. The IP address's are similar, and by looking at the changes made (as they are the exact same style of changes to the same articles) you will see that they both belong to the same person. By looking at the first of the two Ips, you will see that this person has received about four warnings in just one day. I have warned him again in the second IP address, but his constant edits are relentless. Please ban him.

The IP address's are as follows:

216.254.223.100 (Contributions done by him are here)

216.254.223.195 (Contributions done by him are here)

The Haunted Angel 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A plausible sockpuppet / Request for community block review

User SoftPale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is probably a sock of SoftPaleColors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His first edit was to go to an open ArbCom case and to make a statement confessing that he was indef blocked: [81]

So I'm just reporting it here. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

SoftPaleColors (talk · contribs) is contesting his indefinite block. A community block review is probably in order. His contribs show a couple dozen minor edits in January, with a long break that he ended by calling user:Hipocrite a troll on a rather ill-advised RFA. MONGO indef blocked SoftPaleColors as a sleeper account/troll (see the block log). I see the logic in this; SoftPaleColors thinks this is injust, that he should have been warned first, etc. I have no opinion on the block, but since its not related to the rest of MONGO's arbitration case, a community review is probably a better idea than cramming unrelated matters into the arbitration. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

He claims that he mailed the arbcom and no one has unblocked him, but maybe they haven't had time to look it over. SoftPale is a sock of SoftPaleColors though and has admitted this to be the case.--MONGO 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support unblocking. I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to support Mongo's conclusion. JoshuaZ 21:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

SoftPale (talk · contribs) has one edit...[82] [83]. I blocked this person when they were using their other account, namely SoftPaleColors (talk · contribs) after they showed up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite and posted this personal attack...having not made a single edit in the six months prior to that edit. This editor only had 15 edits total prior to the posting at that Rfc and now posting as SoftPale (talk · contribs) has stated, " I also from emailing the arbitrators, that they are completely biased in favor of administrators. Only one even answered and that person was fully biased against me because I am a lurker here, refusing to put my statement here." which I take to mean that they haven't been unblocked after emailing arbcom [84].--MONGO 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Only one even answered" refers to the fact that he posted {{unblock}} to his talk page and pgk denied the request and told him to email the arbitrators. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pgk was probably responding to the unblock request so unless arcom wishes to unblock him, I would prefer that this sleeper account remain blocked.--MONGO 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Editor or Admin?

Hi, if there is a Sri Lankan admin or editor, or an admin or editor who speaks Sri Lankan I could use their help in communicating with User:Lahiru k about his edits. Looks like he's copying text from the Sri Lankan navy website, but asserting he has permission as a member of the navy. I've unspeedied some of his contributions while we're in negotiations, but the recent Sri Lankan medal articles contain text lifted directly from http://www.navy.lk/gallery/medals/medals.htm so are most likely a copyvio. exolon 19:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Edit - the user seems well intentioned, but seems to lack knowledge of our policies, specifically Deletion and Copyright. exolon 19:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

199.254.165.254

This IP address has made between 100-250 edits since January of this year. A sampling of these edits show that about half of the edits are page blanking vandalism, while another set seem to be legitimate. Turns out this IP address belongs to Aurora Public Schools (below is the ARIN print out). Probably this is some kid using his/her school IP to vandalize wikipedia pages. Since I have no idea how to deal with this kind of vandalism/IP situation I am reporting it here. --Metatree 20:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to replace the whois listing (which wasn't formatted right anyway) with this link 199.254.165.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which has a link to the whois search built in. In the case of school vandalism where the IPs are stable, I would offer the suggestion to impose an anon-only ban for the next 10 months. That way kids who want to edit from school will have to create an account. A small deterrent, perhaps, but it should cut it down. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:67.66.203.21

You may want to consider blocking the following IP: 67.66.203.21, for adding dubious information to the Lex Luger and Dennis Stamp articles. Here's the evidence:

[85]

Duo02 *Shout here!** 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No Block Reason

Looks like RadioKirk is out and about abusing his admin powers again. If you look on his talk page history and block log, you will see that after Raptor30V1 left him a labor day greeting, he deleted the greeting and blocked Raptor30V1. It seems unimagionable that an Admin would block a user (newbe mind you) just because he does not celebrate labor day, but that seems to be the cas with Kirk. Nanook the Husky 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• User was blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user, see [86] so the block is legitimate. exolon 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice this "signed" remark by User:Nanook the Husky actually comes from 216.164.203.122 (talk · contribs); 216.164.203.90 (talk · contribs) was blocked as a massive sock farm per WP:RFCU. Also note this edit during this time by User:TheFerick—User:Nookdog (another of this user's aliases) recently claimed to be User:Ferick resulting in an inadvertent block on my part. This user is a troublemaker of the worst sort, and this ip range needs to be checked for collteral and dealt with. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying, "THE HORROR THE HORROR" this so called "RadioKirk" needs to be permabanned NOW, ASAP! His atrocities continue and continue.....how long will we let this vicious cycle go on. Good 'ol' My Name 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL This user got caught, got checkuser'ed, got pissed, got a new IP and is now trying to "get even". It's time to get a life, Rappy. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust. :) Metamagician3000 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Lingeron/Thewolfstar

I gave her many, many chances to change her attitude and editing style before reporting it, but Thewolfstar is back, this time in the form of Whiskey Rebellion, making the same strange edits. See her talk page and contribution history for evidence. This one seems like a no-brainer, but I would like to have others take a look into it. --AaronS 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a complete no-brainer (assuming it's Maggie, she's gotten a lot smarter), but a Checkuser may be in order. There's a suspiciously advanced knowledge of Wikipedia markup, combined with a similarly tendentious (though toned-down compared to previously) editing style. Watching Maggie's initial meltdown (I didn't participate (much?), but watching was more than enough) was deeply unsettling; it wouldn't be pleasant to watch it happen again. However, we need to be absolutely sure before we do anything drastic. Captainktainer * Talk 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To help with this, perhaps you should take a look at User:Lingeron's edit history. She was also a sock puppet of Maggie, and was also a bit more careful. The fact that she has toned down a bit is the reason why I waited so long to report anything to WP:AN/I. But I've been dealing with her for weeks, and it's pretty obvious to me, now, that she's a sock puppet (and my initial hunches tend to be correct regarding sock puppets, anyway). She's doing the same old thing, accusing people of being part of a communist conspiracy, calling them anti-American, claiming that there's an anti-American bias imposed by America-haters, and so forth. She's also highly sensitive, and lashes out quite a bit, per usual. Now she's accusing us of editing while drunk. --AaronS 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, AaronS, it was DTC who first made the observation that you and Blockader were editing Wikipedia while drunk. This is evident by your conversations on talk:Anarchism. You both sound drunk and have all but admitted that you edit while drinking. I'm sorry that you think I am this (these) users. I'm just not and it's frustrating that you've driven good users away with your constant accusations like Two-bitSprite. As far as knowing markup, I've already explained to Bunchofgrapes that I've been using computers for 11 years, (since I was 9 years old), and can do quite a few things concerning their use. Another thing that you mentioned, the anti-American thing, This user says she is anti-American on her page, and this user also claims to be 'un-American'. That is what started me wondering and saying such a thing! I never said there was a communist conspiracy. What a thing to say! I have also, btw, been accused of being possibly User:RJII and User:Hogeye here: User_talk:Bunchofgrapes. Whiskey Rebellion 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. As far as the facts are concerned, Two-Bit Sprite and I got along together quite well, actually, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. When you work a lot on an article and get to know all of the editors there, the bad with the good, it becomes easy to recognize who's whom. It's like reading the same few authors over and over again. After a while, you can be presented with a short paragraph from an unnamed book, and, without much effort, name the author and title. Regardless, I don't consider myself to be one of the partisan editors; it's just that I consider the actions of the partisans on one side to be a bit more offensive than the partisans on the other. Needless to say, I get along quite well with everybody from both sides of the spectrum, save a couple of editors who have been notoriously nasty to all who disagree with them. --AaronS 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I brought this issue to Bunchofgrapes' attention a week or two ago (now in the archive), but at the time they didn't seem it was clear enough to block yet. Also see User talk:Bishonen for another conversation (also in archives). Anyway, they have definitely toned their edits down as mentioned above, although it has gotten worse the last few days. I however am convinced this is thewolfstar. I also think DTC and That'sHot should be checked into as well (DTC is accused of being an RJII sock, and I also mentioned this on both Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes' talk pages), but am not as confident as with Whiskey Rebellion. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It could very likely be her. One way to find out is if she comes here to WP:AN/I and starts posting about my crappy edits, my slanderous statements about others, or simply about the fact that I don't know the name of Trunk Highway 100 which is located in Minnesota. (Or is it SPUI who's supposed to make that complaint? I forget.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Killswitch Engage

This user has posted quite a few personal attacks here: [[87]]. He doesn't sign his posts much, thinking that will make him safe. This needs to end. He has been told about personal attacks, but continues to attack people because of how a page is edited (and it's not edited to his liking, so he attacks people). It's also notable, that he has done personal attacks in the past as well. RobJ1981 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rob pretty much said it all, but Killwsitch has made personal attacks even after being told to stop and gets upset if people edit a page and he doesn't agree with it. TJ Spyke 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Massive vandalism at article

Last night, it came to my attention through RC patrolling that Challenge of the GoBots had been vandalized and moved by GoGoGobots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This vandalism extended to vandalizing the image used in the article, and having moved the page a total of six times and vandalizing the image in the article four times. GIen had blocked the user for 31 hours, and this user had come off of a 24 hour block a few days ago. I believe that this user's block should be extended to an indefinite block due to the nature of the vandalism and to the extent that page protection had to be performed. Ryūlóng 22:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The user should have been indefinite blocked from the start - indefinite blocked now. Cowman109^Talk 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; now if there were only some way to fix the image's history. There's no need for a photo of a K-Mart in there, nor for the empty pages where Challenge of the GoBots was moved to, either.. Ryūlóng 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The empty pages were already deleted, and which image is this you're talking about? Cowman109^Talk 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I mean {{deletedpage}} the pages moved to and the image in the infobox needs history fixing. So much vandalism to that one image. Ryūlóng 06:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A Fake Story on Wikipedia

Industry is using Wikipedia to promote a fake story about the origins of Sweetest Day in order to sell products. The fake story is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetest_Day

The true story is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweetest_Day&oldid=71758612

Each time I post the true story of the origins of Sweetest Day, the edit is promptly reversed to the fake industry story.

Is Wikipedia really the place for distribution of corporate disinformation to help sell products? What can be done about this?

Miracleimpulse 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now, neither version has much in the way of references. I'd suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm sure that an accurate version will win out provided it is better documented. I'd also suggest visiting the Wikipedia:Manual of Style for pointers on formatting Wikipedia articles (such as not writing in all caps). Dragons flight 23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits by user Taurus876

It appears that User:Taurus876 created dozens upon dozens of coin articles, most of which contain the same exact content.

A few hours ago, another user requested Taurus876 to add intro paragraphs to his coin articles or else they'd fall under CSD.

However, in the last 15 minutes, he has just bombarded Wikipedia with nearly 30 coin-related articles, all of which contain the same exact material.

It seems to me that he's just mass-spamming, and not providing proper info on each article.

--Nishkid64 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Omg coincruft. The first articles he created are legitimate, but the ones created today are indeed exact duplicates. I've blocked him to stop the behaviour, and will request that he make those articles legitimate. pschemp | talk 00:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It would also seem that he is copying his articles word for word from the US Mint site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Spanish_Trail_half_dollar

http://www.usmint.gov/kids/index.cfm?fileContents=coinNews/cotm/2001/08.cfm Bobby 15:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on historically Black colleges

141.165.211.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just blanked sections in five articles about historically Black colleges. The vandalism is run-of-the-mill, but the choice of articles to vandalize is not random. -- Donald Albury 01:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't vandalized since last warning. List empty. (Go to WP:AIV next time, even if the articles are not random.) Grandmasterka 02:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia and his sockpuppet Editor 1 edit warring, removal of warnings, and vandalism

Edipedia has engaged in a long edit war on Han Chinese and other Chinese-ethnic-related articles such as Overseas Chinese, pushing his POV in apparent ignorance of Wikipedia policies. Attempts to discuss with him and to educate him in Wikipedia policies failed (see his talk page and the long discussion at Talk:Han Chinese); Edipedia edits regardless of talk page discussions, sometimes with abusive edit summaries [88] [89]. Edipedia does not seem to be fluent in English [90], which can be understood and is completely acceptable. However, any note or warning that went into his talk page was abruptly removed without any reason [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] etc., despite continuous reminders not to do so. Attempts to discuss from about five established users in Wikipedia, including User:Sumple, User:Nat Krause, User:HongQiGong, User:Instantnood failed miserably as Edipedia refused to listen to any advice, making comments like "I do see a lot of Stuff and nonsense here" and commenting that he thinks Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and therefore he is free to edit anything [97]. He also tried to correct what he see as grammatical mistakes [98] [99], but most of the time it was he that was wrong, and he refused to listen to it and started to tell others to "study English grammer" [100]. He then started to politically accuse others of being "Taiwanese" [101]; then, despite reminders of WP:NOT a soapbox [102] he continued to accuse others of various political matters [103]. In the meantime he continues to make POV or wrong edits around the article Han Chinese (in various parts of the article; all of the edits are reverted by separate contributors, to be added by him again). I requested the page Han Chinese (and later Overseas Chinese) to be fully-protected to try to make Edipedia discuss logically; however, Edipedia immediately requested the page for unprotection twice [104] [105] (second one using one of his sockpuppets, Epedia, as he was blocked for his third violation of 3RR), claiming that "edit war has died down". The second request succeeded. However, he immediately started an edit war, making 4 reverts under 40 minutes [106] [107] [108] [109] (without any discussion or edit summaries, to be reverted by User:Instantnood and User:HongQiGong). Any attempt to discuss with him failed; he then engaged in pure vandalism, including the placing of obvious illegitimate warnings [110] [111] [112]. After being blocked 48 hours for the fourth violation of 3RR [113] after three more reverts in Han Chinese (reverted by me and HongQiGong), he created a sockpuppet account, User:Editor 1 and continued edit warring [114] [115] [116] [117] and pure vandalism, including the disruption of Administrators' noticeboard (the particular case about Edipedia) [118]. More evidence of sockpuppeting is here. User Edipedia continues to blank his talk page. Edipedia has another sockpuppet, User:Epedia, which he sometimes uses when he is blocked. Epedia is an obvious sockpuppet: see [119].Aran|heru|nar 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Without regard to this report, I blocked Editor 1 for 4 days for 3RR violations, disruption, and personal attacks (per this) alphaChimp ^laudare 03:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Health Sciences Antigua UHSA

I would like to point out that I am making available, valid information, on the UHSA page; but a certain poster continues to use "finger-thocracy" to decide what is and what is not "wiki-worthy". The links I have contributed are for the most part from State websites that hold legitimate information that is in the public domain, none of the links are "rabbit-outta-the-hat" types.

Thank you. Robo doc 03:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Robo doc has nothing meaningful to contribute. He is copying and pasting links and copyrighted material into my article from other websites only to publicize 3rd party websites filled with ads. I’m surprised to see he is asking for your help. Notice, he recently registered his ID for the sole purpose of posting his nasty remarks and links in the UHSA article.

Thank You again,

DrGladwin

Responding on editor's talk page. Grandmasterka 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Public computer?

205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is apparently an IP registered to Office Depot. According to this topic, it appears that it is registered to 'all office depots, and can be accessed wirelessly from 1500 feet away. This IP has been used in the past by MascotGuy, and I do not know if this IP should be blocked for being essentially an open proxy/zombie computer/public IP or if it should be left alone. Ryūlóng 06:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What really set me off about this IP is the fact that at any AFDs, it uses really odd edit summaries. Ryūlóng 06:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Just like we don't block the vast majority of other public IPs (schools, libraries, etc.) I don't see why this warrants a ban, unless it is an open proxy. Just keep a curious eye on it. :-) Others will probably know more about this than I do though. Grandmasterka 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:DTC

This user is busy in with a elaborate campaign of POV violation, which lies beyond the scope of this noticeboard. His methods of complex vandalism do not: the user is extremely fond of Wikilawyering, using it mainly to strike sources opposing his views from articles, especially the old problem article of Anarchism. He has made a complex 3RR violation striking an excellent source (a violation so complex no admin made a judgement). He insists on removing a slew of sources, some impeccable, despite my repeated pleadings for him not to and explanations as to why not on the talk page. Later other editors gave fuller defenses of some of these sources here which the user has ignored in striking them from the article, unilaterally, first one excellent source, then a bucket of sources (as he had before). Having thus removed sources opposing his POV he frames his POV as the scholarly consensus. Due to his dishonesty (he claims, twice, to have read all the sources and not have found the claims in question) his aggressive misrepresentation of sources (as discussed in the talk page) and of Wikipedia policy (concerning what is an acceptable source) I believe it impossible to consider his acts as those done in good faith. I ask for administrator intervention explaining to the user the unsuitability of manipulating Wikipedia in this way, since he has been edit-warring for weeks and has brushed off all attempts at mediation (note how his list of "verified" sources is unchanged since a week ago, despite some of these sources being justified on the talk page in the mean time). I have not mentioned all the details here for conciseness - I can be contacted for a fuller explanation of the points on my talk page. Thank you in advance --GoodIntentions^talk 06:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Now for the real story. You're the one that put in those sources and I gave you ample time to come up with page numbers so they could be verified but you couldn't do it. Why couldn't you do it? Because you never accessed the sources. You took them out of another Wikipedia article, which you admitted. Apparently you don't know that information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. If you cite a whole book and claim that somewhere in there is the specific claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, how is anyone to verify that? I looked through some of those books and I didn't see the claim in them. And you didn't either. The burden is on you to show that you allege to be sources actually are. You need to give us a page number, and a quote as well would be better. When and if you do, I'm going to look it up in the book to verify it. If you assume bad faith, that's your problem. I haven't given you any reason to assume bad faith. I have even deleted sources that were claimed to say anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, because I went to verify it and it didn't say what it was alleged to say. But if you want to assume bad faith, go right ahead. Your assumption of bad faith is not going to stop me verifying the sources and deleting any that can't be verified. And yes, please send us some intervention, preferably from someone who cares about Wikipedia having reliable information. DTC 06:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Zayre's Killers a sock of MascotGuy?

(Note: Moved from AIAV)

• Zayre's Killers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - MascotGuy (talk · contribs) Sockpuppet --Ryūlóng 05:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  Can you provide more information here? Perhaps add a note onto the talk of an admin who's more familiar with the situation? As it stands, there's not enough information for me (or for another admin unfamiliar with this user/puppet) to do anything. --Nlu (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  No edit summaries; interest in Wal-Mart; interest in animation; interest in large retailers. More at the LTA page I've listed. Ryūlóng 05:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  MascotGuy is a doppelganger account. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy is where you want to look. Ryūlóng 05:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  I still don't feel comfortable enough blocking, as someone who's not familiar with MascotGuy. I won't complain if another admin does, but perhaps submit it to WP:RCU? --Nlu (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do at RFCU about this user because it's been done and he utilizes whatever computer he is next to. Ryūlóng 05:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  Yep, it's him. I'm not massively familiar with this particular sockpuppeteer, but comparing his edits, those of his most recent sockpuppets, and the characteristics listed on the LTA page, it's pretty obvious. Blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  enjoy using the LTA page while you can, Doc Glasgow is proposing to delete them all. pschemp | talk 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeated blankings by an IP editor

List of countries by military expenditures is constantly blanked by a single IP editor. Although he appears to be improving the article, his repeated blankings do more harm than help. I don't think it's AIV or RFPP material. Ryūlóng 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked. It looks like an unfair block to me, as far as I can see he's been removing a couple of small sections from an article that he has been editing for weeks. I see no large scale blanking at all. I'm going to assume these has been some technical problem where he appears to be blanking but isn't and undo the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to urge my fellow admins to think before blocking, and everyone to think before accusing someone of vandalising. How likely is it that someone who has been adding info to an article for weeks would vandalise it? I hope we haven't scared away a good editor here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Circumvention of WP:CITE

Filed a mediation request at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-15_Immanuel_Kant. It was closed with the statement "it would appear that User:Spinoza1111 is trying to circumvent WP:OR and WP:CITE quite unilaterally" and was referred here if needed. User:Spinoza1111 has not yet tried to circumvent the policy at the article in question but he is now posting to the discussion at the mediation page, bashing me, Wiki policy, and the mediation process. He wants the mediation re-opened. If he takes up his old habits, I don't believe that discussion betweem he/she and I will be productive if he doesn't accept WP:CITE. Amerindianarts 08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Shadow_Magi

Saw this on AIAV:

• Shadow_Magi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - aren't public accounts forbidden? because this seems to be (see user page) --Andeh 10:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the account and left an appropriate message on the Talk page. Might be worth keeping an eye on them in case anything productive can be salvaged. The Land 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

70.35.237.67

70.35.237.67 began by adding speculation and unsourced statements at Lexington, Kentucky which was removed several times by myself and another user. The IPUser argued and began digging through my user contribution list, editing Louisville, Kentucky, Urban exploration, Big Dig, The Atlantic Paranormal Society, Waverly Hills Sanatorium, Parapsychology, and University of Kentucky. The IPUser was given clear instruction on proper procedure at Wikipedia regarding the original incident, but ignored all suggestions. He was then warned after vandalising numerous pages and the IPUser has gone as far as to remove the warning templates. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I also reported it earlier at the Mediation Cabal, to which the IPUser has already vandalised with irrelevant garbage. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to move "Benoît Chamoux" into production

I created a simple page on the life of French Climber who died in 1995. When I try to move it into production I am told that I am not logged in. Even after I log in the message is the same. This is my first contribution so I a bit confused by the procedure? Thanks, CCC - ccla@ch.ibm.com

Benoît Chamoux seems to be "in production". You seem to be signed in as User:Cclauss. Have you tried clearing your browser cache, by either holding down the Shift key as you press Reload, or closing and reopening your browser? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:DENY-driven deletion spree

Cyde has gone on a deletion spree of fifty-four vandalism-related pages; make note of the contents of his deletion log (copied here for ease of historical viewing, hidden for courtesy of the uninterested; yes I'm aware the Nav classes don't work in many browsers/skins):

Deletion log

02:19, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/CapnCrack" (Orphaned talk page)
02:19, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "WP:CK" (CSD R1)
02:18, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "WP:JOHNNY" (CSD R1)
02:18, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/CapnCrack" (WP:DENY)
02:18, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "WP:JtV" (CSD R1)
02:17, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Johnny the Vandal" (Orphaned)
02:17, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Johnny the Vandal" (WP:DENY)
02:13, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "WP:SQUID" (CSD R1)
02:08, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal" (Orphaned)
02:08, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal" (WP:DENY)
01:41, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template talk:BB" (Orphaned talk page)
01:41, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:BB" (Orphaned)
01:39, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "WP:BOBBY" (CSD R1)
01:36, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Mr. Treason" (Orphaned)
01:36, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mr. Treason" (Long-gone vandal)
01:28, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Loyola Vandal" (Orphaned)
01:28, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Loyola Vandal" (WP:DENY)
01:24, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:KV" (WP:DENY)
01:20, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template talk:NCV" (Orphaned)
01:20, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:NCV" (Orphaned)
01:17, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "WP:NCV" (CSD R1)
01:16, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "WP:NORTH" (content was: '#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal' (and the only contributor was 'Nkcs'))
01:11, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal" (Orphaned)
01:11, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal" (Just another vandal)
01:10, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal/Appearences outside of English Wikipedia" (Not relevant to en-wiki.)
00:57, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Outoftuneviolin" (Orphaned)
00:57, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Outoftuneviolin" (Gone vandal)
00:46, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Ball of wax vandal" (Orphaned)
00:46, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Ball of wax vandal" (Dead vandal)
00:37, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:NCVChecked" (Orphaned)
00:31, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:Johnny the Vandal" (Orphaned)
00:30, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:JTV" (Orphaned)
00:30, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:JtV" (Orphaned)
00:12, 30 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:User CVU1-en" (Non-existent membership.)
19:56, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "CAT:WOW" (CSD R1)
19:56, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "WP:WOW" (Insipid shortcut)
19:54, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/The Communism Vandal" (Orphaned)
19:54, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Communism Vandal" (Long-gone user)
19:53, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism" (Orphaned)
19:53, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism" (Long-gone user)
19:52, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of the Communism vandal" (Long-gone vandal)
19:48, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Bobby Boulders" (Orphaned)
19:48, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Bobby Boulders" (No such person)
19:47, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/MilkMan" (Orphaned)
19:47, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:UsernameBlock-MilkMan" (Unused)
19:47, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:Unb-mm" (Unused)
19:44, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MilkMan" (The "real" MilkMan hasn't been around for a long while.)
19:43, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "WP:MILK" (Bleagh)
19:43, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MilkMan" (Bye bye MilkMan)
19:38, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels/Appearances outside of the English Wikipedia" (Per MFD)
05:35, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category talk:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels" (Orphaned)
05:34, 29 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels" (No more Willy)
19:06, 28 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:TheA57Manchester" ({{Pageblankvandal}})
19:03, 28 August 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:TheM62Manchester" (Denying vandals userpages)

The Willy on Wheels' non-wiki appearances subpage was the result of a MfD, as the Outoftuneviolin subpage, and unless I'm missing some sort of major event, at the moment those seem to be the only deletions that had any sort of legitimate justifications under the official deletion policy. As Cyde has not made any sort of declaration or announcement of his actions (a quick contribs glance proves that easily), I highly suspect he will defend himself with claims that he has "full community backing" in the matter, and definitely "there is no controversy over WP:DENY" will come up many times (getting any deja-vu yet?).

I'm just starting to feel sick at the sheer, sheer, sheer disrespect for process occuring here. ~ PseudoSudo 14:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to interject, some of us are starting to feel sick at the worshipful attitude towards process which is infecting Wikipedia like a fungus. Why did you think WP:IAR was formulated in the first place? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The sooner we abandon it, the better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

TThe other relevent discussion is here: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Indef blocked userpages - new policy and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedia blocked imposters and all subcategories This is a coordinated effort to eventually get rid of all vandal pages and categories. Some of them can go, but some are useful (see ANI discussion above) however I feel that Doc and Cyde are ignoring that fact and will soon be pushing thier total deletion agenda on everything. Check their deletion logs. pschemp | talk 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh...that's disgusting. Such a gross level of out-of-process speedy deletions should be "rewareded" with immediate and permanant desysopping. jgp ^T_C 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's as disgusting as it would ever get, worse even than out-of-process userbox deletions... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I don't believe the deletions were at all out of process. Put simply, vandals shouldn't be given their own pages on Wikipedia. All vandals want is attention and those pages were giving it to them. Those pages were just adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 15:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying these pages should not be deleted, I'm saying these deletions are out of process, which is not the same thing. Yes, WP:DENY is an interesting essay, but it has to mature for some time before being applied. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Let's desysop him at once. because you know, Wikipedia is all about process. Screw the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While these deletions are out of process Cyde's actions are understandable (if a bit too speedy). I agree with others that vandals shouldn't be "rewarded" by having more Wikipedia infrastructure than is necessary utilized to properly manage their disruptions. I'm guessing that if need be Cyde can as easily unspeedy these deletions for proper review but at first glance his motivations are surely in the right place. (→Netscott) 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that he's just doing it and not really discussing it with anyone else (which is his "thing" anyway, if we recall, for instance, his stable version on Elephant action), I'm not even sure if we can say his motivations are surely in the right place. It seems to be that he's motivated to make things the way he wants them, and deal with the lack of consequences later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that his apparent motivation to reduce vandal "rewarding" is out of place Badlydrawnjeff? I do not concur if that is the case. (→Netscott) 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm making no judgement call on the value or lack thereof, it's irrelevant to this. Given his track record, healthy skepticism is a requirement in my mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Administrative actions regarding meta-material such as this really don't seem — to me — to be worth wailing, gnashing of teeth, and shirt-ripping. Can we turn down the drama knob a bit? Nandesuka 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If this were an isolated incident, it'd be one thing. This is one in a list w/Cyde, and a demonstration that certain members learned nothing from the userbox debacle. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh* "out of process" the wors possible crime to humankind. We should tear down oen of the 5 pillars over which wikipedia is built. -- Drini 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And what pillar is "ignore everyone and do whatever you feel is best?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them." <-- actual policy. -- Drini 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Holy crap. IAR has never been policy until recently. Where was the discussion on this? That's absolutely absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • IAR has never NOT been policy except for a brief lapse in attention that allowed it to be reclassified. Jimbo himself caught the change a couple weeks ago and had a fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • That's quite the extended "brief lapse." I don't think he knows the can of worms that opens. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
            • He may have opened the can, but you'll have to eat them worms. Mackensen (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In which way these deletions improve WP's quality, I wonder... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Excercise left to the reader. submit before Monday 10:00 am. -- Drini 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation for those who don't get my point: Yes burn him!!!! 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The real concern I have is where will this stop? Some need to be deleted, yes, but some are useful and that fact is being ignored. There is a perfect example of that on ANI right now, yet no one is talking about where the limits of the deletions are. pschemp | talk 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. A bit of rational discussion produces better results than stomping off on a crusade, almost every time. Friday (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Rational calls for desysoppings are usually better. -- Drini 15:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK look. I don't really care one bit about whether these deletions are in or out of process. Honest, I don't. And arguments that they are out of process truly miss the point, which is that we are getting some things tossed that we need kept, things that admins working hard to counteract sock vandals need to get their work done. I'm prepared to restore items that got deleted by mistake, without regard to DrV, and take the heat for it, if the case is made to me (in whatever manner you choose) that they're needful. This is starting to verge on throwing the baby out with the bathwater and arguing about whether it is in or out of process is itself wankery. (from both camps!) ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Process is a means for determining community consensus; so is just plain talking. Let's decide if people think some of these pages are useful and restore them. -- SCZenz 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll start. I looked through the deleted pages, and none of them look useful to me. Anyone else? -- SCZenz 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Lar here. While these items are useless, I'd be in full support of they're being restored "out-of-process" if someone can present a valid and useful reason. Bastique▼^parler _voir 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Because, you know, community input isn't one. Is that how I should interpret this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You need a reason that you wish them restored, sir. Not just an objection to how they were deleted in the first place. -- SCZenz 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We have ways we go about doing these things, sir. An objection to how it was done tdue to lack of community input is an absolutely valid objection. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you want the pages back, talk about the pages. -- SCZenz 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the only disruption at this point was the out of process deletion. Too bad you're supporting such nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Friday. I've been open about what I'm doing all along - hense my post up above yesterday solicitating comments. I've been listening for any rational objections. I've sent the categories to CfD for a full debate. But changing things round here is always a matter of being bold and talking at the same time. Boldness only and you get backs up, talk only and you go in circles. I sense a consensus is emerging. Sure, it will need to be tweeked - a case for keeping some of the vandal-forensics may exist (I've yet to hear it tough). Nothing I've done is irreverable - although no-one has reversed anything yet.--Doc 15:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc, here is one Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy that *is* useful, right now. Why? Because the people fighting that vandal said they need it. It is covered by your proposal to delete all LTA pages. It's been pointed out to you multiple times I think, although maybe you missed it. If it gets deleted, in or out of process, I'll speedy restore it on request, and to the devil with process. I'm turning my process wonk badge in, I think. I say that and yet I am totally in agreement with losing memorialising things, we don't need them. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For my part I completely support the spirit of what Cyde and Doc are doing. There is absolutely no sense in keeping monuments to vandals around just because we can't muster a supermajority on MFD to delete them. Any pages that are of actual ongoing utility to people dealing with vandalism are another matter, but it is unclear to me that these monuments are in fact useful in this fashion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The case discussed at AN right now is an LTA page that was recently useful in convincing some admins that a new editor was in fact an old vandal. That's an excellent use of the LTA concept. No one needs an LTA page for Willy any more, page move vandalism is obvious and doesn't require investigation. We also don't need to categorize vandals except in the cases of subtle vandals that require investigation, and we don't need vandal templates as long as a reasonable summary is included in the block log ("page move vandal", "attack user name", etc.) Too much of the anti-vandal tagging and categorizing is about scorekeeping, and obvious vandals don't need to be tracked or counted. Just block and move on. I support 90% of these deletions and I would recommend that if any LTA pages that are needed for the more subtle vandals are deleted, to undelete them and make a note on the page/talk page. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"There is absolutely no sense in keeping monuments to vandals around just because we can't muster a supermajority on MFD to delete them.".

I see. We can't get a consensus on MFD, so let's delete 'em with no consenus. I'm afraid the implications of such a logic are quite far-reaching - and a little bit terrifying to say the least. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as one who deals with sockpuppets, keeping these kinds of pages really isn't very helpful, and I wholly support removing them. The things that vandals do--page blanking, page moves, insertion of inappropriate material--are readily recognizable as things which are bad for the encyclopedia and should be reverted. We don't need these monuments and shrines. I wholly support getting rid of them. Badlydrawnjeff is laboring under the mistaken idea that vandal pages have something to do with encyclopedia and fall under the rules which govern content. They don't. They're cruft. The community exists to serve the encyclopedia. You're here to serve the encyclopedia. If it's good for the encyclopedia it stays. If it isn't then it goes. If you don't agree with these propositions then you'd better go too, because you're here for the wrong reasons. Now, there is space for a debate as to whether these are useful and should be kept. The recent CfD debates suggest a general consensus to delete most of them, to the horror of vandals. Cyde, as always, has perhaps been exuberant in his interpretation of events. He does that. He also might be right. Instead of quibbling over process, let's ask whether he's right that we should nuke these pages. Mackensen (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Save for the LTA pages etc. (as necessary) Doc and Cyde are right. Less vandal monumentalizing and more encyclopedic work. (→Netscott) 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, if he didn't act so rashly, we'd not be "vandal monumentalizing" to begin with. If you want more "encyclopedic work," start restraining the people who drag us away from it with their unilateral actions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I always giggle when I see someone call admin actions "unilateral" - as if some of us have a lil monkey on our shoulder that presses the delete button the same time we do :) FWIW, I have yet to see any argument for keeping the pages and I support the deletions. Shell ^babelfish 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, you've got, by far more comments on this topic than anyone. Nobody is dragging you from anything but yourself. Bastique▼^parler _voir 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn straight I do. I'm also not the one preaching about doing more "encyclopedic work." --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I for one support deletion of all vandal trophy-cabinets. They glorify wrongdoing, and very likely do more harm than good. Vandals are vermin and should be reverted, blocked, and otherwise ignored. I also agree with Mackensen that there may be a few cases where forensic information is useful, but it is in a small minority of vandal pages: we need to discuss which may be in this category. Antandrus (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen, the thing is, where is a new user going to find information about a "prominent" (for lack of a better word) vandal if he runs into one? For example, how was I going to find out, back when I was a newbie, to look for the tell-tale signs of WoW? Or better yet, if I hadn't had found the page where it was documented, wouldn't I have been a bit unprepared to be an admin? Where would we have written the IP information when it came to the Squidward vandal a while back? IIRC, someone used it to make some phone calls to the ISP. I do agree that sometimes these pages are created unnecesarily, but it feels like you're throwing the baby along with the bathwater, and that many of these pages should not have been deleted. At the same time, explosive and spectacular antics like those seen here just distracts those who are actually trying to edit articles for a while and run into the latest meta-turf war. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So, should we delete most of Wikipedia:Long term abuse, too? When subpages for individual vandals aren't useful, then nether are subsections for individual vandals on WP:LTA. --Conti|✉ 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but this is exactly the threshold that needs to be debated. There's a difference in quality and scope: for example, some of the dedicated pages have their own logos and art work for specific vandals. This is the glorification that needs to go. Google also picks up these individual pages. Antandrus (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

---

On Ignore All Rules: The concept is important to Wikipedia. The nature of the concept makes it fundamental to the working of Wikipedia. It has a long tradition, and deep and subtle meaning.

In other words, the capability of not doing everything by-the-process is fundamental to wikipedia. That's why it's a pillar. But again, that's only crazy jimbo opinion -- Drini 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a pillar, per se, simply a Jimbo decree, and one that we'd hope taht the rest of us in the trenches would have grown out of. "Long deep tradition" doesn't mean it makes sense now, and perhaps a wider discussion is in order since people are interpreting things the way they are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been a pillar for a long time. IT's the 5th pillar and has existed much before this (it was here when I joined a half and year ago). Jimbo just reinforced its policy status. I know you find it disturbing, but that's the way it is. You may want to make it stop being policy, go ahead and try. But now it IS policy. It is supported by jimbo (who's higher than even arbcomm), and we're following policy. Now, I think the discussion about the desysopping has ended, and if there are other topics, they can be discussed at proper places. -- Drini 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the pillar for your own agenda here. We don't have firm rules because we come to decisions largely on consensus, have no binding decisions, and our policies are fluid with the times. Now, I don't think the discussion is over about desyssopping - at some point, the community's patience with Cyde is over, and we may be very close to that point. Hiding behind IAR doesn't address the overbearing situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We're makign progress. YUou know acknoledge it's a pillar. And all policies MUST derive from the pillars. I think you're the one with the agenda, trying to mislead people thinking that IAR is not a pillar and it's not policy, and that was just recently added by jimbo, all of three claims being false. -- Drini 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually. I do not acknowledge that IAR is a pillar, I do not mislead anyone because IAR is not a pillar, and IAR was NOT a policy as listed until very recently. I was wrong about it not being a policy, absolutely, but that's because, well, it wasn't until it got snuck back in. I'll work to change that, but the other two, no, I do not agree with your interpretation one bit. I question your ability to administer with this in mind, knowing what I know now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm blocking you for 3 hours so you can calm down. When you return, please keep your rhetoric firmly in check, and maintain civility. Nandesuka 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this block. pschemp | talk 16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this block. What has he done that wasn't civil? Disagreeing with popular opinion isn't auotmatically incivil. --W.marsh 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely uncalled for; can you provide diffs of disruption? ~ PseudoSudo 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. He's (fairly civilly) expressing his disagreement; are we blocking people for merely that now? Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)