Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User Viridae violating WP:CANVASS

It would appear that Viridae is violating Wikipedia's policies on canvassing to influence the outcome of a deletion review. See the edits here and here. Bongout (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not really canvassing, he's just notifying 2 people that will likely want to comment. John Reaves 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He solicited the opinion of someone he knew would be in agreement with him: "...because you are the person most likely to get the deletion reason, something that sails far above the heads of many others." Further action needs to be taken against Viridae for his highly inappropriate unilateral conduct because there was ongoing discussion, and he chose to dismiss all of it of his own accord. RTFA (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He's cherry-picking people he knows will likely want to comment in favour of his position, something that is made very clear by those edits. Bongout (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not be entirely appropriate, but it certainly doesn't require sanctions. John Reaves 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a good interpretation of Canvas and Durova and Doc glasgow's views are indeed to be hoped for in such a DRV. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:16, 18 March 2008 (

This may be the case, but the guideline clearly states Always keep the message neutral and Viridae's message to Doc glasgow clearly violated this. It also states Do not attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view and Durova has very well known views on BLPs. Bongout (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Contacting two users isn't canvassing, and is perfectly appropriate. It's especially appropriate for an issue such as this, where there is certain to be a prolonged discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh pull the other one. Durova had already discussed the article in question and possible deletions of it. Doc is the most clued in person on the project BLP wise, even if I don't always agree with him and is likely to want to be involved in an issue such as this. Viridae^Talk 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)::I agree with Squeakbox, CBM and John Reaves. Carefully reading WP:CANVASS reveals that there are only very slim arguments that could be made for a violation by Viridae. The scale was definitely limited. Votestacking, per WP:CANVASS, involves mass talk messages - these were two individually worded messages (one was simply "Heads up, D"). One could make an argument that the first one was not neutral - although no effort was made to TELL Doc to vote one way or the other. Was he campaigning? Well, again, the policy paints a gray area on this one - you have to take scale into account. Here, it was only two people. Was this action completely appropriate? Possibly not. Are there any warranted sanctions (or really, any warranted actions at all)? Not in my opinion. Although that last addition by Viridae wasn't exactly mature. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc is often involved in deletion reviews and it appears that Durova was involved with this article previously. So, not canvassing. Cla68 (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is canvassing because the message was clearly not worded neutrally and it was an obvious attempt to sway consensus. Bongout (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one agrees with you, nothing is going to happen, so just drop it. John Reaves 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There are well-respected people who agree with me, both in this section and in the deletion review. Bongout (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

At the present, the only person in this section who has agreed with you is RTFA, a sockpuppet. If Viridae's talk page messages violated WP:CANVASS, the problem is with the canvassing document rather than with the actions. In particular, there is no reason that every talk page message has to be neutrally phrased. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not my contention that every talk page message need be worded neutrally. Also, while RTFA is a sockpuppet, as explained here, this they are a well-established user in good standing merely attempting to separate edits on subjects. This isn't a violation of policy, of trust, or of anything else.Bongout (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not even every message that tells someone else you want them to support you in an AFD or DRV. Your responses here seem to alternate between wikilawyering over the wording of CANVASS and wikilawyering over the manner in which others respond to you. I think I'll take John's advice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If WP:CANVASS were to prevent wise folks like Durova or DocG from commenting anywhere, I'd say there was a bit of a problem. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that they be prevented from commenting. ;-) Bongout (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec. *2) ... okay... so what are you suggesting? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (ec)

That Viridae be prevented from consensus canvassing. Bongout (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which would mean that you are opposed to Durova and DocG having been contacted, (as that is canvassing, according to you) correct? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, is it just me, or do several folks consider BLP to override all else? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because it does, IMO. It's our most important content policy, because it takes all the other content policies we have and distills them down for a single issue where it is vitally important that we not screw up: the lives and reputations of living people. FCYTravis (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

When used correctly, it should. John Reaves 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that both Doc G and Durova's input generally substantially improves the quality of discussion in any BLP matter. FCYTravis (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which anyone would think who is generally in favor of deletion. The bottom line is that anyone paying attention to BLP-penumbra issues at all knows exactly how Doc would respond and know how Durova would likely respond as well. At best, this Viridae should have ealized that this looked bad. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is asinine. I move that Bongout be censured for violation of WP:AGF. Jtrainor (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's as blatantly absurd as Bongout's idea that this was canvassing. I suggest that this section's discussion be closed as it's just rehashing now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Censured? We can do that? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See, it would be a proof-by-counterexample sort of thing. We would show that Assuming Good Faith is important by failing ourselves to do it for him, and letting him know how it feels. Disputes can be kept alive for years that way, if you're dedicated enough. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And that, of course, would be a textbook example of disruption to make a point <GRIN> --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) You wouldn't believe how many people get WP:POINT wrong. Basically, if you're not grinning from ear to ear at the sheer creative audacity of it all, even while preparing to click the block button... it probably wasn't a WP:POINT violation. ;-)

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but there already was a related discussion on Durova's talk page when Viridae left a message. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is kinda sorta why I left her a message. Ned You have a great skill in pointing out the obvious sometimes when other people have been entirely oblivious to it. Keep it up. Viridae^Talk 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Ned nails it. I was already considering nominating that article myself. Don Murphy falls within my standing offer for courtesy BLP nomination. Viridae followed up on the active discussion to mention he'd already taken action. I've got some concerns about his decisions today on a process level, but canvassing isn't one of those concerns. Durova^Charge! 09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the last AfD which I initiated. It's pretty clear that simply deleting the article is not considered acceptable by large numbers of people. Where is the on-wiki discussion prior to this deletion? Guy (Help!) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If he called to view the discussion 2 people he knew would have a similar desired outcome for it to him, he should have also asked a couple of people he knew to be on the other side of the debate, otherwise it does risk skewing it. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That has got to be the silliest suggestion I've heard in a long, long time. I suppose patrollers should go ask random vandals to place {{hangon}} tags on speediable articles to avoid "skewing the debate"? There is a vast gulf between canvassing and notifying two people of some debate, and even hinting at conflating the two is to be, at best, completely disingenuous. — Coren ^(talk) 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor - I'll bet it's ingenuous. (No offense, Merkinsmum - I think you're mistaken, but that doesn't at all mean stupid.) Only Merkinsmum knows for sure.

We discourage canvassing because it encourages the ideas that we are voting, and that "getting out the vote" somehow makes sense as a "strategy". It's harmful when busloads of people show up to "register a vote" because it obscures what's really going on, and it encourages complaints from people who thought they won the "vote". Alerting a person with applicable knowledge doesn't turn it into a numbers game; it helps keep the focus right where it should be: on content and policy.

If you wish to argue that Viridae "violated" some policy (how legalistic!), you'll have to explain how it was harmful, what he did. Even then, the appropirate remedy would be to fix the problem, not to censure Viridae. Remember, this isn't court. Did Viridae hurt the project? If so, how? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How about by deleting an article which had survived two AfDs by a substantial margin, reportedly at the request of a banned user at a troll site, without any on-wiki discussion? I mean, they really don't come a lot more rouge than me, and even I wouldn't have deleted this one, I took it to AfD. And I was one of the ones attacked by Murphy and his goons, including having him phone my wife at home. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well sure, that sounds like something that ought to be looked at carefully, which is why there's a DRV discussion, right? I was responding to the complaint that he "canvassed" for the DRV. If leaving notes on those two talk pages hurt the project, then I can see a cause for concern, but if someone's simply hung up on the wording of WP:CANVASS versus the spirit, then I was trying to point out that they're different things. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that the banned user is the subject of the article... Viridae^Talk 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a window for administrator action here, so on what basis does this conversation continue? It was two active editors, one an admin, notified about a discussion that one was already tangentially involved in. Time to move on. Avruch ^T 21:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:John Reaves just inspired me to write this essay. Just FYI. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:14, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I move that Viridae be congratulated for anti-canvassing. Canvassing is attempting to get numbers on your side, regardless of the merit of arguments. Durova was contacted because Viridae felt she was "the person most likely to get (i.e. understand) the deletion reason" - in other words, based on of the arguments that she would bring to the DRV. Viridae made a request for quality, not quantity. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are supported back-channels for article subjects to discuss their articles. They can email arbcom or OTRS - Murphy knows these back channels and has been in email contact with admins and Jimbo, his last email to Jimbo was a couple of days ago. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? -- Naerii 17:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated. If Murphy wants to address article content he can do it via supported backchannels. He has direct email addresses for enough people, and his name is enough to ensure prompt attention given past issues. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see how that is related to the previous conversation about Viridae's alleged canvessing. I feel like I missed something :( Never mind. -- Naerii 18:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think this is no harm, no foul. I disagree sharply on this issue from Viridae, but she did no more than many do on and off wiki. It's implausible that the two eds. wouldn't have seen this DRV, whether she notified them or not, and what she posted can't have actually affected the course of the discussion. DGG (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If I invite some people to a debate who have previously had the same view as me, I also invite one or two who had shown the other opinion in the past. This is a discussion which had come up before, so it would be known who would have which view. If you only invite those on one side of the fence, especially about a subject many people will watch, you do run the risk of being accused of WP:CANVASS. That's just an obvious risk as can be seen by this discussion being started. It's a matter of the perception of canvassing, regardless of whether it's intentional. I don't see what's so barking about that. But I don't know if it needed putting here, unless he has been notified on his talk page of your perception and has refused to correct it. special, random, Merkinsmum 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfair removal and block

History: I'm an occasional but positive contributor to Wikipedia, after some problems with fair use images and the difficulty in trying to resolve them I created a userbox User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin to state an opinion which was deleted. Consensus for this delete was dubious however I toned down the content of my opinion inline with the discussion to a new version User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin. The new version is a soft opinion which is no different from many other userbox-stated opinions on the fair-use topic.

Situation: Users User:Nyttend and User:Doc glasgow have deleted the new version of the userbox without consensus or discussion and further to that User:Doc glasgow has attacked me personally of being a troll. I'm sticking up for my right to express a non-offensive opinion but I'm certainly not a troll (I had to look up what one was). Apart for the actioning admins in this case other users/admins are supportive to me.

Please can the new version of my userbox be re-instated so we can all get back to improving Wikipedia? --Bleveret (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much reason to delete that. However I see no reason to worry about it, either. How does this little irrelevant box relate in any way to your ability to improve Wikipedia? The only obstacle I see to your doing that, is that you're more concerned about your box than about editing, apparently. Heck, even the first version is something you ought to be allowed to say. Users are allowed to editorialize about Wikipedia in user space. Have you tried putting it on your user page instead of in a separate page? It might not get noticed that way. Friday (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. State it on your user page, rather than in a userbox. Should be fine then. For the record, I think language divisive to a collaborative editing environment should be avoided. I'm waiting for a response from another user about a similar (but opposite) situation. It's in my contribs if anyone is desperate to see what I'm talking about, but please wait until I get a reply before commenting here or there. Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there were three things done wrong here: 1)The repeated deletion of his userbox, which was different than the one involved in an MfD. 2)The unwarranted block. 3)The fact that User:Remember the dot posted the MfD for DR, and User:Nick immediately closed it. Enigma ^msg! 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that User:Nick, the administrator who shut down the DRV request almost immediately, was the same one that deleted the userboxes in the first place. In any case, the new userbox is different enough from the original that the MfD discussion does not apply. If others still want to delete it then we can discuss it at MfD like civilized people. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another thing done wrong (sorry to pick on you Remember the dot); Remember the dot, having been the party bringing the DRV, should not have been the party to unblock Bleveret. He should have asked another, uninvolved administrator to review the situation and make an appropriate decision. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• And now Remember the dot restoring the userbox under contention, User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin. This is a form of wheel warring. See Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_tools. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• The root of the problem was the initial problematic actions taken. Whether RTD did it, or asked someone else to do it, they had to be rectified. As far as I'm concerned, Bleveret should've been unblocked immediately by whichever admin saw it first. Enigma ^msg! 17:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in wheel warring. Again, if you want User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin deleted, then start a discussion at MfD. If there is consensus to delete then I have to abide by that decision. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• But you have been wheel warring. For the record, I don't think the userbox should have been deleted. The first one (the one subject to the MfD), yes. The second, no. I also don't think Bleveret should have been blocked. That was clearly out of line. But so was unblocking him by a directly involved administrator, and so was restoring the userbox by that same administrator. There's 1500+ other admins. SOMEbody would have undeleted it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can we just be happy that the misapplication of speedy deletion criteria and the blocking tool was quickly reversed, and that we are now in a position to discuss the issue like civilized people? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not looking for action against you. I am cautioning you that acting in the way you have has resulted in other administrators being forcibly de-adminned. Please use more caution in the future. When in doubt, seek action/advice from an uninvolved administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing much wrong with the second one, apart from the fact that looking at the actual code reveals an editor who doesn't understand the concept of Wikipedia. Black Kite 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the core problem: the apparent assertion that enforcement of Foundation policy on unfree content amounts to censorship (which it clearly doesn't, this is a logical disconnect in the deleted UBX), combined with the idea that the encyclopaedia is somehow "ruined" by adhering to its mission to be a free-content encyclopaedia. I'm sure that the user can think of a way of stating his opposition to automated mechanisms of enforcement of fair-use policy without appearing to repudiate a Foundation edict and one of Wikipedia's core goals, if he really tries. Do it in a way that is not inflammatory and divisive, perhaps. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This user thinks censorship and fair use bots are ruining Wikipedia

The offending userbox

• The censorship issue is separate from the fair use issue. No one said that they are any more than tangentially related. Perhaps the userbox should be split in two, one for each issue, to make this more clear.
• The foundation edict was not handed down from on high. We have a right to disagree with it. Disagreement does not mean that we hate each other or that we can't collaborate together. It just means that we should discuss the issue more and carefully consider our opinions.
• The userbox, which I have dug up and posted for reference, is not nearly divisive or inflammatory enough to qualify for speedy deletion. At the very least, it should have been sent through MfD.

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Foundation oversees this project. In so far as editors here are concerned, an edict from them is from on high and carries the strongest voice of any here. It states at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." You certainly have a personal right to disagree with the policy. In so far as the project is concerned, you do not have a right to act in abrogation of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. And there's always the core mission to be a free content encyclopaedia. Even then, civil disagreement is fine, but personalising the dispute and repudiating core values are simply not on. Let's not forget that the original said "this user thinks Betacommandbot is destroying Wikipedia" - not very nice. Actually I think the obsessive insistence on unfree content and refusal to use proper fair use rationales is much more of a problem. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Of course we have to abide by the foundation's decision. That doesn't mean we have to agree with it, and it doesn't mean that a userbox stating opposition mainly to bot enforcement of WP:NFCC#10c, a policy not mandated by the foundation, is "divisive and inflammatory". You have good arguments for deleting the first one that referred to BetacommanBot specifically, and I'm not asking you to allow that one, I'm just talking about the second one. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out here that such issues can be resolved if you talk to people nicely about this. I recently noticed the following two edits to a user page: [1] and [2]. See also Image:Say NO to Fair Use.svg. I was a bit riled by that aggressive campaigning against fair use (the Foundation has not, contrary to reports, outlawed all fair use). I mentioned my concerns on a few pages, and eventually went to the user concerned and asked them on their talk page if they would mind toning down the language. And they did. Problem solved. Would that all such situations were so easily resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The user was contacted, the language was toned down, and the revised box was speedily deleted anyway without discussion. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Talking nicely? On Wikipedia? Have you lost it? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by Sethie

I don't understand as why this particular user is after me, kindly have a look at his contribution's, [3] Since 11 March, he has used this account for single purpose which is to harass me, and has almost no contribution's on any article whatsoever, how can i prevent him from vandalizing my userpage or talk page ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking clue from what is stated below, is giving a person any name, violates wikipedia rules, as Sethie has done here, [4]. I am not aware of this person, or name, hence i simply ignored such wage imagination of Sethie, but his continual vandalizing my userpage, and giving warnings after warning on my talk page, forced me to report the matter here.--talk-to-me! (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. He has a point about your userpage though. You could settle this matter immediately if you simple removed your accusations. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also he was not asking you to reveal your real name only a previous wikipedia username. See [here] for why that account was banned. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult Free World/talk-to-me is using his user page for soapboxing and attacking various meditation groups. Please, please examine his contribs, he is not on Wiki to contribute meaningfully in any way, but to provocate and soapbox.

As background, please note this user was blocked for one week here for making personal attacks.

Upon return from his block, he continued the same vein of personal attacks, calling editors or admins cult-promoters and/or accusing them of being paid to post on Wiki (the following are just since his return from the block).

1. Here he provocates by suggesting I am a paid member of a group. (a lie)
2. Here he seeks an admin's help, and blatantly lies by saying "if you notice the time there was no edit from my side during that time frame" when he had numerous attack edits documented here, but they do not show now because the pages were deleted. This is an intentional ruse to mislead and manipulate an admin.
3. Also, please note on the dif above that again he tells lies about several editors, saying we "are paid members from respective cults."

A few editors have warned him on this, he has been given warnings on his user page, and he ignores all of these. It seems unlikely that his goal is to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. Renee (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok so we have Renee also here :), and hence this has once again looped back to user:jossi, I seriously doubt that Renee IS a paid member of that group, as user:jossi is of prem rawat [5]. Given the fact, that Renee approach only user:jossi for deleting a cult related page, [6] which was promptly deleted, by user:jossi even though he had declared that he would not get involved in cult related article, the way Renee has attacked me personally, and is continuously attempting to prevent an article from getting published in wikipedia, clearly indicates something fishy, I am really surprised at her continuous efforts to report about me, given then fact, I am all involved in responding to them, and hence unable to contribute effectively, her association with jossi is evident here also [7] where she approached jossi immediately after filing a case against me at yet another forum, WP:IU [8], which was rightly rejected [9] All this is only to prevent ONE article from getting published on wikipedia, which I became aware of after I noticed user:jossi deleting it, and subsequently i filed a COI notice [10].

Sum of all this information is, wikipedia is being manipulated by member's of certain group, which should not be allowed, wikipedia is there to give information and not hide it. Since my personal knowledge of the subject, which i suspect Renee has close connection is limited, hence my attempt was to translate the same topic from wikipedia's French twin, I noticed same subject present in french wikipedia as well, and i suggested to translate the same, and have an english article as well, this is all what concerns, these member's, Kindly note there is not a single comment from me on their page, which would indicate any sort of POV regarding any other user, same is more then clear in case of Renee and Sethie,it appears both of them belong to same group, called sahaja marga. --talk-to-me! (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To add one more important aspect of this discussion, Renee's warnings were viewed as something approaching towards legal threat,[11] and all this was about a topic, which doesn't even exist on wikipedia does this not violates clear cult definition of WP:NPA which states comment on contribution and not on contributer when the article itself doesn't even exist how can there be any contribution ? hence her comments are solely directed towards me, and not on what contribution I am making. She has even accused me of a puppet of user:4d-don here[12], I was astonished by this intense reaction by Renee, for i attempted to translate a wikipedia page from its french twin. Her proactive approach to this forum, and then again filing a case at yet another forum, again only for my proposing re-writing an article deleted by user:jossi as per wikipedia standard. My concern is about the direction article's are moving by heavy biasing of certain editors due to their direct involvement with the cults, which as a consequence leads to filtered or no information for internet community at large. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying to make sense of this...

• User:Cult free world has repeatedly (see above) accused User:jossi of deleting Sahaj Marg, having a COI, and being a cultist (see Talk archive and the thread at COI/N). However, looking at the actual AfD it was only nominated by jossi - for what look like exemplary reasons - and closed by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. For added bizarreness, check out the lone DO NOT DELETE post, based on the argument that the article was promoting a cult.
• Jossi has undertaken not to edit cult articles (see User Talk:jossi for more). Whether nominating an article for deletion counts as a violation of that - much less an "abuse of admin tools" (COI/N again) - is a different question.
• After being notified that "Cult free world" might be considered a POV or offensive username, and being asked if he might consider changing it, CFW responded, "Would it be possible for you to focus on content and not the contributer?" (sigh) I don't think any progress is being made on this front - unless you count this signature: [[User:Cult free world|talk-to-me!]] ([[User talk:Cult free world|talk]]).

...no conclusions yet, and it's tiring to wade through the hyperbole. Anyone want to add anything? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 03:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

First of, my objection was/is to this deletion [13], Kindly note, Renee approaches Jossi, on his talk page [14], as noted above also, it was Jossi only who nominated the previous article for deletion, and he himself deleted the next version, ignoring his own deceleration. If the article was a G4 candidate why no AfD tag ? and why no discussion whatsoever ? For what has jossi declared he will not get involved with cult related article's ? Jossi should have placed AfD as any other user would have done.

Why cannot an article be written ? explaining about all the issues, about the group, about its methods and about harms caused by the group. Why hide information ? and attack other user's if they are not in sync with their POV ? Is there any explanation to Renee's warnings after warnings [15] notices after notices [16],[17] when there is not a single comment from me on her talk page. And all this is about a subject, which doesn't even exist on wikipedia , this aggressive approach is the only thing, which makes me believe that this particular group has lot to hide, and on search, i did came across lot of material which substantiate this statement, some of them are WP:RS and some are not. As a building block, i have taken the subjects french twin as a base, and hope other users with more knowledge of this cult, will chip in, and help build a neutral article, which gives all relevant information, for anyone seeking information about the topic, this is what wikipedia is all about information isn't it ? This article was on wikipedia for 2 yrs [18] , what happened suddenly that all the reliable sources such court dockets, newspaper reports, government agencies reports and cult watch groups, pear group reports became unavailable ? This group has lot to hide, and this is the sole reason as why its members are preventing an article about this subject on wikipedia [19], Kindly note, this is the french version, which i have placed for translation and build upon, even though it is only a sandbox version, a temp page, an AfD notice was placed by a user who is on wikipedia since 2004 [20]. There must be some reason as why these members are so eager not to get an article about the subject !! I guess it is the court cases, and sexual abuse cases which are bothering the member's more then anything else. My personal experience with these member's is they start attacking the other user, give warning after warnings, even though there is no comment from that user, and then they approach this forum, and claim that the user is still working, even though they have given 5 warnings. People here may not be fully aware of the incidence and hence may get influenced by their long essay, not about any article but user's.

I can speak little bit of french, hence i will do my best in translating it, hope more user's can chip in. --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have answered your own questions. There was no discussion, and no AfD notice, because the article was speedy-deleted under criterion G4 (Recreation of deleted material), which allows for deletion without debate of a copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. If you believe you can demonstrate that no other admin would have deleted that article, then you must request a deletion review. Otherwise, this was not abuse of admin tools, just use of admin tools for a purpose you didn't agree with. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Microprose and user EconomistBR

Resolved

 – The dispute over the contents of that page has been settled and the threat of an edit war averted -⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been a series of events at the MicroProse entry that leads me to believe user EconomistBR has recently operated on WP:Ownership, and has also now engaged in disruptive editing. He has now taken the History of Microprose entry and edited it to become his original version of the MicroProse entry, retitling it and and subsequently editing all appearances of MicroProse wikilinks in other Wikipedia entries to point to that entry. I have tried to engage with the user and explain things to work them out, as can be seen on the MicroProse talk page, and this was his response. I would like some form of administrator intervention in this matter, as his actions moved it beyond a simple content dispute. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's wrong, Marty Goldberg has had total freedom to edit that page in whatever way he desires without any opposition or discussion.

User Marty Goldberg has been accusing me of WP:Ownership, that's in incorrect I've accepted all edits made so far. Over 40 edits have been made to that article in March alone, I've only reverted once.

User Marty Goldberg is operating on WP:Ownership since he only accepts edits made by him or by User:Microprose itself. I edited that page 3 times, in all of them user Marty Goldberg altered my edits.

MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC are 2 different companies, he wants to pretend that they are the same company. MicroProse Software Inc ceased to exist in 2001. This company didn't simply change its name or change owners it ceased to exist completely.

The fact is that an entirely new company under the name MicroProse has appeared, so distinction is important, otherwise we're mixing their corporate histories.;⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

All of that is completely untrue, the only thing I've edited of yours is a statement you added that did not follow NPOV and whose wording was done in direct spite of the conversation on the talk page. Everything I've stated is fact and easily verified by looking at your edit history vs. the history of the conversation on the talk page. Likewise, the properties transfered to a new company, that simple - it did indeed change owners. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Untrue??? Let's analize my claims then:

1. "Marty Goldberg has had total freedom to edit that page in whatever way he desires without any opposition or discussion". Fact
2. "Over 40 edits have been made to that article in March alone, I've only reverted once". Fact
3. "I edited that page 3 times, in all of them user Marty Goldberg altered my edits". Fact
4. "MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC are 2 different companies". Fact
5. Marty Goldberg"wants to pretend that they are the same company". Plausible

My claims reflect the truth and are correct. Now your claim:

• "the properties transfered to a new company". Incorrect, absolutely incorrect, and you know it.

The Civilization franchise, the Railroad Tycoon franchise belong now to different companies. Hence they weren't transfered to MicroProse Systems LLC. Besides those 2 big intellectual right losses is not yet know which intellectual right properties, if any, were transfered to MicroProse System LLC together with the brand MicroProse. This fact of property right losses further reinforces the need for a distinction between MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again the name and the properties not sold off by Infogrames/Atari Interactive have transfered, the new company is the holder of these, that is indisputable and not at issue here. Arguing about what properties they were able to purchase is also not the issue and has little to do with the brand being transfered to this newer company. Other companies also have had multiple corporate holders as you've been pointed out, or ceased to exist for a time and come back and their entries here have not been held to your viewpoint on the need to differentiate by recreating completely separate entries rather than just identifying the difference in corporate name. Other editors simply have not shared these viewpoints. What the issue is, is your conduct, which you've continued to demonstrate here. Unlike your growing and ever changing list of attempted counter-accusations, I said they are one in the same line of companies owning the Microprose brand, which they are. You keep trying to say otherwise, making further accusations about me, that company, etc. and claiming "fact" because you say so. You've claimed I've been editing without any opinion or discussion....and I suppose I've been imagining the entire talk on the discussion page and here....or if I really wanted to edit without opinion or discussion I could have just taken the same route as you and completely reproduced my version in another article and subsequently change all links in other entries to point to that one as your edit history shows you have. Finally, once again, I've done nothing editing wise you're claiming I have and once again the edit history clearly shows this. Your "3 edits" were a) A fact tag you put on an alternative company name (that someone else put there) that you considered dubious, to which I rewrote the paragraph to remove the dubious name in question, and to further differentiate the corporate names as you requested on the talk page. b) A removal of a link from the external links section (which you were right to remove from that section per WP:EL) that someone else had put there, which I thought might have worked better context wise as a reference within the article and proceeded to use as a reference, c) A paragraph consisting of an arbitrary list of demands you wanted answered by Microprose on the talk page, which when they were not answered to your liking you decided to turn it in to a paragraph in the article, which violated NPOV and WP:OR. "MicroProse Systems LLC states that software development has begun, there is however no information available about which games are currently under development or about which platform those games are for or about the location of MicroProse's new development studio." All the same things you demanded responses for on the talk page, and as the edit history clearly shows, you ran to the main page in spite when you didn't like the answers you were getting. You could have also added "Have not announced a CEO, have not given their office location, have not stated what retailers are carrying their software,..." and a plethora of other arbitrary statements, which shows the actual nature of that paragraph. Rather than delete the paragraph completely, I compromised (as I have attempted to do throughout) and conveyed your concern with the much more neutral and less rambling "They have also stated software development has begun, however no further information is currently available." So where is the sinister context you're trying to paint these edits in to claim ownership on my behalf? Ownership on my part would be if I just reverted everything you did, or say...just recreated everything I wanted in this article in another article instead to try and circumvent any consent issues. Honestly, your attempts to try and throw this back on me are thinly veiled, and the attitude which prompted the filing of this incident report is shining through. There is no discussion with you, there's just running around in circles and getting more accusations thrown. This will be my last response on this page, as I'm not interested in being any more of a part of this ridiculous and disruptive volley that you've instigated here and on the microprose talk page. I can only hope for once you can resist the urge to continue your conduct and post yet more of the same content here. I believe the admins have everything they need to go on at this point, and any further back and forth would simply further obfuscate the issues. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You just want to have things your way when I showed some opposition to your views you retaliated by accusing me of WP:Ownership since that didn't work you are now accusing me of:

1. Being unable to carry a discussion.
2. Being "ridiculous and disruptive" on my comments that in fact call for some tranparency and distinction.

You want to bunddle together under the same article MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC just because they share the name "MicroProse". That would the same as pretending that the company simply changed its name. I can't agree to that. Those are 2 very different companies.

The intellectual property rights that have remained might have been been transfered to MicroProse Systems LLC, I say might because I haven't seen yet any documents detailing this transaction. So that is disputable and a really big issue.

List of intellectual property rights that belonged to MicroProse Software Inc but do not belong to MicroProse Systems LLC.

1. Civilization franchise
2. Railroad Tycoon franchise
3. Roller Coaster Tycoon franchise

• The MicroProse article should deal with the history of the brand itself, and never bunddle together the 2 different companies.
• MicroProse System LLC is a small hardware company that would never on its own have an article on Wikipedia, the only the single reason why MicroProse Systems LLC is being mentioned is because they share their first name with MicroProse Software, Inc
• MicroProse software, Inc is not back only the brand is back. Brand names never die.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is for requesting administrator attention for a problem, and this seems to be a content dispute. Please follow the dispute resolution policy and continue the discussion on your talk pages. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock User:CreepyCrawly

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

CreepyCrawly registered his account in November 2006 and made one edit. Since then, he claims he has edited anonymously. He logged in on March 15 in order to bypass semiprotection on the global warming article. He made a few edits disputing the notion that the global warming trend is agreed upon by the "overwhelming majority" of scientists, and was quickly drawn into a brief revert cycle and a talk page discussion. That same day, Raul654 blocked him indefinitely as a probable sockpuppet of the banned user and prolific sockpuppeteer User:Scibaby. Since then, he has made three unblock requests, all declined, and Raul654 has tried to rebuff arguments I've made in CreepyCrawly's defense. I have agreed to advocate for CreepyCrawly, and he has agreed to allow me to argue on his behalf. Since Raul654 did not unblock after I appealed to him, my next recourse is to this noticeboard.

Raul654 has reported that checkuser does not link CreepyCrawly to Scibaby's socks, but on the other hand, Scibaby has been using anonymous proxies. The upshot is that checkuser can't help us here. We're left with the duck test.

I've noticed differences in the writing style between CreepyCrawly and Scibaby: compare edit summaries to global warming and you will notice a difference in tone. CreepyCrawly seems familiar with some policies and guidelines, but that is understandable for someone who has been editing for more than a year, and he has written that he read talk page discussions and policy pages. The arbitration committee has ruled unequivocally that familiarity with policy as a newbie does not indicate that a new user is a sockpuppet of anybody. Remember what happened to User:!!, who was blocked for just 75 minutes? CreepyCrawly has been blocked for three days, and he's still waiting to be proven innocent.

I've assembled as much evidence as I can on my user subpage: User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/CreepyCrawly. Please read it, along with User talk:CreepyCrawly, and draw your own conclusions. Wikipedia:Assume good faith means, at a bare minimum, that we assume users are innocent until proven guilty. I believe that CreepyCrawly is innocent. If I could, I would unblock him myself. But I can't. Someone needs to step up and do the right thing.

Let me note, in passing, that I commend Raul654 for responding so aggressively to Scibaby's numerous disruptive sockpuppets. Without him, anarchy would have engulfed Wikipedia's coverage of global warming long ago. Nevertheless, if Raul654 continues to believe that CreepyCrawly is a sockpuppet, than someone else needs to come forward, undo the block, and state unequivocally that CreepyCrawly is unrelated to Scibaby.

Someone please do me a favor and let Raul654 know about this discussion. I'll be going to sleep now, and I won't see how people respond until tomorrow. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I don't find the duck test persuasive here. Is the I.P. that CreepyCrawly is agreed to have used - 70.105.244.192 - an open proxy? If not, is it geographically related to Scibaby's non-open proxy I.P.s? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if he is a sock of SciBaby, but I'm convinced that he is one of a group of POV-pushing sock or meat puppets. Compare Special:Contributions/CreepyCrawly, Special:Contributions/Spamsham, Special:Contributions/Grecian_Formula, Special:Contributions/Sword_and_Shield. I also have my doubts about his story - his IP address has been stable as far as checkuser can make out, but there are only two edits by the IP address. Where is that long list of non-logged-in edits that lead to him being so familiar with Wikipedia rules and jargon? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether CreepyCrawly used the same I.P. throughout. Do we not have any record of Scibaby's non-proxy I.P.s? Also, I certainly agree that the last three of those four are socks of one another, but I don't see the similarity between them and CreepyCrawly. Also, I agree that CreepyCrawly's attitude towards all of this doesn't look promising, but unless we're pretty sure of sockpuppetry, let's give him sufficient rope for a self-hanging. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it's coincidence or what, but User:Creepy_Crawler may be of interest to this discussion. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a coincidence. I don't see any relationship at all. And there was User:Kreepy_krawly, a very strange case who also was apparently unrelated. (Is there a cartoon character or something that all these folks are named after?) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No clue... just seemed possible. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So, do editors besides Mr. Schulz and me have opinions on whether or not this meets the duck test? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I applied the Obedium-test and it came back positive (you know, like the turing test...jk) What really does it is the excitement about getting his ip snooped. Lets not forget that checkuser cannot be used to prove innocence because of proxies, and to me, its a red flag big time. Now, creepy's familiarity with sock procedure could have come about during the claimed anon editing period, but it is very unlikely that it would have come if he was a casual editor as opposed to an editor who works on a set of articles constantly (thats how you get the drama.) At least in my experience, I did not become familiar with this sort of thing until I became more of a project worker (Nicaragua, GW.) Finally, how did he know that Raul ("your friend") was going to snoop the IP? In this thread he seems to know who the checkuser is even before anything went down. Raul did a good job on creepy's page on showing some evidence, on the mean time, I will see if I can match a diff 100% to a prior sock. Brusegadi (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Do I believe Creepy Crawly's story? No. I've heard variations on the same so many times that it simply rings hollow. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

None of you have addressed the fundamental question, which is, very simply:

Is CreepyCrawly the same person as Scibaby, or acting on his behalf?

I have gone to great lengths to prove that the answer is no. Scibaby was not creating sleeper accounts to use in the global warming debate until October 2007, whereas this account was created in November 2006. At that time, Scibaby had only about four accounts, and he was using them to edit nanotechnology and a few other articles unrelated to Talk:Civilian control of the military. Scibaby's modus operandi has been, since December 2007, to create numerous sockpuppets, age them past the four-day limit when needed, and attack the global warming articles. I've documented this trend in painstaking detail. He has not used any "sleepers" from 2006, and I have no reason to believe that CreepyCrawly is the first.

I've also noted that I believe CreepyCrawly's edits to global warming are fundamentally different in style and tone than those of Scibaby's socks, even if their content is similar. I have news for you folks: there's more than one person in the educated world who disagrees with the statement that global warming is agreed upon by an "overwhelming majority" of scientists. Sharing that POV doesn't make you an automatic sockpuppet of Scibaby, even if the last 40-odd user accounts who shared that POV happened to be sockpuppets of Scibaby. I will remind you again that Scibaby socks, in addition to being recently created sleeper accounts (0 to 2 weeks between account creation and first edit, not 60+ weeks), almost universally quit and do not appeal their blocks, certainly not as strenuously as CreepyCrawly has done. For all these reasons and more, I believe that CreepyCrawly is not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, or any other kind of puppet, of Scibaby. The indefinite block was made solely on the premise that CreepyCrawly was a "probable Scibaby sockpuppet." Since I have placed this premise in very severe doubt, I do not endorse the block, and I believe that any admin who reviews all the facts of this case is duty-bound to unblock in accordance with established policy.

Some of you are suggesting that CreepyCrawly must be a "meatpuppet." Let me make two points here. First, that's not the reason he was blocked, and it's an invalid rationale for maintaining the block. Second, let me tell you what a meatpuppet really is. A meatpuppet is some jerk who agrees with some other jerk who has the temerity to disagree with you. I don't wish to alarm you folks, but we've basically come to the point where no new editor is allowed to edit the global warming article with a minority viewpoint, even if that editor is acting in good faith. That reality is not Scibaby's fault. If this block stands, then that reality is our fault. There's still time to rectify the situation before we need to put up a big notice on top of global warming that warns new editors to go away, as was done to Bogdanov affair.

Let me close by quoting from Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, my local newspaper, and a staunch opponent of the current consensus on global warming:

Why the relentless labeling of those who point out weaknesses in the global-warming models as "deniers," or agents of the "denial machine," or deceptive practitioners of "denialism?" Wouldn't it be more effective to answer the challengers, some of whom are highly credentialed climate scientists in their own right, with scientific data and arguments, instead of snide insinuations of venality and deceit? Do Newsweek and Begley really believe that everyone who dissents from the global-warming doomsaying does so in bad faith? [Emphasis added.]

Source: "Hot tempers on Global Warming" by Jeff Jacoby. The Boston Globe, August 15, 2007. Full text

I rest my case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby/Obedium is smart and adaptable. He has changed tactics several times; there's no reason to believe that he would go forever without appealing a block. All of your other assertions are demonstrably false. Most especially, editors who dispute the present scientific consensus aren't driven off en masse -- we have several who edit the articles. (They don't always get their way, but then nobody does.) Your argument boils down to "this can't be Scibaby because he's never appealed a block before." I find that most unconvincing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't deny that this Creepy made his account about 10 months before Scibaby was here at all, to our knowledge. Suggests strongly to me that they're unrelated. Yes we can discover new tactics from a sock puppetteer- but that's unlikely to happen retroactively. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Creepy's account was created November 19, 2006. Scibaby's first identified sockpuppet (Binkythewonderskull) was registered in March 2006, followed by MRN (March 2006), Adam Newton (April 2006). Slaphappie (July 2006), Obedium (July 2006), Scibaby (September 2006). Given that by that day, he already had 5 sockpuppet accounts, why should it be surprising that he registered a 6th? Raul654 (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is lost by unblocking Creepy? This discussion has consumed about two days of heated discussion and as near as I can tell done nothing other than entrenching entrenched opinions even deeper. What horror and nightmare would come from unblocking him? What if he did immediately vandalize, or worse, offer an unpopular opinion? Wouldn't it be possible to block him again? Wouldn't it be faster simply to perform and experiment and observe the outcome rather than to argue from fixed positions about the desirability of performing the experiment? Loren.wilton (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved, with justice served. I offer Shalom my sincerest thanks for championing my cause. CreepyCrawly (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, general incivility at MFD - alert the media

Resolved

 – MfD closed as delete, no further action needed --Elonka 21:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone uninvolved take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles where there seems to be some edit warring and incivility going on.

• Abd (talk · contribs) added a notice top of the MfD pointing out that some of the editors had been involved in an ArbCom case about the subject [21]
• It was then removed by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and added to the talk page [22]
• re added by Abd
• Removed by Fredrick day (talk · contribs)
• Abd then added a note at the top about his opinion of the MfD [23]
• Which was removed by Fredrick day [24] as an "attempt to slur good faith editors" with a threat to be blocked, and then reinstated by himself ("let people see you for what you are") [25]
• Abd then asks on the talk page for someone to warn Fredrick day for his "incivility" and is told by Fredrick to take it to ANI himself [26]

For the sake of openness, I voted keep, but I have no opinion on the dispute going on here. -- Naerii 19:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Naerii. Actually, when I asked for help, I had not seen Fredrick day's reversion of his edit. While it could still be seen as uncivil, there is so much incivility around here that I'd be popping up on AN/I several times a day if I reported it all. I simply wanted the facts to be before the !voters and the closer. It is my view that the ArbComm decision on which the MfD was based has been misrepresented, rather badly. It was a carefully crafted decision, and it appears that what ArbComm did has been incorrectly interpreted by some who had been deeply involved in content disputes with PHG. I made no accusations that could remotely be interpreted as "slurs," to my knowledge. I stated sourced facts, and stated opinion as opinion, I have learned something from editing this beast. (I.e., the facts are obvious from the Arbitration and have been, in various places, quoted as well, but the significance of the facts, that it's important to be aware of them before reviewing the contributions in the MfD, is an opinion, not a fact. I'd stand on it, though.) To say that certain editors are, with respect to the MfD, "COI" is specific to that MfD and isn't in any way an accusation of impropriety. Quite simply, though, they are not neutral parties, reviewing the evidence of the ArbComm decision and then the file in question, without prior bias. Contrary to what has been asserted elsewhere, I did not claim that they should not comment, merely that the possible conflict should be disclosed. Clearly, PHG irritated a lot of editors, and nothing about my action here should be taken to condone or approve of that prior behavior. But ArbComm actually and explicitly encouraged PHG to continue to contribute, including contributing to the subject articles through Talk, and this was a relevant fact that was being glossed over; indeed, the contrary was implied in the nomination and first comments. That's prejudicial, and it was apparently accepted by many commentors as true.--Abd (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The only clarification I would make is that I said "you should be blocked" not that I made a threat to block - I'm not an admin, so have no powers in that direction. There is no dispute as far as I'm concerned, I've had my say and will not be editing either that MFD again or communicating with abd. If there is a dispute it's not with me because I'm done. Yes I removed content but then thought better of it and self-reverted. Yes, if an admin wants to block me, they are free to do so - but block should be preventive not punitive and I've already stipulated here that I will not communicate with Abi or further edit that MFD - so the preventation is taken care of on my side. So if there is any future edit warring or incivility on that article - I've left the building so to speak. --Fredrick day 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not bring this to AN/I and I have no plan to pursue a complaint against this editor. Had he not reverted his edit, I might have. Prudent.--Abd (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To me the issue here is Abd edit warring and accusing people who revert him of having COIs etc. -- Naerii 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I don't see edit warring on my part in the diffs above. I see possible edit warring in the second removal of my prefatory material, but I accepted that, specifically desiring to avoid edit warring, and I then saw clear edit warring in the removal of the very careful note inserted to replace it. Which material is still there, in spite of many editors observing it. It was the removal of this very cautious material that was much more clearly edit warring, and it appears the editor realized that and self-reverted. As to "accusing people," Naerii has confused two things: I called the editors who were involved (or adverse) parties in the ArbComm case "COI." Those were not necessarily the same editors as those who reverted me. If anyone is still concerned about this, I'd urge reviewing the history carefully. I was quite careful, myself.--Abd (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Abd didn't notify people that some of the voters had been in a recent Arb case with PHG, he stated that the editors were continuing a edit war - when it was pointed out that his statement was incorrect, he changed it to read that those editors had conflict of interest. He declined to move the piece himself, so I moved it to talk where he could discuss his conspiracy theories at leisure without disrupting the discussion. Shell ^babelfish 20:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I notified people about the ArbComm case involving major commentors and the nominator. Edit warring was only asserted, in Talk, not on the project page, about one editor only. The "COI" edit was long before that. No "conspiracy theory" was involved, no accusations of bad faith or impropriety. Essentially, the above shows that this user did not have the foggiest idea of what was happening, his memory is distorted and very much out of sequence. So new? It's not a crime, however much confusion it may cause.

For convenience, here is the original notice I placed:

It should be noted that the nominator and a number of commentors here were involved parties in the Arbitration involving PHG, and thus an effort to remove this material, without guidance from ArbComm, could be considered furtherance of a content dispute. I will list, here, involved parties in the Arbitration, for the convenience of the closer of this debate.

I then started to list parties to the Arbitration. Some "content disputes" are "edit wars," but not all, and I did not consider the "COI" parties to be edit warring. I don't think the statement above, my original controversial edit, matches what Shell_Kinney described above as a clarification. Again, so what? No action is being requested by me. However, I'm a bit concerned by what follows.--Abd (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support a timeout if his disruption resumes. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Second block threat today, it seems. The "disruption" was? (From context, I'd assume that JzG is referring to me.) [sig added from History: --Abd (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008]

No idea, since you didn't sign. But if it's Abd, you have a strange definition of threat. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was me, I'll add a sig. Another user today said -- with regard to this incident -- "you should be blocked," or something like that, and you wrote "I'll support a timeout" which I interpreted as a reference to a block. But the question asked wasn't about me, exactly, it was about what you meant by "if his disruption resumes." What disruption? Any user may be blocked for disruption reasonably foreseen, but it is important to distinguish between disruption and disagreement. Hence, "what disruption" does seem an important question. --Abd (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Highshines sock

Resolved

User:BeautifulSummer is a clear User:Highshines sock. He edits the same articles with the same patterns, but most importantly, he works in coordination with commons:User:Highshines (see [27] vs. [28], [29] vs. [30], etc.). Ask me privately if you wish to know why I have posted here and not at SSP. Please block indef. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to the evidence above, I can't see any reason why CheckUser would be necessary. This is blatantly obvious. I've blocked a few of Highshines' socks in the past, and the behavior and article range matches as well. Blocked. Khoikhoi 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Timneu22 disruptive behavior

Yesterday I bocked User Timneu22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for maintaining a list of users who suck on his userpage after several people removed it and him re-adding it after being warned. After 4 denied unblock requests, he started blanking his page, which was reverted and then it was protected until his block wore off. Now I see that another user, ClintonKu (talk · contribs) has added a list of "his favorite Wikipedians" (with some new additions) on Timneu22's userpage for him, with the edit summary of "here you go, per your email. see you at work". Is there a policy about making edits for blocked users? Or more specifically, edits like these? Additionally, it looks like he has evaded the block using 69.255.121.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'd like another pair of eyes to judge the appropriate remedy here. VegaDark (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that User talk:72.85.58.161 has requested unblock several times due to User:Timneu22's autoblock. I don't think it is okay to be editing on behalf of a blocked user, but wasn't sure where the policy lies. I know it is inappropriate to edit for banned users, but not sure in this case. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

72.85.58.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is another IP he has been using. Tiptoety ^talk 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Oh edit conflicts, I guess Rjd0060 just said the same thing. Tiptoety ^talk 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Timneu22 has been notified of this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not too easily offended, so to me personally it's not a problem to be included in such a list. OTOH, taking another look at Timneu22's recent contribs, he appears not to have adjusted his behviour since I encountered him, so I suppose the block is ok although the occasion is a comparably trivial matter. Dorftrottel (troll) 22:34, March 19, 2008

If it's true about him circumventing a block then that's bad news. Also, I don't think it's fair that editors should edit on behalf of people... it's basically tantamount (again) to circumventing a block. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It borders, if anything on WP:MEAT, especially if the two editors know one another presonally. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who doesn't buy into this edit summary? Take a look at these tell-tale ALLCAPS edit summaries: [31], [32], [33]. It's a sockpuppet, not a meatpuppet, and a lousy attempt to mislead the community. Dorftrottel (bait) 23:37, March 19, 2008

Wow! Dorftrottel accusing me of a sockpuppets. Thanks. Do you want Kurtis' email? Timneu22 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Struck my bad-faithed comment. Dorftrottel (harass) 03:22, March 21, 2008

Long-standing issues there; review edit summaries going back at least a month and talk page deletions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, let’s start at the beginning.

1. I had a list of "users who suck" on my user page. This list (two users) was posted on February 28. I didn’t think this was a problem.
2. On March 18 (that's three weeks later), I was accused of making a personal attack. I didn't make such an attack. I learned in my previous discussion on WP Policy that users should not edit other users' User Pages. So I reverted WODUP's edit, and to be friendly I kept the list but within HTML comments. I made no attacks on other users. Also, as I left the items HTML-commented, one can plainly see that there was no attack. No one would know about my page but me.
   • Rjd0060 reverted my edit. Again, knowing that other users shouldn't be editing MY USER PAGE, I reverted.
   • At this point, I was continually getting messages telling me that I was NOT CIVIL or that I was DISRUPTIVE. All these claims are absolutely ridiculous. I did not EVER attack a user, and I did not EVER vandalize a page.

Then you blocked me. This is uncalled for, and as Administrators you should all have your status revoked. In fact, I was blocked immediately after I said "I got the point, thanks." You blocked me after that? How dare you.

Now, the reason you accused me of being "uncivil" is apparently because my user page ...could be construed as attacking other editors..., as I learned later. I'm not sure who is "construing" my page as such when the list WAS HTML-COMMENTED. I honestly believe you just ganged up and wanted to block a user.

I have said this multiple times — look at my edits and you see that I do not vandalize and that I did not attack users.

Now let's move on to this discussion.

1. "I started blanking my page." No I didn't. I removed all the crap about me being blocked. You blocked me and denied my requests. OK. I blanked that info because what good does it do to keep it displayed? You are making way too much out of that. What do you think the first thing I'll do is after being unblocked? I'll clean up the talk page. So who cares if it is blanked now or in 24 hours?
2. ClintonKu modified my user page. So what? I would have made that edit after the block period was over.
3. I don't know 72.85.58.161, and I don't know 69.255.121.70. Do you think I have a wide variety of IPs that I just use?
   • I didn't "evade a block" because I have no need. I have better things to do with my time.
   • I don't have time for finding new IPs and I wouldn't know how to do it if I tried. (I know C# and Media Wiki code; I'm not a network guy.) I did not request unblocks. I use PCs at two locations: home and work. You are accusing me of having at least three locations.
   • By the way, I received some emails from people at work today wondering what happened that they couldn't edit WP. So because of your unnecessary block, you stopped other users from contributing. Great job. I hope you're happy.

Now let's get into Dorftrottel and SandyGeorgia.

1. They say "I haven't adjusted my behavior" and "long-standing issues." I ask all of you: DID YOU SEE ANY UNCONSTRUCTIVE EDITS BETWEEN Feb 28 and March 18? The answer is a resounding NO. Further, on/after March 18 all I did was revert other users' changes to MY OWN TALK PAGE. And I was blocked from Wikipedia for this. All of Wikipedia should be ashamed.
2. The issues with SandyGeorgia and Dorftrottel were simply about my attempts to revamp an archive template and the approach I took for doing it. I gave up and didn't whine or complain. Basically I had moved on. I still have. But hey, thanks for inviting people from my past who may want to bash me. Would you prefer that I get a list of users who respect my work? I don't like to cite every WP policy like you admins do, but I'm not going to stoop to WP:CANVASS as you have just done.

The only issue here is that I REVERTED MY OWN USER PAGE, and YOU BLOCKED ME for being DISRUPTIVE. Who and/or what did I disrupt?

I am a MediaWiki administrator of two other Wiki sites, and I would block each and everyone one of you Admins for a week for this behavior. Think about it: you accuse me of being uncivil because I had HTML-commented notes on my own page. No one would ever see those comments... you went looking for them and accused me of being uncivil, and that's the root of this. Finally, you blocked me after I said "I got the point, thanks."

So in the future, I would appreciate if WP Admins would keep an eye on behavior that is truly destructive/disruptive to Wikipedia, instead of constantly reverting my user page and then telling me I'm uncivil. No one once bothered to add something constructive on my talk page like, "You know, user page comments, even if they are HTML-commented, shouldn't contain lists of Wikipedians you don't like. If you add the list back on your user page, you could be blocked." And then appropriate warnings would have been nice, too. But all your comments and edits were much more harsh and less informative. Finally I said "I got the point", and AT THAT POINT you blocked me for being "disruptive."

Now... where did I disrupt ANYONE? If anything, you disrupted me (why are you on my user page), the people at my company (who couldn't use WP), and yourselves (for wasting time reverting HTML comments). Further, if I always had the text "my favorite wikipedians" vs. "wikipedians who suck", you never would have blocked me. You know why? Because it's a user page, and it's not disruptive to anyone. Instead of constant reverts on my user page, someone should have said "you need to remove that from your user page or you will be blocked." But you didn't; you just forcefully reverted on your own; I blindly reverted the changes to my user page because it was my understanding that people shouldn't be editing my page. You didn't give me a chance to be anything but defensive.

You went on the attack, and I paid for it. This is completely unfair.

I consider this and all other matters closed. I'll be nicer on my User Page. Please move on. And feel free to monitor my edits for the next year or so. Timneu22 (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The main problem appears to be the total logical disconnect between your first point - "I had a list of users who suck on my user page" and your second point "I made no attacks on other users". Surely it should be blatantly obvious that declaring that someone "sucks" is a personal attack? Black Kite 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your logic. If I have a piece of paper in my desk that says "I hate Bob Wilson", does that hurt anyone? Simmilarly, I said "they sucked" but didn't attack. Then I hid it in HTML (in my desk), and I was still accused. Finally, I got blocked after saying OK, "I get the point." That's just wrong. Timneu22 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, having a list of "users who suck" implies that an attribute is being assigned to the given list, much like a list of "users who are funny." Both apply a descriptive label to any member in the list. If I had a list of "users who are funny," it would follow that in some form or another, I am saying to those users, "I think you are funny." Similarly, having a list of "users who suck" is saying to those users, "I think you suck," which crosses into commenting on the contributor instead of the contributions. --slakr^\ talk / 00:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I said they suck... that's not the issue here now... Timneu22 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have repeatedly said that I blocked you right after you said "ok, I get the point". Can you show me where you made such an edit? I see you made a similar edit after you were blocked in regards to removing the unblock templates, but I see no such edit prior to my blocking of you. VegaDark (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATimneu22&diff=199214903&oldid=199214590 Timneu22 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You were already blocked at that point. You removed the requests, I reverted, and left a note within the edit summary saying you cannot remove them until you are unblocked (just like the templates say). Then you removed them again. Thus, to prevent you from continuing to do so, I protected the page. It is a routine event, really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said, that edit was made after you were blocked, and in regards to removal of the unblock template. In your long version of what happened above, you make it seem like I blocked you after you conceded that what you were doing was wrong, and were going to stop. This misrepresentation of the facts is patently false. VegaDark (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not intentionally misrepresenting anything. I'm already done with this discussion, as my opening statement says. Why won't you just let it rest. I think there needs to be a major discussion about what a "personal attack" is (and about "disrupting" wikipedia when I only edited my own user page). I was constantly accused of making them, and I kept saying "this is ridiculous", but no one stopped to say having BLAH on your User Page is considered an attack. You'd rather Block First and Tell Later. I don't appreciate it. Anyway, I'm done with all of this. Let's move on, already. Timneu22 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with calling this discussion over, as long as you refrain from making those types of comments, and refrain from making any comments that could be considered uncivil, or a personal attack. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actaully, you were warned here, here, here, and here all prior to the edit resulting in your block. That should have been more than enough notice that what you were doing was not acceptable. VegaDark (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Vega, I asked every time "where am I attacking?!" but no one said, hey, adding that to your user page IS an attack. To me, an attack is leaving a message on a user's talk page and yelling at them about something. OK. I'm done with this discussion. Timneu22 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the wording of the warnings and the userpage content that was being reverted, I would have hoped the content in question would have been obvious. VegaDark (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read his userpage, he has now created a list of his "favorite wikipedians" including all those who have warned or blocked him in the past, and those with which is has been warring. Can you say "WP:POINT"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Are you happy? WP:POINT and numerous other policies are incorrect or lacking in description. That list was on my user page. I'm not disrupting WP. If someone ran across that list in two months, they wouldn't accuse me of WP:POINT or any other such thing. Geeez. Get over yourself and your knowledge of WP policies. No one is impressed. Timneu22 (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber's disruptive opposes on RfAs

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

This is boring. We have been here before and nothing is going to happen. Just ignore Kurt's comments and leave it to the 'crats to decide whether to count it. Noone has ever failed an RFA because of Kurt's vote. There is no admin action required here so we can all move on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Kmweber (Kurt Weber) is posting disruptive opposes on RfAs, especially if a candidate's RfA is a self-nominated RfA or if a candidate had more than 3 RfAs. This is what he usually posts as an oppose vote:

I view self-nominating as prima facie evidence of power-hunger.

And today, he posted this oppose on an RfA today. I feel that Kurt's opposes are being disruptive and needs to stop so that candidates would have a peaceful time on their RfA. This has been an issue since last June. Users do have the right to nominate themself for adminship and/or have 5+ RfAs within a year, as long as they are ready. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, you're allowed to oppose for any reason and his isn't the worst one I've seen someone oppose for. I don't see how it's disruptive. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of background reading for this. Hopefully someone will provide some links. Carcharoth (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with his posts myself, but this has ben brought here countless times and everytime it's "he can do what he wants" and it'll just be the same result this time. Wizardman 01:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt has the right to comment on all RfAs. He's only trying to help. Unlike you, he believes that self-noms and multiple attempts aren't a good thing. That's his opinion, and although I personally disagree, I'm fine with it. Maxim_(talk) 01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Have candidates ever had a peaceful time on their RfA's? Maybe back in the dim and distant past possibly, but these days RfA's are a Wikipedia's equivalent of bear-baiting. Polly (Parrot) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Some RfA's are relatively peaceful. It seems like we get at least a couple of new admins every month who received zero oppose or neutral votes. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec X 3) This has been through forum after forum, and I don't think there's ever been consensus that what he's doing is unacceptable. I think most people believe that his reasons are silly (myself included, for the most part, although standing for adminship every two months does begin to look a little like power hunger after a while). I think most bureaucrats also think that the reasons are silly, and give them appropriate weight when closing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither is there consensus that it is acceptable. The issues that prevent a resolution of all this are Kurt's reluctance to modify his behavior in light of criticism and a cadre of other editors who are willing to excuse the disruption Kurt causes in the name of a non-existent "right" to comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the RFC filed on the subject [34]. It's also come up several times since, a current section is on RFA talk at the moment I believe. RxS (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course anyone has the right to state their opinion, but I just find Kurt's oppose comment questionable. And of course, I have seen more disruptive oppose votes than Kurt's, such as the incident where a bot was trying to oppose all active RfAs. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Of course" the only rights on Wikipedia are the right to fork and the right to leave. It's somewhat surprising that behavior that results in numerous RFCs and discussion on ANI isn't treated as simple disruption, per the duck test. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. We've been through this: people have from time to time disrupted the encyclopedia because they didn't like Kurt's perfectly acceptable behavior and weren't happy with (or at times aware of) the community consensus about it. Those people should knock it off... But treating acceptable behavior as disruption just because some other people have disrupted the encyclopedia with their behavior...well...ok, so there were these two animals. One was quacking and flapping, making a racket and flinging feathers everywhere. The other was just standing there, picking up twigs with his trunk. A man came by, noticed the quacking and flapping and asked "are you a duck?" The quacker said "not me -- it's him. I'm afraid he's going to step on me, so that made me quack and flap around. That elephant is causing the quacking, he's the one really behind it, so he must be the duck." Meh. --TheOtherBob 05:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to comment on the issue at hand (Kurt's opposes), noone is entitled to a peaceful RFA. We've had too many problems with admins in recent times (Archtransit, anyon?), so every potential admin needs to be scrutinized, as well as every current admin as far as I'm concerned. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The only disruption I see is that candidates won't be able to finish with zero opposes. When I nominated, a guy also suddenly started putting opposes because he did not know the candidate (not only to me, but to all the nominations that were there at the time). The important thing is understanding what the opposes truly mean. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, you're allowed to oppose for any reason... - Well, no, as even a moment's thought should have told you. And I'd say that accusing someone of being power-hungry on the rather specious grounds that someone actually wants a job is, in fact, a personal attack on an editor intended to poison the well. --Calton | Talk 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Calton. I still remember this incident from last December. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And in the RFC, 27 people expressed the view that the diff you cite was not a personal attack (including at least one who supported blocking Kurt for his other opposes). So, you know, what's your point? --TheOtherBob 04:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And given that TPH didn't even nominate himself this time, Kurt is being even more bogus than usual. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Being that NPAs aren't allowed anywhere, I didn't consider it in my statement. My apologies for not being clearer. Since I didn't say it before, I will now, I don't agree with his opposes. I feel the more he makes these kinds of opposes, the less weight they should given. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose votes are personal attacks if you stretch the meaning of a personal attack far enough -- by opposing someone you necessarily attack their personal fitness for a job. But that batters WP:NPA beyond any reasonable definition, particularly in the context of an RFA. --TheOtherBob 04:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

True: but that generic statement has bugger-all to to do with the subject at hand, since we're talking about a SPECIFIC statement he made. Better strawmen, please. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. The above general statement applies to this specific situation -- and you've not even made a half-hearted attempt at showing otherwise. (You do realize, don't you, that the difference between a general statement and a strawman is that a general statement is designed to apply to all situations of a given type, including the particular one at issue, whereas a strawman statement applies to a different situation and not to the one at issue?) In any event, I'll make the last connection for you: Kurt's opposes are "attacks" on the personal fitness of someone to do a job. Nonetheless, they're not personal attacks (unless we do the sort of gymnastics described above). --TheOtherBob 06:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt is free to oppose all self-noms as he wishes. Equally, so, are the closing bureaucrats free to completely ignore Kurt’s comments. —Travis^talk 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, another one of these threads. Kurt's opposes aren't, themselves, annoying. Routine, yes. Predictable, yes. Of questionable usefulness, perhaps. But what's annoying is the screeching brouhaha that occasionally follows. Are the words "I view all self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power-hunger" so upsetting to read as to necessitate this tired old bickering? I don't find it fair to take them as prompts to get into these disruptive "debates" (and I use the word very loosely), then turn around and tell Kurt to stop because he's being disruptive. Kurt is a human being (even if his RfA voting could probably be handled by a bot), and as a token of his humanity, I think he and his votes should be afforded respect. Yes, I'm well aware of his own RfA self-nom - I think it would still be wise to assume good faith, and be thankful that he's not using his viewpoint as the impeteus for a dishonest, ridiculous oppose like "Mainspace contribs this month / Wikipedia:Talk contribs last month + 2 (Portal: contribs last year) is less than 4.9". As far as the "feelings" issue is concerned, I think a potential admin - anyone, really, for that matter - should be prepared to confront a simply-put, few-words-minced rationale, and deal with it as a mature human being, rather than racing to pound "bracket-bracket WPcolonNPA bracket-bracket" into the edit box. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt has been posting identical, copy-pasted opposes on RfAs, and many users have been complaining about this issue for months already. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

...And, it would appear that there is no consensus for community action on the matter. Kurt is not a sockpuppet, nor a user evading a block, nor is he in any way directly questioning the morals, wisdom, or personal habits of the nominees, so all of the typical reasons for striking comments at RfA do not apply. I concur that RfA is stressful enough for the nominee without an oppose such as this, but we can't strike this oppose without striking others for similar grounds (No, I have no examples). It's a slippery slope - if one oppose can be objectionable because of the opinion of the editor, then others could as well. Not good. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When a user opposes someone at an RfA, isn't it good to give examples and diffs? He gives nothing to back up the statement except that it is his opinion that a user is power hungry because they nominated themselves for adminship. Seems like a point to me, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Examples and diffs themselves aren't what's good - what's good is to illustrate the point you're trying to make in your support/oppose ratonale. Examples and diffs are just the route to illustration. If the point being made is self-illustrative (in this case, by the nomination statement itself), then diffs are rather redundant. I guess if Kurt wanted to add a bit of pizazz, he could !pipe "self nomination" to a diff of the nomination. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

GET OVER IT. It's been said time and time again that he can oppose if he wants to. Rather than whining about, STOP REPLYING TO HIM and STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. The only disruption is you people bitching everywhere. John Reaves 03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that Kurt's opposes are un-helpful he has a right to his opinion (how ever flawed it may be), but with the being said for the most part I do not feel that his opposes accurately reflect the candidate and give them no constructive feedback on how to improve. I think for the most part the crats look right over oppose of this type an weigh very lightly in the overall outcome of an RfA, so honestly does it really matter? Tiptoety ^talk 03:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Above there is a claim, repeated, that Kurt's comment is a personal attack on the candidate. That's not correct. It's a statement of fact, according to his opinion. It is not personal. I'd urge reading it carefully, it's obvious that many have not: "I view self-nominating as prima facie evidence of power-hunger." Prima facie evidence means a piece of evidence that is considered controlling if there is no contrary evidence. Now, the fact is that there is long history behind the proposition that someone who seeks office is therefore disqualified (due, indeed, to power hunger, and I can trace this back over a thousand years). He didn't make this up, at least not for the first time. Further, there is a very troubling aspect to this. We have open "voting." Under those conditions, it's crucial that votes be free. Voting is not an excuse for vicious personal attack, but highly critical comment in RfAs is not considered personal attack. By standing for the bit, one is essentially inviting community comment. And a level of criticism is allowed, including assumptions of bad faith, that would be intolerable in other contexts. What would we think if I had filed, during or after my RfA, an RfC or AN/I report on "personal attacks" during it? As to making canned comments, at least one voter in my RfA simply pointed to his standards, N edits etc. Was that illegitimate? I think not. He had that right. Kurt's comment, as a "personal attack" is certainly mild, but it is not even personal, and it is explicitly stated that way. And if he applies it wrongly, we are also allowed to make mistakes in voting. To hold otherwise is to chill the process.--Abd (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct. It's a statement of fact, according to his opinion. That's the most ridiculous piece of wikilawyering I've heard all week. Try typing "You are an utter moron: that's not an attack, that's merely my opinion" on a Talk page and see how far that bit of rationalization gets you. --Calton | Talk 05:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Calling this wikilawyering because it's phrased confusingly to you is just totally missing the point. The point is that it's a factual statement regarding Kurt's opinion - and so it is. Your third sentence is entirely a non-sequitur -- yes, if someone was rude or crass in an oppose, it'd be bad. No one's doing that. But if someone did...it'd be bad. --TheOtherBob 05:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly now, let's look at WP:IAR. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Everyone agrees that Kurt's opposes are annoying. Certainly the periodic debates about them are unpleasant and do nothing to improve the encyclopedia. And as I've pointed out in the past, it is disrespectful to the community to continue to express, over and over, sometimes falsely, always without willing to reconsider, something which obviously drives a sizeable portion of the community batshit insane. One does not get a pass to be disruptive (oh yes, K. Weber is disruptive, where else do these threads come from) just because the community is at a loss at how or if to proceed. Yes users are allowed to express their opinions on RfA but this is equivalent to holding your finger in front of a sore spot (RfA) and saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you,..." People are not going to stop being upset by this and since we all (b'crats, at least) acknowledge that the opinion is useless, someone should give him a stern "Knock it off." RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules to overrule a sizable majority of the community...well, I don't think that's what IAR is about. Sure, sometimes this stuff drives people to disruption...sad to say, but people who don't get their way have a tendency to rachet things up until they do. Here people aren't driven batshit insane -- they go batshit insane, and Kurt gets the blame. They should bloody well stop doing that. Kurt's opinions are wrong (in my view) but they're also honest, and I believe they're far from "useless" or "disrespectful." I believe he's not making them to piss anyone off, but rather as part of an honest attempt to convince people to fundamentally change the way they approach adminship -- and the fundamental change he seems to be aiming for (electing admins who treat adminship as a job rather than as a higher or more powerful class of editors)...well, I've got to say that I could agree with it. Silencing that to prevent others from taking offense would be regrettable, and I think by now it's clear that it'd be contrary to consensus. --TheOtherBob 05:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Everyone agrees that Kurt's opposes are annoying.". No. Please be careful when you claim to speak for "everyone". --Badger Drink (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Another case of Wikipedia:Just drop it. (Although I say that not to criticize either side, but simply to point out an interesting essay applicable to such subjects.) SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before; I'll say it again: It is completely disingenuous to claim that I am responsible for the choice of others to overreact to my wholly legitimate actions. It's like blaming the Giants for New England fans rioting in anger after the Super Bowl. RyanGerbil, some of your claims are just flat-out wrong (notice I'm not calling them "lies"--I'm sure you're just honestly mistaken). For your claim that I have ever made an RfA oppose based on false claims, I challenge you to provide a diff; as for your assertion that I am totally unwilling to reconsider, well, I'm amazed at your mindreading ability. Reconsidering a position does not always result in changing one's mind, if one finds the new arguments presented insufficient. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 06:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a general comment, but there seems to be a recent proliferation of threads that amount to little more that "I don't like what this person is saying, so it's disruptive." So far, in these kinds of threads, no evidence is being presented of incivility, disruption of normal process, derailing of discussions or anything else remotely actionable. People have opinions. Other people may not like those opinions. However, that doesn't make those opinions a sanctionable offense. In all cases, if an opinion expressed is truly unreasonable or unjustified (not making comment on Kurt's contributions), we expect the sysops and 'crats to take that into consideration when closing discussions. "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Vassyana (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, herein lies the very essence of disruption, as it's meant when applied to polls such as WP:RFA (as opposed to disruption in the mainspace, which is covered by WP:DE). You're disrupting the majority's efforts to confine the debate to the decisionmaking criteria they feel the outcome should be based on. SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not how wikis in general, or Wikipedia in particular, work. We are not constrained in our opinions to those the majority feels are the correct criteria. If our criteria are erroneous based on the general consensus of the community (which is not a simple majority-rules determination), it is expected that sysops and 'crats will use the discretion afforded to them by the community to discount such expressed opinions. At worst, the dissenting opinions may be distasteful, but there's certainly nothing disruptive about them. Vassyana (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This keeps coming up, and I don't believe I've voiced an opinion on it before, so here goes. I think it's foolish and goes against long-standing traditions to oppose for such a reason, but I don't see what the Big Deal is. Has an oppose of this nature ever caused a swarm of bees to descend? Has it ever decided an RfA one way or the other? Do they sway the bcrats? Are they weighted as heavily as other opposition might be, say for issues like prior blocks, abusive sockpuppetry, or lack of policy knowledge? Are people so easily upset by a perfectly tame but iffy statement really going to be stable as admins, when dealing with out-and-out trolls or openly malicious harassment? Are we so opposed to a free exchange of ideas that RfA comments should be limited to Approved Opinions Only? Are we going to ban a dedicated, four-year user from participating in RfA (in apparently good faith!) for the terrible crime of expressing the Wrong Sentiment a few times? We don't have a policy that forbids people from embarassing themselves. There's a reason we don't have an established procedure to ban opinions from RfA. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What Luna said. + me, R. Baley (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What Luna said. + me too. Non-issue not requiring admin attention. Let's move along. Pedro :  Chat  09:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Today's theology lesson

Resolved

 – page has been protected

There is a group of churches known as the Churches of Christ. Among other things, some of their members believe that their church tradition has existed in an unbroken line since the first century, and so they are profoundly offended by discussion of their church within a historical context, or as something that has a beginning. Specifically, origins in the Presbyterian church. And so they come, and delete all reference of their church's history from the article. But I'm sort of involved, and have 3 reverts already, so I don't think I ought to revert and semiprotect the article if some uninvolved admin is available to review the sources I added to the discussion on the talk page, and, if they think the sources support that the church does have a historical beginning, take what action seems appropriate to them. Thank you very much. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My nonadmin advice/observations after looking at the history page is 1.)It's disruptive. 2.)It's an edit war. Take a break and warn the anons about WP:3RR and ask them to discuss on the talk page. Then WP:RFC. If that fails, I would ask for semi-protection since the removal of sourced content can be construed as vandalism, although content disputes are not. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Until an administrator can decide appropriate action, I've warned the main anon involved, and added the page to my watchlist to monitor transgressions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the wrong version. People have already been warned, so chat about it on the talkpage. From two seconds of looking at the talk, perhaps it just needs some disambiguation? Regardless, this is a technical response to a social problem, and won't work without someone on the social side. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the only disambig that would assist the IP is an article like The holy truth about how we're right and you're wrong, or The biblically inerrant history of the Churches of Christ, according to the Churches of Christ. They are, upon review, actually arguing their theology as history. This never works out well, and I suspect this could rapidly become the new controversial article, not unlike the Israeli/Palestinian articles, the India/Pakistan, the Scientology, and so on. Facts vs. faith never works great. Unfortunately, no one's willing to let that happen. Like Wisdom, I'll drop it onto my watchlist, but that's only 6 more reverts against another 'true believer'. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you advising making the page semiprotected forever? (Not that I'm arguing against it, I'm just curious.) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could actually turn out to be necessary; if there's one thing these people have trouble doing, it's letting something go. Kind of ironic, what with them being taught to turn the other cheek and all... HalfShadow (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that all religions have trouble living BOTH sides of the golden rule, in fairness. But yeah, zealotry brings out the semi-protect in all non-zealots of that particular stripe, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If I read the log correctly, Kylu protected the page (and added a protection template), rather than semi-protected it. It seems to me that semi-protection should have been tried first. But I may have missed something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Littleteddy

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Littleteddy. While checking the IPs of some one-off vandal accounts, I discovered that these accounts were all either checkuser- Confirmed or  Likely to be run by Littleteddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So the question is what to do with Littleteddy? Warn, spank, or permanently show the door. Thatcher 02:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what he has to say. John Reaves 03:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I can't see the connection here - my IP according to whatismyipaddress.com is 203.189.4.98. I use a shared computer to edit... maybe that is it? I have frequently neglected to log out in the past and I found that my account was twice used for vandalism. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 03:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, admiting to having your account compromised means we can no longer trust it anymore. Leaving it availible to edit would further compromise the security of Wikipedia. Why should we not indefinately block this account since it is clear that it cannot be secured from others who are using it for abuse? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have agreed to log out properly in future. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 03:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see that as solving the problem. Perhaps people have stolen your password while you were logged in. I still say that since the account is compromised, we need to block this to protect Wikipedia... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a hell of a lot more going on here than Littleteddy is admitting to.

If you have a look at the deleted page Talk:Courtenay Gass, you will see that Littleteddy suggested article Courtenay Gass was a hoax, then withdrew the allegation. Courtenay Gass was created and edited by accounts in that sock drawer. It beggars belief that Littleteddy would by sheer luck end up at the talk page of an article that was created by an account that uses the same computer as he. These accounts might not be straight out socks, but something is going on here, and Littleteddy knows what.

Furthermore, one of the articles created by members of that sock drawer, and subsequently prodded then withdrawn by Littleteddy, is the real life name of User:Auroranorth (I'm not going to out his real name here; admins may email me for details). Auroranorth was previously blocked for disruption, and responded by sockpuppeteering with accounts User:Seventy dot, User:BigMacintosh, User:Johnny Zoo 85, User:Social Studiously, User:KyleMorrison and User:Homestarrman. Auroranorth ended up blocked indefinitely, but begged for forgiveness and was unblocked and placed on probation. At the conclusion of his probation he resigned the account; some of us suspected that he was starting afresh with a new account.

Clearly there is some relationship between Littleteddy and Auroranorth. Littleteddy is collaborating with, and working on the same computer as, accounts that wrote a hoax article whose title is Auroranorth's real name. If Littleteddy continues feeding us the kind of crap he's feeding us above, I'd say we're left with no option but to assume that Littleteddy is Auroranorth, in which case he has long ago used up all his second chances and should be shown the door.

Hesperian 03:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As the direct relationship can be proved by a number of methods - it is quite disheartening to think such a user can continue such behaviour after already being in restricted mode in the earlier incarnation - due to some astonishing behaviour then. Perhaps the user needs a year away - and maybe in that time either some maturity or clearer thinking might develop, or perhaps there are other online communities that might cope with such behaviour - it clearly is not suitable for membership of this one SatuSuro 04:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In view of the reasoning provided by hesperian in the material below - I can see a possibly redeeming point from his (hesperians) reasoning and consequently would be reluctant to endorse either a defence or prosecution against the current incarnation. SatuSuro 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that arbcom, long ago, ruled that different accounts run by real different human beings, acting collaboratively to disrupt Wikipedia in such a way as to be indistinguisible from one person abusing multiple account could still be blocked as sockpuppets. The compelling problem is the use of multiple accounts to disrupt towards the same end; regardless of how many hands are inside of the socks, multiple accounts cannot be used to disrupt in a coordinated manner. As a second, and more pertinent note, this one clearly quacks.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it doesn't really quack. The links are there, but there's no overlap in editing interests, and no consistency of persona. Littleteddy certainly seems good faith. The other accounts are infantile vandals and hoaxers. Since I've made a case against him, here's a devil's advocate hypothetical in his favour (quoted to indicate that I'm not asserting this as fact):

"Littleteddy is a completely reformed Auroranorth who happened to google his real name one day, and found a Wikipedia article. His first thought was that some moronic schoolmates of his, who had already used his account to vandalise on a previous occasion, had created a hoax article on him. So he went and prodded it. He then checked out the contributors to the article, and prodded some more of their hoaxes. Then all of a sudden he was beset by doubts - perhaps the article under his name was a valid article on a historical figure who just happens to have the same name as he; after all, the article was fairly well written and had sources that checked out on Google Books. So he withdraws the prods pending access to the sources. Shortly afterwards, the moronic schoolmates get blocked and the hoaxes deleted, and Littleteddy carries on happily. And now all of a sudden he finds himself accused of sockpuppetry, simply because he edits through the same school IP as these morons."

Hesperian 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly not unheard of for a sockmaster to generate a bunch of vandal socks for he himself to warn and block. Remember the whole Archtransit thing? It is actually quite a common pattern. Someone creates a bunch of vandalism-only accounts, which he "discovers" and warns via his main account. The compelling evidence here is the vandalism from one account followed by the warning from a different account, using the same IP... Heck, Archtransit even did it so well, he became an Admin because of it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP address that Littleteddy has posted above, resolves to the company that holds the IT outsourcing contract for Auroranorth's school. At this point I am satisfied beyond all doubt that Littleteddy is Auroranorth. However, I am not yet satisfied that Littleteddy has done anything wrong. I am prepared to believe that the IP addresses used by these vandals are school addresses shared by Littleteddy, and that Littleteddy has therefore been caught in the crossfire. In Littleteddy's defence, the only association between his account and the vandal accounts, other than IP, is that he prodded some of their hoax articles, then subsequently withdrew the prods. Hesperian 04:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Not to belabor the point, but lets consider this from Mr. Occam's point of view. One option is that Littleteddy prods a bunch of articles, all of which, unknowing to him, were created by people who HAPPEN to be from his school, none of which he knew anything about. Or, as an alternate explanation, he created the articles with his "bad hand" accounts, and prodded them with his "good hand" account to make himself look better... Which makes more sense? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the truth than what makes sense.

Look, it was me who repeatedly blocked Auroranorth last time. It was me who tracked down his sockpuppets. It was me who had to clean up after him. He was a little turd, and he behaved like a little turd. He made Wikipedia unpleasant for me for a long period of time, and I couldn't stand him, and I would never have believed I'd be defending him here. But even when he was a turd he wasn't a vandal - he was an immature kid who did nothing but make huge messes that other people had to clean up for him. And before he abandoned that account he was well on the way to becoming an acceptable editor. And if Littleteddy is he, then it appears that that process has continued, because there is no evidence that the Littleteddy account has ever been used in bad faith. I don't think an apparently good faith user should be booted, just because it has been tied to an IP address used by vandals, which is known to resolve to a school. Hesperian 05:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we both agree there. Even IF I am right, and I make no claims to be, as long as Littleteddy has stopped the good hand/bad hand baloney, and intends only to be a productive editor from here on out, there is no need to block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for Littleteddy to be given the benefit of the doubt. Based on his contributions, and assuming good faith, a caught in the crossfire situation seems to be the most likely here. —Moondyne click! 05:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The behaviour of these other accounts is not consistent with LT's known identifying editing features which were consistent in both his previous account and his previous account's known socks. (It should be noted that although only two admins were made aware of his new identity, due to his wish as a young user who had matured somewhat to reinvent himself without his former mistakes, he also on my advice emailed arbcom-l with details of his new and old identities, as WP:SOCK takes evading scrutiny very seriously.) There is some doubt over a couple of them and some of the edits made, and whether there was any meatpuppetry going on, but the doubts are not sufficiently strong for me to wish to question his good faith. I had been keeping tabs on his progress and generally speaking have been happy with what I've seen. I would be very very disappointed indeed if any of this does turn out to be true. Orderinchaos 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hesp, "Littleteddy" was one of half a dozen or so sockpuppets we identified in December as socks Auroranorth created in order to "start over" when his probation was finished. I just forwarded a copy of one of the last emails in the threads to refresh memories of admins involved in that discussion. Nothing was ever done about this or the other accounts that I'm aware of because Gnangarra and I were the only ones concerned about the situation. Sarah 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The other 'socks' were blocked indefinitely because they were requested via email RTV. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that I was fairly careful about which accounts I called "confirmed" and which I called "likely." Judge for yourselves whether the timing of these edits supports the "shared computer" explanation.

March 19

• Coyle and Cassidy High School . . 11:25 . . Littleteddy (space)
• (User creation log) . . 11:23 . . Darrylhair (New user account)
• Talk:Mzoli's . . 11:02 . . Littleteddy (references?)

Feb 27

• User talk:Littleteddy . . 10:54 . . Littleteddy (???)
• User talk:Littleteddy . . 10:53 . . Littleteddy (???)[35]
• User talk:I'm On Speed . . 10:50 . . I'm On Speed ({{unblock-auto|1=124.169.45.168|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Goodbo". The reason given for Goodbo's block is: "Vandalism-only account".|3=Redvers|4=8025)[36]
• User talk:Goodbo . . 10:48 . . Goodbo (redvers u homo)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:47 . . Goodbo (ok)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:47 . . Goodbo (homo)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:46 . . Goodbo (homo)
• User talk:Goodbo . . 10:46 . . Goodbo (false positive warning)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:46 . . Goodbo (Talk | contribs (homo) [37]
• (User creation log) . . 10:45 . . Goodbo (New user account)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:44 . . I'm On Speed (fixed possible bias errors, linked 'election loss' to 2001 election, linked other things and clarified Jenny Macklin's current position)
• (User creation log) . . 10:41 . . I'm On Speed (Talk | contribs | block) (New user account)
• N User talk:Dhilu . . 10:38 . . Littleteddy (Talk | contribs | block) (welcome)
• User talk:Rahuljk2002 . . 10:38 . . Littleteddy (Talk | contribs | block) (warn)

Consider that someone from this computer, in the space of 15 minutes, made an edit as Littleteddy, created the account I'm On Speed (talk · contribs), created the account Goodbo (talk · contribs), got blocked as Goodbo, and then posted two autoblock unblock requests, from I'm On Speed and Littleteddy. I suppose Littleteddy could have gone to the bathroom for those 10 minutes and then gotten his seat back without realizing what had happened, but if so then that has happened many times.

Finally, a fresh check of his acknowledged IP today shows that in between making his replies here, someone from the same IP address was logged in as Fitzcj94da (talk · contribs). The technical evidence is reasonably good that these edits are coming from a single PC and not multiple PCs connected to a single router. I would be happy to have any other checkuser doublecheck my findings. Thatcher 07:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you make the difference between multiple computers sharing the same characteristics (if it's a computer lab that's plausible), and a single computer? I agree this smells bad though. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 11:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple computer labs, actually. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 12:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• • comment I personally know Fitzcj94da. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 08:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I can confirm that there are multiple computers connected to a single router. We've got three IP addresses, the one I already acknowledged (203.189.4.98), 203.189.4.97 and one more (I believe it was blocked by Butseriouslyfolks, as I have tried to edit anonymously a few times) 203.189.4.108. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 08:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW all of these IP addresses are shared with multiple computers - about 100 of them. Logging into one computer could assign either one of the three IPs which can change throughout the browsing session (for example, I tried to edit anonymously and was stopped by Spebi's block and tried again and was stopped by Butseriouslyfolks' block). Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 08:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been fooled by this guy before, and am loath to be fooled again. I've defended him here, but the timings are pretty compelling. They are consistent with someone logging out and back in as another user. They are consistent with a group of students mucking about together in the same computer lab. It is very hard to believe that they reflect two parties, unaware of each other, operating through the same IP. In light of the timings I am inclined to revert to my original statement that Littleteddy knows what is going on here, and he isn't telling. If he won't come clean aboout this, I think the only reasonable response is for us to treat him as a sockpuppetteer. As I said previously, he has already used up all his last chances under account Auroranorth, so if we're going to treat him as a sockpuppetteer, that means an indefinite block. Hesperian 12:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, I can tell you that I know who is doing the vandalism (it's not me). Your assertions are correct but I am not the vandal and according to WP:SOCK I am not a sockpuppeteer. I just wanted to carry on 'peacefully' as you said in your statement above. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to give you the email addresses of the vandals? Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So you go to school with a group of Wikipedia vandals but you are completely innocent? Thatcher 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

March 11

• Courtenay Gass . . 06:43 . . Gasscg94wa (talk · contribs) (←Blanked the page)
• Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . 04:51 . . Historyluvver (talk · contribs) (fixing)
• Courtenay Gass . . 04:47 . . Historyluvver (talk · contribs) (referenced and completed)

March 12

• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 05:13 . . Littleteddy (test1 warning)
• Glass . . 05:11 . . Gasscg94wa (←Replaced page with 'Glass is what bottles are made of lol.')
• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 02:22 . . Historyluvver (warning)
• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 02:21 . . Gasscg94wa (←Blanked the page)
• Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . 02:21 . . Historyluvver (homeys)
• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 02:20 . . Historyluvver (i love u courtenay from ian)
• Talk:Courtenay Gass . . 02:17 . . Littleteddy (Talk | contribs | block) (removed comments - i think i found that textbook so for now i will leave it)

It is obviously not a coincidence when one editor edits Courtenay Gass with the edit summary referenced and completed and two hours later someone on the same IP blanks the page. It is not a coincidence when Littleteddy and Historyluvver edit Courtenay Gass (i love u courtenay from ian), Historyluvver warns Gasscg4wa, Gasscg4wa vandalizes Glass, then Littleteddy issues a warning, and they all come from the same IP address. The question on the table is really, is Littleteddy being honest about his relationship to these accounts, and even if he his, do we continue to tolerate his shenanigans? Thatcher 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am being completely honest about this!!! Courtenay Gass (giving last name seeing as though it's already been splashed around this page) is a student at my school in the same year who happens to be in most of my classes. 'Ian' I assume is Ian (won't give last name) from my year, but he's got nothing to do with it. By the way, it's Gasscg94wa, not Gasscg4wa. This is his school computer username, GassCourtenayG(his middle name beginning with G)94 wa(wa -> code for the town in which he resides). What shenanigans, Thatcher? Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that the IP addresses I gave have been blocked from anon editing because people who don't have accounts do one-off vandalism and get us all blocked from anon editing. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read the diffs, deleted diffs and edits of the above users, and while I am still convinced that Littleteddy is a good faith editor, and has not sockpuppeted in the sense of creating bad hand accounts and vandalising with them, I'm really not sure what he's been getting up to with his mates in the school computer lab - it seems most of these are throwaway accounts by real people. The fact the edits are occurring between 5pm and 11pm in the same range of both LT and the throwaways concerns me. There does seem to be some mutual knowledge of what is going on between the accounts and LT at times. However at times they appear to be working at cross purposes, as if one's gone in and done something, the other's seen it, balked at it and reacted. I think we do owe him a chance to explain, but if it turns out he's been playing silly buggers on us, I will be most unimpressed given the effort I and others went to to assist in the rehabilitation of this user. Orderinchaos 16:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I think its appropriate to block all of the accounts. Reason is that Thatcher after discussion was unable to separate Littleteddy from the other editors, seeking further clarification as to whether there was any separation due to school terms Thatcher concluded that the similarities are also outside of the school term. Additionally LT has a past history of sockpuppets see User:Auroranorth/Sockpuppets, where he also used the it was someone else excuse. Gnangarra 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse a block per Gnangarra's reasoning above. The technical evidence outside of the school term warrants either a proper explanation of what exactly is has been going on or a block. I'm not convinced that *all* these accounts are Littleteddy's but I do believe a good number of them are his and it seems like a good hand-bad hand situation or perhaps showing off to his schoolmates. This user has been given chance after chance and I really don't understand why we continue to let him play us for fools. Some of us weren't all that comfortable with the circumstances in which Littleteddy started over and given this user's past history with abusive sockpuppetry, it is impossible to overlook the current evidence as some crazy mix-up. Littleteddy needs to come clean about exactly what has been going on and give us a proper explanation instead of playing us fools and taking advantage of very kind people. Sarah 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-outside point: This situation is also part of a Checkuser request on Simple English Wikipedia. There are multiple accounts used for vandalism with a distinct pattern as well as an account for Littleteddy. The Littleteddy account has taken no part in vandalism and while only active one day, have made nothing but useful contributions. The actions with us seems to support his statements here. Creol (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (Simple English CU)

What would you like to know (e.g. questions)? I will do my best to answer them. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 01:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this

"Littleteddy is a completely reformed Auroranorth who happened to google his real name one day, and found a Wikipedia article. His first thought was that some moronic schoolmates of his, who had already used his account to vandalise on a previous occasion, had created a hoax article on him. So he went and prodded it. He then checked out the contributors to the article, and prodded some more of their hoaxes. Then all of a sudden he was beset by doubts - perhaps the article under his name was a valid article on a historical figure who just happens to have the same name as he; after all, the article was fairly well written and had sources that checked out on Google Books. So he withdraws the prods pending access to the sources. Shortly afterwards, the moronic schoolmates get blocked and the hoaxes deleted, and Littleteddy carries on happily. And now all of a sudden he finds himself accused of sockpuppetry, simply because he edits through the same school IP as these morons."

is mostly true... except I knew exactly who kept creating hoax articles (Courtenay Gass). Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 01:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Littleteddy, explain this. You found an article under your own name, and an article under the name of someone who is in all your classes at school, created/edited by the same author. Don't ask me to believe that you actually thought this might be a coincidence - that a good faith user had created legitimate articles on unrelated historical figures that just happen to match your and Courtenay's names. That is ridiculous. So why did you withdraw your prods on these articles? Hesperian 02:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For my name, I withdrew the prod so I could ask Courtenay why he did it. I was going to speedy it as a hoax once I knew. For Courtenay's, I found the textbook (can't remember what it was called now) and I withdrew it on those grounds. I was going to look at the book and see, then talk to Courtenay about it or ask him whether he had created it. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 06:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus, why would I want to vandalise Wikipedia in the first place? I've always been for the encyclopedia and never participated in any vandalism activities. I am in no way encouraging the vandals to vandalise, I can merely become an observer. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 08:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that you have never been a vandal, and I don't believe that you have vandalised here. The remaining question for me is the extent to which you enabled, actively or by inaction, these other vandals. I can certainly imagine a situation where a group of morons are vandalising Wikipedia and also teasing you for taking Wikipedia seriously, lacking the sense of humour to enjoy their vandalism, etcetera. A great deal of peer pressure can be applied in situations like that - pressure to participate, or at least not to be the party-pooper who ruins their fun.

But I'm not accusing you of anything along these lines; I'm just telling you what I'm thinking. As far as I'm concerned, the situation is way too grey to support a block against your account.

Hesperian 11:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That sums it up quite well. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Never vandalised, except for this explained here as Oh my gosh, LOL! I was trying to warn the user that did it but I accidentally used the revert tool. I apologise for my mistake, I was attempting to act in good faith. Sorry! which makes no sense; and here (self-reverted, both edit and revert with false edit summaries) explained here as I am using a shared computer, maybe that's it?, which makes no sense either. This was followed by lots of questions, to me and to the admin noticeboards, asking what can be done to prevent this in future... which to me now sounds like "oops, I vandalised with my good-hand account by accident". ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 14:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The first diff is also interesting from a timing point of view. If you look at the history of Telaviv1's talk page, the edit comes four minutes after the end of a concerted run of nasty sock-SPAs - You're My Friend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tahlin Harris is a Bi 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tahlin Harris is a Bisexual I Want Him To Be My Boyfriend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Telaviv1sux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, most interestingly of all Zubebj99ka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another one with the account naming pattern Littleteddy has described above. That's really Not Good at all. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 14:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves message on my User Talk page

[38]

Also, commenting at an archive is pointless. I'm not sure I understand how you ever became an admin. John Reaves 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Caltrop (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He linked to the AN/I archives: He does have a point in that commenting on archive pages is pointless, as nobody's going to read the comment. Perhaps you should revert your edit there and post it somewhere with an active discussion instead? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While we are here...take a look at that archived discussion. Caltrop is doing it again. Moving his talk page where no one can find and mucking with the history. This is bewildering behavior for an administrator. John Reaves 03:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John Reaves here. Moving the edits to an other page, then deleting the history, effectively making the search for a specific diff tedious is not an acceptable use of admins tools, in my opinion. (I might be missing something, I have no admin rights on this account). This is not a question of good faith or not, you are effectively doing something that you were told was not ok. The policy states that removing comments is ok, not that deleting the page to avoid scrutiny is. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John says he's moving the pages... does that require admin tools? Avruch ^T 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you post this here Caltrop? Am I out of the loop on some history here? Is John Reaves not supposed to be on your talk page? Was his question hurtful? I ask out of ignorance; I don't get it. :\ --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The link you refer to on your talk page states that "warnings may still be viewed in page history." That link is simply referring to removal of comments, not deleting pages entirely so the archives are not visible. Enigma ^msg! 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Would it be appropriate to move his pages around (over redirects or deletions, and then restore the "current" talk page without deleting the redirects) in order to create a proper move history from his talk page? Or perhaps make a null edit naming the current location of his talk page? Anyway, if he doesn't understand that what he did destroys history even if it doesn't destroy any actual information, desysoping seems an appropriate remedy for misuse of delete, even in his own talk-space. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Prodego has already fixed this guys screwups once, he knew that what he was doing wrong and against policy. John Reaves 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the history back. Hopefully he'll take a hint this time. John Reaves 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

I've had enough of this guy. He constantly wikistalks me, annoys the hell out of me, and is right now RVing my edits on a page when I have an In Use template there, and his ignorance has caused 2 edit conflicts already when I try to make some changes.

He's also RVing a Redirect of a page for a Pilot of a show that doesn't need it's own article (I posted a notice on the talk page that ti should be removed around January, nobody opposed it).

I apologize for the way I've been acting towards him, but he's just annoying the shit out of me.

Please do something. -Karaku (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When another editor reverts you, especially when performing a controversial action such as redirecting an entire page without any discussion, then discussion is the medium to undertake. Naturally, some fault lies with him for continuing the conflict, but you should have stopped immediately and started discussing. Also, simply adding the {{inuse}} template does not give you the right to arbitrarily declare that only you can edit a page - see WP:OWN. If you want to make changes, then make them and if they are reverted or disagreed with, then bring to discussion. However, to be frank, the ability of other editors to discuss with you appears to be limited, as personal attacks ([39], [40], [41], [42], [43]) are not tolerated, and User:The Rogue Penguin even invited you to discuss your changes in several of his edit summaries ([44], [45]). Although, again, he continued the conflict, the frequent incivility in your edit summaries and actions were a natural deterrence to any possible discussion. Please cease your edit warring and move to discussion, or blocks may be appropriate to resolve this situation. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this as these two reached the level of escalation, and left each of them a note. Relevant threads include:

• User talk:Karaku#Please calm down
• User talk:The Rogue Penguin#Karaku
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Karaku reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: )

Hope that's helpful to anybody else looking into this. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While one can argue that TheRoguePenguin has not handled the situation ideally, I think there is a real enforcement problem here. Karaku just recently returned from his fourth block for gross incivility and 3RR violations, and it took him all of twenty minutes of activity to rack up another warning for each violation from a previously-uninvolved editor (see incivility warning and 3RR warning).

Karaku seems to have made some positive contributions in the past (and as it turns out, I happen to agree with him that Garage Kids should probably be a redirect). But I mean, I kinda thought that if you returned from a block and immediately resumed the behavior that resulted in the block, you didn't really get the courtesy of warnings that time around... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A number of people have tried their very utmost to be patient and understanding, and Karaku seems to have ignored useful or helpful advice at every turn. It's unfortunate, but also unsurprising, that this user is currently blocked for one month. We can revisit these issues, at that time. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fishing Derby (event)

Copyvio of http://msucares.com/pubs/infosheets/is1590.htm. Article has been tagged CSD twice as db-copyvio. Creator keeps removing CSD tag. Claims to have "rewritten" it in their own words but not many words were actually changed. I'm not going to edit war or 3RR over a CSD tag so an admin should have a look. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And after Shell deleted it, the user has recreated it with same copyvio. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The user has now removed the speedy tag twice [46] [47] - in addition to the times he/she removed it before the article was originally deleted. The user claims to have completely rewritten it from scratch, but a simple look at this diff will show that it's little more than a re-arrangement of paragraphs (last half of the "statistics" section grafted onto the end of the lead-in, etc) and a few words changed. Would salting be wise? --Badger Drink (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This just got re-deleted because of the speedy tag, however, when reviewing the article vs the source given, I'm not seeing anything I'd consider a copyvio anymore. Word for word I found one phrase (5 words total) that was the same. There was a great deal in the article that wasn't covered in the source and they were laid out differently. Shell ^babelfish 04:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless there was a major revision after my tag, the article was still virtually the same. I don't have access to deleted pages, so I'm going by memory, but I definitely remember parts like "Unlike a tournament or fishing rodeo", and "Fishing derbies are excellent family activities and are conducive to participation by the increasing number of single-parent families . . . a fishing derby places emphasis on the individual participants and their exposure to fisheries resources and the sport of fishing." (even more was lifted in the original article, but I'm cutting some out just to save space), and so on. The user re-arranged the structure somewhat, but it was hardly "from scratch", and still a copyvio. Striking my own comment out, as it was nearly wholly incorrect. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Attack page?

[48]. Is this page compliant with WP:ATP? Anyone? I deleted it, and it was quickly restored. What is the prevailing opinion on pages like this, especially in light of the fact that policy strictly and clearly forbids them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[49] second one? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The first seems to be tongue-in-cheek. The second seems to have nothing really 'attacking' anyone, other than one-word descriptions of their actions. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. "Attack page" seems like an overly strong description. That said, I don't love the idea behind them, but that's more my opinion than some distillation of policy. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this considered an attack page? I guess I'm supposed to feel honored to be on the list. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing series of edits from IP and user

Could someone please compare the edits from these two:

• 84.16.230.15 (talk · contribs)
• Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs)

Specifically this sequence of events:

1. IP 84.16.230.15 makes these edits [50] [51] [52] out of the blue, apropos of nothing.
2. I block the IP as an obvious sock/harassment/troll
3. Wilhelminia Will makes this edit: [53] to the talk page of the IP immediately after I block it. Um, is there something up here, or am I going paranoid? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently writing a SSP report for a whole list of names and IPs. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep us posted... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This user and I have no connections, other than that they seemed frustrated because they weren't acknowledged as having down syndrome, so I thought I'd show them some pity, to make them feel better. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewishfanofnsblackmetal (talk · contribs)

Resolved

User appears to be a single-purpose account created to "correct npov" on Blood libel against Jews, which then went rogue and started reverting all edits it came across on Recent changes (see contribs). -- Kéiryn ^talk 05:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and all his edits reverted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request declined. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 06:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You're a real cleaver, Jeske! I always knew you were actually a knife used for cutting meat. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed to stop harassing vandalism

I semi-protected my talk page and user page to stop this, but could someone look into a potential rangeblock (short term perhaps) against 217.20.127.XXX to shut him up? Consider these two:

• 217.20.127.243 (talk · contribs)
• 217.20.127.223 (talk · contribs)

For the record, I have no idea who this is, but its likely someone whose username I blocked recently, and has decided to be a pain... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. This has spread outside the range. See 123.242.230.165 (talk · contribs). Eh. Just keep your eyes open to see where he goes next. I have protected my user page and talk page... But I am sure he will find somewhere else to strike. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Both of the 217.* ranges have the same WHOIS information as 84.16.230.15 (talk · contribs) (already mentioned a topic or two above this one). The 123.* range however does not. Certainly the same user however. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figgered out who this was a few minutes ago. Anyone who blocked or responded to the first IP should probably keep an eye out for problems... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a report. It's long and tedious to read, but it was the best I could do. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wilhelmina Will AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh let me rest! This is anti-feminism, is what it is. You are merely making up impossible stories of sockpuppetry because I admit to being female, and you have qualms with women editing Wikipedia! And if that's not correct, then I give up. Administrators, do away with me as you will. But you'll be no better than the English when they burned Jeanne D'Arc for witchcraft, of which she was completely innocent! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop talking nonsense. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free rest, little Wilhelmina. Long cozy rest. Note two threads "Attack page" and "Confusing series of edits from IP and user" above also suggest User:Wilhelmina Will needs rest. Go ahead! bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

Obuibo Mbstpo, yet again

...has returned, in the form of SpiritWorldWiki (talk · contribs). As yet, he hasn't taken up any of OM's disruptive activities; do we let the sock continue (effectively granting an unblock), or block it has a block-evading sock? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If he's evading a block, he's evading a block. Seems straightforward: block. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh - you're right, unfortunately, and I've blocked him. I'm hoping he'll make a compelling case for an unblock, but I guess that's up to him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(A) OM's block is totally illegitimate in the first place, as is continued enforcement of it; (B) You know this is the same individual how, exactly? Don't shoot first and ask questions later. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The case is complex. While it is likely that, on cautious review, the block would be lifted, he has not requested that, and he has also requested that I not "defend" him. Wikipedia is not going to be served by tilting at windmills, and Sarcasticidealist seems to be playing this quite straight. Unless the block is appealed and found not legitimate, acting to block socks is certainly allowed. We could decide to ignore the prior account, WP:IAR and all that, but ... I'm certainly not going to propose that. Believe it or not, I have no disruptive intent at all! As to how the sock was identified, it would not be rocket science, and I'm asking that the precious time of a checkuser not be wasted. If somehow it were to turn out that SpiritWorldWiki is not Mbstpo -- we should be so lucky to have another like him -- then the real user will presumably ask for unblock, and it can be reviewed at that time. If Mbstpo wants unblock, he'll ask for it. (You can tell from the edits that this is an experienced Wikipedian, this is not a noob, so blocks are relatively harmless.) On the other hand, if others decide to move for the unblock of Mbstpo, I would support that. I am not going to move in that direction myself. There is plenty else to do, simply to follow up on all the clues Mbstpo left behind. So this 63-year-old editor is following up on clues left by a 27-year-old writer, because I've found it to be -- always -- worthwhile. If this was music, he'd be Mozart. And, yes, we can't allow Mozart in the living room, the fart jokes, you know. Mozart, we might notice, was quite disruptive and was hated by quite a few people in his time. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer B:

• the account was created just after OM scrambled his password;
• the account is run by a rabid inclusionist;
• the account has devoted all of its time to OM's areas of interest: sweeping policy proposals with no chance of acceptance (not that there's anything wrong with that), Wikiproject Parliamentary Procedure, and Ayn Rand;
• when I asked the account if it was OM, it declined to answer me and continued editing;
• Quack

If any admin thinks that my evidence for this block was anything short of overwhelming, she/he has my cheerful permission to unblock without further consulting me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I followed the case a bit. This editor created a hoax article, among other things. Editors who would knowingly make the encyclopedia worse rather than better should not be welcome here. Hoaxes make the encyclopedia worse. So the solution seems obvious to me. (Not to mention that this previously banned editor had already been given lots of "one last chance"s.) Why would we want to keep an editor around who fabricates sources? Friday (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't, at all. The trouble is that that hoax (and his ensuing increasing disbelievable denial) was the only apparent bad-faith action he'd taken his whole time here. In the meantime, he'd done some very good mainspace work. With the new account, he did the very good mainspace work without the hoaxing. I would very much love to see him admit responsibility for the hoaxing and repent, that he might get on with his useful mainspace work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's admitted it (the hoax) to me, but he is essentially burned out by the toxic atmosphere regarding reform on Wikipedia. He really should take a break. Meanwhile, I'm trying to do something to lessen the amount of smoke emitted, it burns the eyes. I do see, not only what Wikipedia needs, but how to get there, and it will take time. He's young and impatient, and when he runs into the totally expectable obstacles, he gets frustrated and, yes, angry. Change must come to Wikipedia or it will die. But it must also come step by step, with each step enjoying consensus. It takes time to build that, usually. Neither he nor I have a crystal ball, we don't know how much time we have. But probably more than a year and less than perhaps five, I'd guess. I don't think people realize how rapidly a project like this could implode. Parts of it are largely invulnerable, but this site ... not necessarily. Depends. And the real question is, what parts of it will survive? --Abd (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him (by email) not to evade the block. (I asked him before, and now again, after I saw the above mentioned edits.... sore thumb, it was.) He has also requested that I not "defend" him, so I am not taking any action to overturn the block. Obviously, if he is evading a block, new accounts no matter how "nice" can be blocked. When Mbstpo (as Absidy) was blocked, he did post under a series of accounts, similarly, none of it disruptive -- except that block evasion is disruptive in itself, because it creates a fuss.) Sigh. By the way, he apologized profusely to me for the hoax article. I told him that it was actually hilarious -- but don't do it again! My opinion: we need to lighten up, laugh more and block less, at least when it comes to actual contributors, which he was, for a long time. No blocks, and I didn't see any warnings, back to 2005, nothing until this year, 2008. Heavy contributions. Between the creation of the Mbstpo account on March 3, and the block on March , Mbstpo made about 1600 edits. What I will say, not in his defense but for Wikipedia, we might at some point look at what so seriously disturbed such an established Wikipedian that he committed wikisuicide, not once, but twice. It's easy to blow it off as "his problem," and that is partially true, but it is actually our problem, and it is happening all the time, simply in less spectacular ways. He started a project, in fact, to look at this, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform and, in particular, the subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform/Attrition/Study. Maybe I should add his name.--Abd (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. His talk page isn't locked, and I would very much like to hear him explain why a generally good contributor decided to go and create a hoax (I disagree with you about the merits of hoaxes, though, especially those that editors fabricate sources to defend). Unfortunately, he doesn't seem in the mood to talk usefully about any of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what! Put a note on his talk page asking him why he did it. I do not want to encourage him to evade the block, and that account was spiked. If he wants, he could answer there with an IP edit from a library. Better, he could send an answer to me, because I can verify it's him with no difficulty. If I am requested to do so, I will pass it on, as long as I consider it not disruptive, this would be an exception to the rule against proxying for a blocked user-- but note, I won't make that exception unless an admin asks me to! In any case, I do know enough to answer, but .... better it come from him. Meanwhile, I mentioned above the project which was set up to study this very question. Mbstpo is certainly not the first! By the way, I don't think I argued the "merits" of hoaxes, but I would like to keep them in perspective. The only damage caused by this hoax was the fuss over it (and that is real damage, I'm not minimizing it). And, absolutely, creating hoax articles is a violation of policy. So the question is the response. What has happened is that alleged disruption in WP space -- which is the real issue for most complaining about Mbstpo -- gets mixed up with the joke in the marriage article (damage: a vandal patroller had to go, Click! normally no block would ensue) -- and the hoax article (complicated -- why did he lie -- after he was already blocked -- about the source book sitting in his lap?) get all mixed up. The WP "disruption" was quite defensible, but not the japes. Again, I could explain his lying on his Talk page without defending it -- and I roasted him pretty well by email over it -- but the energy would be better put into the generic project about Attrition. The issue is not Mbstpo or, for that matter, me, but the welfare of the community on which this project depends. We have a lot of work to do.--Abd (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To hell with the rules. If he's not actually doing anything wrong, then just because the "rules" say you can block doesn't mean you should. I always thought the best interests of the encyclopedia were more important than bureaucratic masturbation. Furthermore, when I last checked OM claimed to have a source for the alleged "hoax" article he created, although there may have been further developments on that front since then. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked, he can ask for an unblock under his original account. I still cannot understand why his enablers are still banging on about his hoax being real, since the fictional figure he tried to create an article about was "killed" in some mountains that don't exist. It was a hoax, he needs to own up. --Fredrick day 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above, except that he's apparently scrambled the password to his original account, so any unblock request will have to be from his new one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Original" being used loosely here, of course. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he's an original, all right. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist. I'm sorry about Weber's comments, but perhaps after he reads what I've been writing, he'll stop beating the dead horse. Hint: it was a hoax. Or, to put it another way, as the editor in question did, Mbstpo exists in a "parallel universe." I.e., Mbstpo is real. Real fiction. Lives in the world of his imagination. In my encyclopedia, the Mbstpo article would be tagged as Fiction or Myth, or, at first, as Unverified. With that, it's an excellent article! ("My encyclopedia" is the sum of all human knowledge. All. Human. Knowledge. It is a work in progress.) By the way, he revealed to me the secret of the name.... and he said he'd have to excommunicate me if I revealed it. Ah, how it itches! But I won't, beyond this very diffuse hint. It would actually violate a number of basic principles if I did. As to Weber, I understand his frustration as well. It's a loss, that Mbstpo is no longer with us -- though he's reading much of what we write. The poor editor who dropped a moderately nasty, mild by comparison, note on my Talk page right after I found out ... poor guy! I was pissed! Kim Bruning, the soul of courtesy, wrote "Fool!" when Mbstpo wrote that he had scrambled his password. But ... it is actually all for the best. I'll try to convince Weber of that.... off to tilt at windmills for the rest of the afternoon. Gotta keep busy, use it or lose it, etc., etc.--Abd (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not particularly hard to work out what the username means. --Reuben (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Any editor who would lift a single finger to defend a hoaxer is not worthy of consideration. Go write fiction somewhere else; here, we're an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, he revealed to me the secret of the name.... and he said he'd have to excommunicate me if I revealed it. Ah, how it itches! does it look like anyone here really cares what stupid game it's part of? Please stick to the point in future, how clever a hoaxer thinks he is being is frankly not something that should concern us. --Fredrick day 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

seems to be back again, this time as David Janssen (geddit "the fugitive"), I've asked him to pop across here and ask for his block to be lifted. His article edits are excellent and I'd like nothing more for him to stop this stupid block evading and get back to article editing. --Fredrick day 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Where was he banned? Mr.Z-man 22:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Start at the top and work your way down. --Fredrick day 22:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't banned, just blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Before you attack me for "defending a hoaxer", calm down. As I mentioned before, he had said that he had a source, and I saw no reason to disbelieve him--and in fact I did not until I read Fredrick Day's post and re-read the blocking thread. Fine. It was a hoax. Although I am still defending him, altogether--and I fail to see how that's a problem--if not the deed itself. The two need to be considered separately. An indef block, without warning or prior discussion, was still totally uncalled for.

Perhaps I'm being a bit Quixotic here--perhaps you're right that there's no practical gain to be had by defending him. So what? There's a principle involved nonetheless. A user should not have to request an unblock (a process that often requires much supplication and self-abasement if it is to be successful) to put an end to a block that should never have been made in the first place; the community should lift it on its own initiative. That he does not wish to request an unblock does not mean he does not want it--perhaps he is just unwilling to risk having to kowtow in order to do it. I don't blame him. Unblock the account, offer to fix his password (if possible) or at least agree to not instantly re-block any new accounts he may create, and then it will truly be left up to him. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I defended the guy when people were complaining about his far-fetched policy proposals. I even defended his blanket keep votes (or at least rejected any suggestion that he be sanctioned for them), in the same way as I've done for your blanket opposition to self-noms (although I confess to some gratitude for the fact that my RFA passed unanimously during a week in which you evidently had better things to do). Once the block came down, my immediate reaction was to ask for what evidence there was that this article was speedy-able as a hoax. But when the request evidence was forthcoming, I became a supporter of an indefinite (as distinct from infinite) block. A user who creates hoaxes - especially hoaxes that aren't immediately apparent as such, and especially hoaxes that use fabricated offline sources to support themselves - is a serious, serious menace to this project. Such an editor becomes a greater menace to the project when his hoaxes are surrounded by good edits, because it makes the hoax even harder to detect. Indefinitely removing such a user from the project is not a disproportionate response. I would like to have this user's edits on parliamentary procedure back. I wouldn't mind having his edits on policy back, either. But unless/until he explicitly agrees to stop the behaviour for which he was blocked, I can't support an unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Brace yourselves; I'm going to agree with Kurt. There is a good content-creation side to this editor; IF he can promise to concentrate on that without the hoaxes, vandalism, silliness or any of the other drama that got him blocked last time, then no problem with unblocking. But seriously, we said "last chance" the previous time - at the first sign of anything that's pointlessly going to waste other editor's time, out comes the block - for keeps. Fair? Black Kite 23:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Kurt Weber's position here, in part, because this editor is likely to continue to draft some of our missing parliamentary law and procedure articles that we very much need. Having said that, I was one of the first endorsers of the original block (of Absidy) at the time of the "delegable proxy" mess, so it's fair to say I have mixed feelings. I would like to see this editor work out, but suggestions that he limit himself to mainspace have not been well-received. Sigh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Part of the problem with that is that the most serious damage he's done to the project - the creation of a hoax article backed by a fabricated source - has occurred in the mainspace. In any event, though, his most recent incarnation's talk page seems to suggest little interest in reform. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the good faith of Black Kite, this editor actually does not have a history justifying such serious "last chance" warnings. I know it looks that way, but the situation is complicated by many editors having complained vigorously about legitimate actions of this user. I agree that the hoax article raises some serious issues; however, for example, that article is not a serious as a single fabricated source in a normal article. Nobody is coming here searching for information on Obuibo Mbstpo. By all means, he has properly been reprimanded and, this time, a block was clearly within reason, it was much more complicated the time before (Newyorkbrad, in my opinion, improperly involved himself the last time, confirming a block that was actually quite against policy and ArbComm precedent ... but one might note that no complaint has been filed over it.) I essentially raked the user over the coals for lying about the hoax after it had been challenged. But we have a system of escalating responses, and this guy went from 0 to 60 mph in a very, very short time, and he was, I'd say, sorely tried. Frankly, I think he should stay away for a time, he needs a break, in my opinion. He needs to do other things, details like making a living, and I suspect that part of what is happening is a desire to get kicked out permanently so that he can't be tempted to keep editing. However, he knows too much, he knows that he can edit anyway. If he's going to do it, might as well allow the edits to stick. --Abd (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Now seems to be operating under yet another sockpuppet Larry E. Jordan - he was offered a chance to go straight, this seems to be his answer. As with any other abusive sock, I suggest we revert on sight - yes his edits are good but we cannot reward sock-evaders with "oh well!". --Fredrick day 01:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Any "shoot-on-sight" reversions of legitimate content, I will un-revert. The "revert on sight" clause is so we don't have to go through a whole big formal todo with reverting obvious bad-faith edits; it's not there to declare the individual an "un-person". If it's a problem, remove it. If it's a good contribution, there is absolutely no valid or legitimate reason to revert it, regardless of who put it there. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. Is it time for a community ban now? Wizardman 01:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Some good edits in mainspace - and then stuff like [54]. Sigh. How many accounts is that now? 12? Black Kite 01:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

he did a whole series of those amongst his other edits - I guess he plans to mix those in with his good edits and see if he can change policy/guidelines that way... --Fredrick day 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, etymologically speaking, he's quite correct. For whatever that's worth. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For anybody who's interested, User:Larry E. Jordan has actually requested unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Let's see. How many do we know about now? Oh, wait, I know! I'll list them -- and then the community can consider whether this is a legitimate use of multiple accounts.
  1. Larry E. Jordan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  2. David Janssen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  3. SpiritWorldWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  4. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  5. Thespian Seagull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  6. Absidy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  7. Ron Duvall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  8. Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  9. Zxczxczxc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  10. ReplyToSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• and probably others. If the community wants to allow this person to edit at all, perhaps it might wish to consider strengthening the sockpuppet policy; me, I'm partial to one person, one account, other than in quite exceptional circumstances. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was pretty simple, socks = not good except for a specific purpose, and a sock to evade a block always = a blocked sock. Is there some kind of uncertainty here? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:56, 21 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Large-scale abusive sockpuppetry has long been a fast ticket out the door. If a person is really interested in returning from a block to contribute productively, and avoids the old haunts and dramatics associated with the original block(s), it seems pretty unlikely to me they're ever going to be caught -- a corollary here is that a user repeatedly caught and blocked for socking is probably returning over and over to the same articles, the same disputes, the same problematic behaviors. A wrongly blocked user might create a sock or two, I suppose, but why so many at once? Why the socks which seem to have been active before OM's block, as linked by Jpg above? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat unusual, in that the socks are being detected and blocked for engaging in exactly the same productive behaviours as the puppeteer, without apparently engaging in the unproductive ones. As for the socks created before OM's block, I believe that OM itself was originally a block-evading sock, but that the community opted to allow it (i.e. basically the equivalent of agreeing to unblock the puppeteer). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tricky. As much as a good number of those edits are helpful, I'm a bit dubious of anybody that feels a need to keep an ongoing and secret collection of active accounts. I have a few spares, such as User:Lunaccount-l or User:Lunasock, but none are regularly active and all are very clearly linked to me. As has been pointed out, OM's alternate accounts make good, helpful edits but tend to have some problems with escalating issues too aggressively. Why the switch from Ron Duvall (talk · contribs) and Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs) to Absidy (talk · contribs)? I can see an argument that blocks on Absidy and Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs) might be a bit hasty, and I'm encouraged by their good edits and the fact that people are standing up to speak on their behalf, but I still find myself uncomfortable with intentional disruption and blatant sockpuppetry. If this user is to be unblocked, I'd prefer we keep them on a short leash. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no controversy: the use of new accounts to evade a block is not legitimate.

Most of the accounts listed above are just that, created while blocked. Mixing that up with a user dropping one account name to take up another, being open about it, which happened several times, is exaggerating the situation. I do know that this user, way back, told me that it was legitimate to drop an account and begin with another, that this was not sock puppetry if not intended to deceive and the first account was abandoned, not used again. Whether that was accurate or not, he told me that before there was any trouble at all. And I did read language in WP:SOCK that was readable that way. One of the problems is that this community has adopted a term to use, and uses it in a way at variance with standard usage. Sock puppetry refers to the creation of additional identities for a user which are then used to create an impression of wider support for some idea, by multiple voting -- one of the original applications -- or by holding fake conversations. This user has never done that. However, during the WP:PRX affair, he changed his account, creating a minor impression of wider support, though it was really irrelevant and had no bearing on the proposal. (The result and the controversy would have been the same without the account change, and the only real difference was that the accusation was then made that the proposal was supported by sock puppets.) Then, as a result of an SSP report and checkuser (which merely confirmed the obvious, what was already admitted -- except that I was cleared of charges that I was a sock of the same master as part of that), the SSP report deleted for privacy reasons, he changed his user name again, to Absidy. The block of Absidy had *nothing* to do with account name changes, Absidy was blocked, when we look at it closely, for being rude to an administrator. Prior to that there was action arguably worthy of warning (it was also arguable that it was legitimate, but it certainly irritated some users -- he dropped a notice advertising the startup of the proxy system on the Talk page of every administrator), for which he was, in fact warned. He had stopped, and stated no intention to continue, nor did he continue, but he was rude. And he was blocked, obviously, for that. Leading then, to all the new account changes, until Obuibo Mbstpo was opened as a method of coming back, an unblock having been negotiated. Now there are more accounts, again resulting from a continued block. The offense here, normally, would have resulted in a 24 hour block at the most. This user has absolutely no block history before the rudeness one, no history of warnings for vandalism. This would be Kurt Weber's point: if the block is not legitimate, then all the problems with socks should not be considered an additional offense. I'm not sure I agree, but it is also certainly arguable, and there seems to be some level of precedent for it. Mbstpo is, by the way, not thrilled that I'm defending him, he's really asked me to stop. But I'm not defending him, I'm proposing that we follow policy and consider the welfare of the project. Is it better to continue to block him -- based on what? -- or to allow him to contribute. What harm will be done by one, and what harm by the other? I'm not proposing one over the other at this point, I can see both sides. What I don't like is that the situation is exaggerated by some, confusing the issues. Don't consider what's good for Mbstpo, that's his job. Consider what's good for the project.--Abd (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock?

Per this diff, I would favour a trial unblocking. I believe that he is sincere in his desire to help the encyclopaedia, and the hoax article and marriage proposal edit stand out as isolated incidents against a backdrop of policy debate and parliamentary procedure articles. I have no objection to his return to policy pages (as long as he continues to be a significant mainspace contributor), but he seems to be indicating that he doesn't even plan on doing this. I find his handling of this situation as regrettable as most of you likely do, but blocks are preventative and I no longer see what damage this one is preventing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to follow the lead of users more familiar with this user (if I've run across or dealt with them, previously, I don't recall it). As mentioned above, there are some points in their favor, and others that give me pause. I'm not happy keeping him blocked forever, given the helpful contributions balanced against what I hope is a mere indiscretion, and could probably support a "short leash" unblock (or block reduction) on that basis. Just so long as we keep a close eye on this. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to the unblock. This user is obviously easy to spot, which self-limits the damage they can cause, when they act up. Since he's making decent content contribs and others (myself included) are monitoring it, I'd say its worth another shot. Just whoever unblocks, please please leave a big link to WP:SOCK on the unblock message. MBisanz ^talk 06:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get why an editor who fabricates a source should be welcome here ever again. But as long as people are following him around, reverting anything cannot personally verify, maybe it's OK. Still, it seems like a lot of work just to accommodate one problem editor. Can we at least keep him to one account, and put a note on it saying "Attention all editors, this is a known hoaxer. If you see something suspicious, revert it until it's verified independently". Friday (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll just point out that -- with a very short period of exception, where he -- with little apparent reason -- made one account change, then made one more under some pressure, again without any necessity that we could see, but people do have their own reasons, he has only created new accounts (1) after spiking the password on the old account, apparently in all cases, so creating a new account requires the least administrative hassle, and (2) during periods when he has been blocked. If he edited IP during that period (has done a very few edits that way), he'd be making more work, and, since he often edits from a library, uninvolved users could be blocked. So he registers an new account for various purposes, and he hasn't been disruptive with these, beyond the disruption from the simple fact of block evasion (which includes accounts created for totally legitimate purposes, such as commenting on his prior Talk page, which were blocked anyway when identified). I would at this point ask him to pick an account name that he will keep and be permanently satisfied with. Alternatively, he can "disappear," and he knows how to do that, and come back after the necessary pause. That might be technically block evasion, except that WP:SOCK almost goes as far as to recommend it. This might be moot if he has actively chosen the new name mentioned above. We only go after those new accounts if they attract attention for disruption, and even then it can be difficult to connect them. In any case, I don't see any actual opposition to blocking, but only some minor level of puzzlement, which is to be expected in a case like this. I haven't see the material referenced above yet, I'll look at it and comment there. I hoping this resolves the wikifuss, and I'll do what I can to keep this user on track. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad licenses

What's the right thing to do when a user has uploaded lots of images with no sources or bad licenses? I've been talking with User:Mrprada911...I found a script to tag the images with, but it leaves a talk page message for each and every image tagged, which seems kind of rude. Is there some other procedure to follow to make sure all the images get marked, other than manually typing in the templates? Nesodak (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing is within policy; you notify him of every image that you have issues with. As for what to do with this user, the only way to prevent uploads is by blocking the account. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you warn the user personally about Wikipedia's copyright rules to prevent further image tags. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to use a non-automated process and consolidate the messages so as to not fill up the talk page (one extreme example of what not to do ;o)). --Iamunknown 07:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When faced with this in the past, I've left one template for the editor, then underneath added "Additionally, the above message applies to:" and put a bulleted list of the image names (*[[:Image Name Here.jpg]]) underneath. That stops the death-by-template thing, but also makes clear the scale of the problem. It has to be done manually, but tabbed browsing and Notepad make it go quick. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 09:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:ShieldDane (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This needs a breather. Users need to avoid each other for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This user managed to escape a perminant block after being involved in a lenghtly dispute which resulted in the ironic blocking of the person who started the debate, anyway, this user has continued to troll ([55]) and act in a very incivil manner towards me after I investigated and spoke to him about his actions ([56]). Could an admin take a look at the situation? Thanks, Igniateff (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He said one word in that diff, where he's simply saying that the claims for which he was blocked when he'd only just arrived on wiki that he was a sockpuppet, were proven by checkuser to be entirely false. Have you discussed this most recent what-you-view-to be-trolling with him on his talk page before coming here and have you made sure he had viewed any comment placed there before coming here? Unless you communicate with him that you object to this one word, he cannot completely know. If you said so on his talk page, made sure he had read it because he replied, and then he did it again, at that point he would be worth contacting ANI again about, until then, he's not. And he has a point that those who accused him of being a sockpuppet were conclusively proven wrong. But he can't know that you are so aggrieved by one word to be able to make amends unless you contact him about this one word, in line with the dispute resolution process. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

and he's not even writing directly to you there, he's merely on the checkuser page about him which was proven false. So how can you be sure he's "trolling" you when he's not even on your talk page or anything, he's on a page about him, which was proven false, and that's why he was unblocked as any block was due to that misapprehension that he was a sock, of which he was cleared. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand the situation, and I am not certain you have any right to comment. This situation is being dealt with, you being in it is only going to make things harder. Igniateff (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your second diff mentioned earlier. Not sure if it was there before, I assume so. I aggree that he was in the wrong in his reply to you on his talk page. He is a wind-up merchant, however for one who's only been here a short time he's also written a couple of articles. Yes I am quite aware of the previous situation. Sorry if I got you wrong, however this is a page where all can comment. special, random, Merkinsmum 21:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Confused how the 'owned' even effected you? Do you just search for things you can complain about? Or things you can assert your authority on? You came to my talk page, 5 days after i posted that and told me to cease from posting there...did it seem like i intended to post anymore there? Was there anymore there for me to post on? I mean, it was all over, the pan was cooled, we were moving on..and then you just show up and tell me to stop doing something I am not really doing, for the sake of telling me to stop doing something? Perhaps I was 'uncivil' to you, when you came to my page to tell me to stop doing something i was not 'continuing to do', but just because you used pretty flower words, doesn't mean you weren't being just as rude. There were plenty of admins involved in that issue, and they let sleeping dogs lie, when they had full authority to comment. But you, hero of the forgotten, need to come shove your opinion in my face on something that's said and done. ShieldDane (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, why is this labeled "Again"? Like I am a repeat offender causing a ruckus? There was no first Ani about me. There was one about Tharkun, which was high-jacked by a user that was able to trick the admins into blocking us. However, none about me. But sure, lets make your argument look better by hinting at that which is false. ShieldDane (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what, it looks to me like this person is a pretty new user, himself. He shows up after the altercation that Thark/myself and various admins had, in the course of which two members were blocked. I'd be willing to bet 7 hard dollars that this kid is infact one of the blocked users, returned to stir things up more. And you admins just eat it all up. ShieldDane (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny how my IP address records an adress in portsmouth, and their IP's are both for an address in london! What now? Igniateff (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Janneman

Resolved

 – User warned, nothing more enwiki can do about this

personal attack. abf /talk to me/ 11:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you bring a Commons dispute to enwiki in the first place? EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Jimbo does not listen to his uder-page on commons mostly i told him here. abf /talk to me/ 12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep commons issues on commons, nothing can be done here, sorry. Igniateff (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but he called some commons sysops 'dunce', and i do not accept that nothing is done only because its claimed as an 'commons issue'. He called us 'dunces' in en, i cant block in commons for it. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We cant do anything here if the incident happened on commons, use dispute resolution on commons please/. Igniateff (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review our blocking policy. We don't make punitive blocks and you being a commons admin makes no difference. You could have e-mailed Jimbo rather than bring your dispute here. If the admins here are to deal with every off-enwiki dispute that is brought here because you use Jimbo's talk page we wouldn't have time for our own problems. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I come to think of it, the prospect of being banned from a project that purges its language of its finest idiomatic expressions, nevermind their pedigree, seems pretty attractive; especially if the ban comes with such a prefab rebuke reminding me that mine is not to reason why, but to go back to work on the content chain-gang. Please make that indefinite for me, no ice, thanks. --Janneman (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful. Marked as resolved since this is generating more heat than light now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible mistaken identity

See User talk:Shonali2000. If you are familiar with the editing patterns of the blocked user:Vr you may be able to help. I have no opinion either way, this is not quite the usual "my room-mate" claim. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Commented there, but I prefer letting someone with an OTRS access review the block. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kilts Across Canada

I'd like some independent admins to look into this. Calton marked the page for deletion as spam, and I denied that request from him twice, and he added it again a third time and it was deleted by another admin. I'm not all that concerned about actually restoring the page, but to me it looked like someone describing with addish tones a venture that was personal: the kind of thing we would normally allow on User pages. I'd like feedback on two things. (1) When should we consider user pages spam? People are allowed some leeway on their user pages, and it seems to me that, say, promoting themselves would be okay (within reason) while promoting a company or external venture would not be reasonable. And (2) is Calton's behavior reasonable here? Shouldn't one not re-add a speedy deletion tag when one's own request has been declined? Or at least, not twice? Mangojuice^talk 12:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a role account, pure and simple, used for promotional purposes and blocked as such. That makes it a) not an individual's account, which violates policy; and b) spam, which violates policy. A simple glance at the edit history of WP:UAA should remove any doubt about both the correctness of tagging obvious spam, the practice of blocking role/spam accounts, and the scale of the problem.

It's fairly obvious, and given that someone disagreed with the logic above by deleting it, I'd say, yeah, adding back a tag correctly placed and removed in violation of applicable policy is perfectly okay. --Calton | Talk 12:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that "shopping" (not exactly forum-shopping, but it's similar) is perfectly acceptable behavior? Keep trying until you can find someone willing to delete it? —Random832 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Perhaps you should deal with what I actually wrote instead of making stuff up. Works better that way. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton -- that is what you did in this instance, and you are saying that you think it's okay. When would you have stopped? If another admin also turned down the request? If two other admins? Never? Mangojuice^talk 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When would YOU have stopped?: might I point out that you didn't bother waiting for a second opinion yourself, but simply reverted again? (Which makes your claim, shall we say, a little hypocritical?) That you didn't bother to note that the editor had already been blocked for having an inappropriate name? That you didn't follow the obvious and common-sense policy, and when you didn't get your way, you came here to complain about it? My hands are clean, whatever spin you try to put on it or ridiculous strawmen arguments you try to erect.

Spam gets nuked. Spammers get blocked. It's that simple. Passing out "Get Out of Jail Free" cards is against policy and against common sense. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. I have no beef with wikipedians using thier talk page as a blog or whatever. But when someone comes here without the intention of writing an encylopedia and only to promote themselves in someway I say delete delete delete, Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can I nominate this for the "most fatuous argument of the week" award? Guy (Help!) 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the horror of it all. Someone has used a Wikipedia user page to raise money for sick children. Isn't behaviour like this contrary to consensus mores? The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Units and Years

This User:Lightmouse "Contributions" has taken it upon himself to remove brackets from years while adding metric units. I'm not sure what the policy is, but I don't think he should be doing this unilaterally. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The user was already blocked once for this activity [57] and is continuing on with it today despite my warning to him on his talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's going through them rapidly in some kind of alpha sequence, so I'm guessing he's running a robot program of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop for now. If he doesn't I'll block and revert. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's using AWB, which I suspect is unattended, but I don't know. I've reverted a handful of his entries on subjects I work with. The rest of them, you can have. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he's watching it, and has issued you and me both a defiant comment. [58] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe cxoncensus has changed I dunno. He's stopped the editing for now which is a good sign. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's actually been on this little crusade (and no other editing) since at least late February, and has changed thousands of them. What caught my attention was that he was changing items to plain years that previously had the "year in baseball" template. That is certainly not with consensus, as there was a discussion a few weeks back about that template, on the WP:Baseball talk page, and not about dropping it, only about changing it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you post some links to show us what you are talking about. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The link is the "contributions", in the first sentence I wrote in this section. Do "older 500" repeatedly and you'll see it goes on and on. I quit after it got to late February. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you mean the Baseball Year template discussion, which is this: [59] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Early on in his crusade, he was also changing a bunch of templates. I don't know what that's about. I'm going to have to let the experts sort this out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with what he's doing? It looks to me like he's just bringing things in line with the MOS. Standalone years are not supposed to be linked. Only years that are part of dates should be linked, to enable the autoformatting. What's the point of linking a standalone year? -- Zsero (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:EGG: "Years should not be linked to articles, such as 2003 in music or 1985 in film, especially when part of a date." -- Zsero (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the spot where it actually says that. I'm not seeing it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a link to the spot where it actually says that. It's very last sentence under the section "Intuitiveness", which is the section directly linked to by WP:EGG. TomTheHand (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

From my knowledge of the discussions that went on to introduce that change, it's not representative of consensus. Consensus included an exception to dates in infoboxes and other places where it was useful to have information in a restricted space. Of course, consensus may have changed as I don't watch the discussions religiously... GDallimore (Talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I'll mention that I've just amended WP:EGG per the consensus in the 90th archive in Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The text that was there had been introduced without discussion that I could see and has been questioned on the talk page. Whether my bold edit will be reverted or not is yet to be seen... GDallimore (Talk) 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's now had his AWB authority suspended, pending further discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of his edits. As far as I can see, the problem is lack of attention to which dates he's changing. I don't think any thought has been given to whether the year being linked to is relevant to the context - how can it be at the rate he's going? It's tricky to find exactly what the consensus is on some of these issues, too, but I've seen some edits which are not based on consensus that I can tell. Most of the edits he's made, though, look to be appropriate.

I suspect he's going for a slash and burn type approach: 99% of the linked dates shouldn't be, so I'll remove all of them and let individual editors re-introduce the ones that should be there. GDallimore (Talk) 14:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is bound to upset people. I wish he's come here and talk about it too. It's always difficult clearling a matter up when someone is uncommunucative. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

His defiant attitude continues, in deleting his talk page comments and insisting that it be discussed where he wants it discussed, as well as lecturing us. [60] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not lecturing anyone. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The patronizing comment "...you may not feel comfortable with what I say about it. There are plenty of other editors there that have extensive experience with this issue..." constitutes lecturing. However, I don't really care about this issue personally. I just see a user who has taken it upon himself to make massive changes without asking anyone first... particularly the folks working on WP:Baseball. If they don't care, then that's fine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But he does ask first. Lightmouse is a regular visitor to the MOSNUM talk page. He gains consensus there in a polite and respectful manner, and then implements that consensus. I have never witnessed any incivility or intransigence from him. Please respect that. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe today is a first, then. And did he ask anyone on WP:Baseball? Or did he just assume everyone on that project had read something about it where he expected them to read it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that he's exactly right; if you have a problem with the MOS, the place to discuss it is at the MOS talk page, not at that of an individual editor. -- Zsero (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When an incident is posted, he needs to talk about it on the incident page. Refusal to cooperate takes a user down a path that will eventually lead to being banned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone measure the thickness of the exterior walls in the W. H. Stark House to see if they're exactly 254 millimeters? I think we need to send someone to Orange, Texas with a calipers to check that measurement to the millimeter. Ten inches, plus or minus one inch, implies a certain level of accuracy, whereas 254 millimeters, plus or minus one millimeter, implies a much finer level of accuracy. I just hope masons working in 1894 were precise enough to work to the millimeter. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem with converting units. However the alternative is that a large fraction of people will not understand the measurement. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the solution to that one was simple. The thickness of the walls should be expressed in cm, not mm. Fixed. -- Zsero (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As for links inside of succession boxes, WP:SBSGUIDE#B. Years and dates specifies that these should not be wikified unless they are pointing to an article of direct topical interest. So, removing general links to years inside of succession boxes is correct. Removing a piped link link to, let's say, the 1985 all-star game in a succession box about the host of the 1985 all-star game would be incorrect. Also note that there should not be years in the before and after portion of the succession boxes, only the middle column (the part specified in the "years" parameter). Gwguffey (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on these particular edits, but I do have one on the editor Lightmouse. He uses a semi-automated procedure to speed up a number of improvements to WP, in my experience always following established guidelines. Like you and me he sometimes makes mistakes. When these are brought to his attention he responds quickly and effectively, modifying the software he uses where that is found to be necessary. He is not defiant and he is not on a crusade. Be civil to him and he will reciprocate. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Thunderbird2 in that regardless of the intricacies of the above argument/discussion, Lightmouse is a valued member of the Project and his contributions in providing metrics/imperial measures links have been very useful to developing WP:Aviation Project articles. Would it be perverse to say, Calm Down? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

I'll repeat that he's only "mostly" following established guidelines because 99% of the wikilinking of years on WP is innapropriate. There is no possibility that he's checking every year he's de-linked to see whether or not it is useful in context. As Theresa Knott has pointed out, this is bound to get people riled. Personally, I think there's no problem in his continuing what he's doing provided that his edit summaries provide a bit more detail - letting people know where to find the relevant guideline to explain his actions, for example, would be a huge step forward rather than just a terse "dates/units with AWB". GDallimore (Talk) 16:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to discern any true civility in the user Lightmouse. It's "his way or the highway". That kind of approach, which reminds me of User:Tecmobowl, can catch up eventually. But if the WP:Baseball folks are OK with this, then that's fine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I see Lightmouse is not removing pipes (i.e. changing [[1991 All Star Game|1991]] to [[1991 All Star Game]] - he is just removing brackets (i.e. [[1991]] to 1991). Removing piping I understand. Removing brackets, I don't understand. Kingturtle (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

EBDCM

EBDCM (talk · contribs) has been continuing, in part, the edits of 64.25.184.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an IP blocked for 8RR on Chiropractic. When I placed a 3RR warning, as he clearly made 2 reverts after the IP was blocked, noting that if he's the IP, he's violated WP:SOCK, he responded with a legal threat. As this is also a content dispute on Chiropractic, I don't think I can block. Under the circumstances, I also filed an WP:RFCU. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The reverted edit was first made by doctorisin and I concurred with it. Sockpuppet accusations are completely bogus and this is seems to part of a continuing smear campaign against me. The reverted material was properly referenced and was attributed to the WHO. I have asked Arthur Rubin to retract accusations of sockpuppetry which he has failed to do so. Also, Arthur is citing vandalism by the anon user which does not appear to be the case. EBDCM (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should have waited upon the results of the CheckUser request, before considering bringing it here. Admins are unlikely to anticipate the result. A negative CU result would mean that your suggestions are unfounded, and a positive would likely be handled by the CU or upon their comments there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This stuff is more WP:BITE as an experienced user is trying to discredit my character. Also, I have not made any reverts after anon did, the history clearly shows DoctorIsIn made the revert and I agree with it. It seems to me that Arthur Rubin is trying to expedite a process against me and also displays a lack of good faith on his part. EBDCM (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think DoctorIsIn is the IP. He did revert, but I agree that it's to the last stable version. EBDCM's reverts, on the other hand, reverts to material added by the IP. I think it might be considered WP:POINTy for me to add the Doctor to the RFCU, although I have no objection if EBDCM does.

Yes, you did revert User:Eubulides, in part, to material added by the IP which was not in the version reverted to be User:DoctorIsIn.

It's still a legal threat. It seems likely that if RFCU determines the allegation is unfounded, and if I then withdraw the accusation, he would withdraw the threat, but there are no guarantees. I obviously can't take action against what I see as a clear WP:LEGAL violation, nor can I revert EBDCM, as I used up 3 reverts reverting the IP, as have most editors who have expressed a pro-science opinion on Chiropractic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest DoctorIsIn was the IP. Stop misrepresenting my statement. Also, it should be noted that yourself, orangemarlin, quack guru (who is supposed to be under 1RR) redrocket and others cited my edits as vandalism when it was a direct quote from the WHO Guidelines on Basic Training and Safety in Chiropractic. I am completely pro-science and the references I provided were all scientific. I'm an evidence-based practitioner, Arthur Rubin and one of my goals is to improve the scientific and referencing standard at chiropractic. EBDCM (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The RFCU was declined, with the reviewer citing privacy concerns and WP:DUCK. Further action here may be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that further action is needed. We have a case that clearly seems to be misuse of some unknown IP to evade a block done by a user (User:EBDCM) who is intensively involved in edit warring, and who has (as User:EBDCM) just avoided an indef block. The blocked IP is located on practically the same street as another IP (I know it) that EBDCM has used, so the evidence is pretty strong. No matter how much one enlarges the images of the two IP location pictures, the closer on the same street they appear to be. Where should this information be posted? -- Fyslee / talk 17:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Fyslee? I am not using any sock puppet accounts and it seems that unfortunately you have reverted back to your previous ways. EBDCM (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

← I've semi-protected the page for 3 weeks given edit-warring and the question of whether these IP's might be socks. That should solve the immediate problem of editors potentially logging out to continue edit-warring. I'm too burned out on this particular issue at present to dig deeper and start applying the DUCK test to those IP edits, so maybe we can declare an amnesty or another admin can try to match them up. MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. I still don't understand how Arthur Rubin and OrangeMarlin claimed that my original edits in question were vandalism when it should be fairly obvious that they were not. Anyways, sorry you had to get dragged into this debacle, MastCell. EBDCM (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little upset by that closure, as both Orangemarlin and I have used up 3RR in reverting the anon, but I suppose it will have to do. Perhaps propose a modification to WP:3RR that reversions of edits found to be in violation of WP:3RR no longer count as reversions for the purpose of 3RR? (Probably no good, as it's too easily WP:GAMEd.) In any case, a reasonable start of a resolution. And I wasn't claiming EBDCM's edits were vandalism, just that they are reversions, and are not reversions of vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a closure, necessarily - I think semi-protection is a good start, but I would welcome anyone with more stamina than I to look into the issue of whether there was actual sockpuppetry, 3RR breaches, or other offenses here. I'm not commenting on those issues, nor closing this thread, because I haven't looked into them. The semi-protection is designed as a general, no-fault measure, but that doesn't have to be the only outcome. MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have misinterpreted your action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's funny that EBDCM keeps accusing me of calling his edits vandalism, since I've never reverted his edits. But I did revert a bunch of edits from some anonymous IP, and did accuse him of 3RR vandalism. Strange coincidence. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[61] Here is some background information. There are WP:COPYVIO concerns[62] about the recent text EBDCM added to the Chiropractic article.[63] QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhh, hello, it's in the talk history for all to see. I have not made any personal attacks OrangeMarlin, but perhaps you can explain to MastCell why you claimed in your edit that you were reverting vandalism. DoctorisIn also reverted the said edit as did I. EBDCM (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's get this back on track. EBDCM is throwing around straw men diversionary ideas about "vandalism" and "anti-science" accusations. That is not the issue here. The issue is one of using an IP to evade a block, and continued edit warring. It's about the same bad behavior that got you blocked, then indef blocked. You returned and violated the agreement that got you unblocked. That is an aggravating circumstance. -- Fyslee / talk 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI> and EC. I hate getting involved with this stuff, but here you go EBDCM. Here is your false allegation that is both uncivil and a personal attack. This is my reply which clearly states that I have never reverted anything you've written, nor did I call anything that I reverted as "vandalism." I would ask that EBDCM (talk · contribs) be blocked for an extended period of time for personal attacks, threats against me| and legal threats here along with claiming that Fyslee sent an email to Arthur Rubin, which AR specifically denies happening here. Why do we tolerate this crap? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, hello? Did no one think of checking the IP with WHOIS? Because it geolocates to Cochrane, Ontario...and EBDCM has an "I live in Canada" userbox on his userpage. Quack, surely? Reading what Fyslee has posted above, this has to be quack. Not only that: EBDCM looks like a classic disruptive SPA - does he ever edit anything other than Chiropractic and closely related articles? Moreschi (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting tired of this charade and EBDCM's charging me of making false allegations. Here is some evidence that even makes a check user superfluous. Anyone can use this very precise IP address locator, open several windows with it, and then in each window type in one of the different IP addresses below. Then compare those windows. Even zoom in and you'll find a couple that place him on the same street! What an incredible coincidence....NOT. With this kind of evidence, any charges of making bad faith accusations are gone. Anyone with eyes would be hard put to find any other explanation than the one I have proposed - using an IP to evade a block to continue edit warring, in violation of a recent agreement that got an indef block lifted.

Here is the evidence:

As some here may know from this and later threads, EBDCM has serious issues, including edit warring, incivility, ownership, and bulldozing down any opposition.

One of his IPs has been blocked for 24 hours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.25.184.27

(Here's another of his IPs located in exactly the same location,]): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.101.95.220

but he glibly continued to edit as EBDCM.

Here's another IP he uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.101.89.150

Since he obviously misused some unknown IP to evade a block to continue bad behavior, a check user is called for and his combative style needs to be reigned in. -- Fyslee / talk 20:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee this is a bogus accusation. I have already talked to MastCell about the old user accounts that could have been a potential conflict of interest. I have already talked about the 208 IP which is MY IP when my ACCOUNT LOGS OUT. How many times to I have to tell you this? To keep insinuating that you're blocking MY IP is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. You need to stop attacking me now, Fyslee. I did not engage in an edit war nor did I use a Sock Puppet account. You are merely trying to censor me because my views differ from yours on chiropractic. EBDCM (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, Fyslee. I have not used a sock puppet. I have been attacked, been called anti-scientific, stalked by chiropractic skeptics now. This is part of a greater smear campaign against me which began earlier in the week. I have not edit warred; and know 3RR and have followed it. I have used talk almost always to gain consensus and discuss controversial changes. Your continued attacks against me now seem to be more personal than anything else. I have approached this in a civil manner and have been a good contributor to chiropractic. You are a known chiropractic skeptic who has ties to Stephen Barrett and have your very own anti-chiropractic website here. It is your very own personal interest to false alledge of edit warring and sockpuppetry and have me kicked off wikipedia. EBDCM (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Checkuser isn't effective. However, this is truly a WP:DUCK, so we should file RfSSP. Or whatever it's called. I can never remember. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested conclusion

We can deal with this here. SSP and RFCU are not needed, give the compelling nature of the evidence above. I am of a mind to block EBCDM indefinitely for abusive sockpuppetry and general disruptive editing, and will do so unless consensus deems this inappropriate. Moreschi (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not used a sockpuppet and have not been a disruptived editor. I am being attacked by all sides of chiropractic skeptics now. This is extremely lamentable. EBDCM (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Then how the hell do you account for that fact that IP that just got blocked geolocates to your front door? Meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, it's all the same to me. Moreschi (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed with Moreschi. Basically it would also be a reinstatement of his indefinite block, especially for violating the agreement that got him unblocked. A very bad move! There are multiple valid reasons for an indef block. -- Fyslee / talk 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, obviously. Fyslee this is really a new low and I trusted you to be objective about this. Looks like Dematt had you all wrong. Why is it me being picked on when another editor with medical leanings changes all my edits gets nothing? There is some kind of conspiracy going on here; an organized attack on me by yoursef, QG, Arthur Rubin and OrangeMarlin, all noted chiropractic skeptics. EBDCM (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I repeat. How the hell do you account for that fact that IP that just got blocked geolocates to your front door? Moreschi (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Organized attack???? Huh? Until about 24 hours ago, I didn't even know who Arthur Rubin was? I watch nearly ever CAM article, including anything to do with Chiropractic, which mean I watch for big edits. EBDCM needs to go away from this project, because too many good editors are wasting their time with this discussion. Moreschi, do what you need to do. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The last straw was the false accusations made against OM at his talk page. For too long, making specious accusations of incivility and the like has been seen as a risk-free tactic. We need to stomp some of that out. I've made a start by reinstating the indef block of User:EBDCM. As usual he can appeal, other admins are welcome to review, etc. etc. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Beat me too it. Disruptive socking, personal attacks, tendentious editing, POV-pushing, the lot. No reason to unblock here. Moreschi (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A few items; I was aware of this named account, as EBDCM states above, and this was not used abusively. In fact, I think we should probably refactor it in the interest of privacy. The 208 IP, admittedly that of EBDCM, geolocates to Timmins while the other geolocates to Cochrane. According to Wikipedia, these are about a 1-hour drive apart. I don't have enough technical knowledge of geolocation of IP's to know how reliable these locations are. I have, in the past, advocated for cutting EBDCM some slack, largely because he seemed to fit the mold of experts with useful knowledge who were rough around the edges in terms of civility - that is, the type of editors we'd discussed trying to retain at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. That said, he has undeniably had major difficulties in working effectively in this environment. I'm not sure about the IP sockpuppetry issue - it seems suspicious on the face of it, but unless someone who knows more about IP geolocation thinks that two IP's located an hour apart can be the same user, I'm not completely sold. A block could be justifiable solely on grounds of disruption, personal attacks, etc. I don't oppose the block, but I'd be curious to hear what others think. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

IP geolocations are iffy. They may resolve to the town where the person lives, or to a network center in the general area, or to corporate headquarters of their ISP, or somewhere else. My IP geolocates to Shelbyville, KY which is over 500 miles from here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree he qualifies as an expert we want to keep around. He advocates for a procedure that is unsupported by science or clinical studies (though I have no doubt that a large number of people use it). His edits indicate a single purpose account. He lied about me (which is the point where I invoke WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. An hour apart in Northern Ontario is easy by dog sled or snowmobile. One could be his office, and one his cabin in the woods. MC, you're getting too nice in your old age. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the disruptive editing merits a reinstatement of my original block. The possibility of IP socking can be addressed later if the account is blocked and the IPs resume the disruption. 100,000 people sharing an ISP is possible, but how many edit Wikipedia, and show an interest in the same page, and edit from the same point of view and behave alike? It sees quite possible that there is sock puppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, take another look at my evidence. Two of his IPs (including the blocked one) are located on the same street. To really clear up any doubts, I think a check user should be run on the IPs used by EBDCM. There should be no doubt about this matter. The evidence at hand is about as strong as it gets, but a checkuser would possibly clinch the matter.

As far as expertise goes, it's always nice to have a practicing chiropractor as an editor, but this one is a green one who has a bigger opinion of his "expertise" than is warranted. Unfortunately this has contributed to a bull in a china shop attitude, where a failure to learn how to collaborate has been the rule of the day. The chiropractic article was actually a very stable and well-developed consensus article before he came on the scene. IOW, most everything he has done has potentially (and often) been against an existing consensus that was achieved by balancing things on a knifes edge and everyone basically agreeing to not touch anything without careful agreement on the talk page before making any changes at all. Then the young and inexperienced bull charged into the shop and it's been chaos ever since, with serious issues like edit warring, incivility, ownership, and bulldozing down any opposition as a consequence. I actually share his POV on some matters, but his dictatorial and uncollaborative spirit have made him more of a liability than he's worth, and I have stayed away from the article for some time, except for a few minor exceptions. -- Fyslee / talk 00:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

IPUser:198.85.213.1

The User:198.85.213.1 kept adding in "original research" into articles, reverting them to what s/he had written. It looks like simple cases of 3RR at first, but by detailling into the edits, it is easy to found that the user majority of edits are like the ones s/he did in Strike Gundam, in which s/he kept adding a totally incorrect sentence into the article, claiming things that could not be found in any official sources, like stating the mecha Strike Freedom is made by scrap parts of the mecha Strike Gundam and Freedom Gundam which the official sources stated specifically that the unit is newly built. In Lacus Clyne, the user kept changing the article with a POV statement, without any will of trying to communicate to other users other than in the edit comment, eventhough s/he had been reverted by at least 3 other users. In which the Shuffle! article, it could be clearly seen that the user simply removed sourced material along with the source when the material does not suit his/her taste. That user basically add in self-created material and removes sourced ones. As to my knowledge, User:Silver Edge is a persom of few words and contribute to wikipedia with great responsibility, and this IP user actually made him concern enough to warn and ask for help in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam. MythSearcher^talk 14:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult communication with User:PelasgicMoon

User:PelasgicMoon for a few days now tries to push an entry about Illyrians as ancestors of Albanians, providing a source from Britannica here. I reverted his entry because it was irrelevant to the article and furthermore because a simple comparison between his entry and the source he is providing, allow us to assume that he is just trying to push his POV in Wikipedia. Because "A big part of scholars consider the Illyrians as the ancestors of the modern Albanians" is one thing and "the modern Albanian language to be descended from Illyrian" is a completely different thing... He didn’t like that, so he requested for arbitration here where he got rejected and then here, where he got rejected as well. Today he added the same entry here. Will someone explain to this guy?? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

However, it's not a straightforward case of original research. User:PelasgicMoon does have several other sources (e.g. [64]) which do indeed say that the Illyrians are considered by some historians - or most, depending on the source - to be the ancestors of modern Albanians. This sounds like a good case for our dispute resolution process. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Page miss match

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellacre_Technology_&_Vocational_College and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellacre_Technology_%26_Vocational_College

Display different information even thou it's the same page! Any Ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.70.79 (talk • contribs)

I see the same page, personally. That's probably a cache update problem, and should be corrected now. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Next time you may wish to go to the Technical pump for such issues :) -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Durieu 7.jpg

Resolved

 – Image restored.

There are a few problems with me putting this issue here, I know, but I am not exactly sure where else. Here's the story. That is a commons image of a nude of a young girl by Jean Louis Marie Eugène Durieu. commons:User:Zirland deleted it as "child pornography" according to the response I got on the commons pump. The reason I bring this up on AN/I is because I am unsure how to deal with Commons admins being completely overzealous and deleting images that affect EN articles. gren グレン 14:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What article does it affect here? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Louis Marie Eugène Durieu. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That image was deleted back in June 2007. Doesn't Commons have an equivilant to deletion review? — Edokter • Talk • 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me stupid that an art photograph could be deleted as pornography. However in the meantime I have at least replaced the photo in our article with another nude. Theresa Knott | The otter sank

There's a small possibility that UK editors / readers could go to prison and be listed on a sex offenders register if they view that image. How does WP deal with stuff like this? (Laws in one country being stricter than where the WP servers are)Dan Beale-Cocks 22:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - pornography requires a sexual element to it. This is a photographic study. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The deleting admin has restored the image at Gren's request. — Edokter • Talk • 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

URL blacklist

Resolved

 – Offending site blacklisted--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard, but have thus far not experienced, that adding certain external links to a page will cause you to not be able to save the page. If this is true, I'd like to have another URL added to the list: [http:// cairns1st.blogspot.com] (DO NOT VISIT) -- has been used recently for vandalism, a "trap" site that shows a looped porn video, and makes your browser window nearly uncloseable. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:10, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Hi - maybe you've got spyware, because I don't see anything wrong with it. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I doubt that. What exactly do you see when you visit the site? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:16, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Some Cairns mayor's blog.

Thursday, 20 March 2008 Off for three days break

I am heading off for a three-day break - my first in 11 weeks - after the excitement of the last few days.

I had not anticipated how much of a slice of me the various media outlets would want and the phone has been running hot. I am proud to be a role model for women, particularly young women, so have been open to all media.

I've had phone calls from as far away as Rajasthan, Vienna and Singapore and numerous email, phone and text messages including one from a young friend who is leading a walking tour on the Overland track in Tasmania. News has travelled fast. Forgive me if I have not answered yet

and it goes on. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Make a report at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. if you have a virus scan program post the log (or the relevent part)--Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3) The page is MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (or m:Spam blacklist for blacklisting on all Wikimedia projects). Hut 8.5 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no pornography on that site. I remember this happened once when I had spyware about 1 year ago - random ads were replaced by pornography. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Okay oops, thats my bad. No I don't have any spyware. I can tell the difference. I copied the link the vandal replaced rather than the one he replaced it with. Here's the bad link: [http: //infoslash.net]. Still advise not visiting it though. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:21, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

OK. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well since I'm not an admin, can someone add that URL please? ([http:// infoslash.net]) Equazcion •✗/C • 15:24, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

To close it just hold 'enter' or 'return' for ages. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

... or ctrl-alt-delete. But that still doesn't address the issue of blacklisting this malicious site. Is anyone going to actually do that, or do I have to start throwing a hissy fit? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:31, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Added. Don't "live" link sites like that again, on this board!--Hu12 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay but you added the wrong one. cairns1st. blogspot.com was my mistake. The bad URL is infoslash.net. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:35, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're both added now. cairns1st. blogspot.com is okay though, can you remove it? Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:36, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

That video is really old - it's on homo.com which doesn't have the annoying features of infoslash. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (ec)

• For the curious, it's meatspin. Ooooooold news. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Global warming

Some jerk moved this to Global warming hoax. Could you undo it and ban the idiot? 71.174.111.245 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Already been moved back, and I believe an admin will be handling the block in a moment's time. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We're keeping a eye on him. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He got blocked for vandalism / edit warring on another article. I reviewed the unblock request, but he reverted my decline of the unblock.[65] Somebody else deal with this please. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

With a history like that, one week was lenient - he should count himself lucky. Block reviewed, unblock firmly declined. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... 5 blocks for edit-warring in the past few months, plus several current episodes of vandalism... phony warnings ([66])... abusing the unblock templates... I hate to be the grumpy old guy in this esteemed gathering, but I'm going to extend this to 1 month - there's a lengthy pattern of problematic editing here, and the next block should almost certainly be indefinite. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The user Taiketsu (talk · contribs) has caused problem in Pokemon-related articles and, to a lesser extent, Yu-Gi-Oh (where he spent quite some time edit warring with me under the impression that English Wikipedia is American Wikipedia). I think we've tolerated his presence enough. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Planet on autism articles again

Reference for context:

Wrong Planet is a bulletin board/forum about Asperger syndrome.

AlexPlank (talk · contribs), aka Perl (talk · contribs) is the owner/founder (actively involved in editing that article in the past; recently, it has been edited mostly by IPs—if problems with COI persist, a CheckUser could be warranted).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph and threads on Wrong Planet advocating against Wiki's Asperger syndrome article (these are just a few, there are others):

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=883579

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=43197

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt49566.html

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postx50638-15-0.html

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt53562.html

Now, to current business—Wrong Planet members editing Autism Speaks:

Autism Speaks is "a New York City-based advocacy organization, founded ... by Bob Wright, Vice Chairman of General Electric, and his wife Suzanne, to improve public awareness about autism and to promote autism research." (Through a series of mergers, I believe they are now the largest organization speaking for people with autism.)

Because some Wrong Planet members perceive Autism Speaks as "pro-cure" (which some autism activists perceive as an insult), there are numerous anti-Autism Speaks threads at the Wrong Planet bulletin board.

Recently, negative information has been added to the Autism Speaks article, sourced to the Wrong Planet bulletin board (not a reliable source).[67] [68] I've reverted;[69] Alex Plank (the owner of Wrong Planet and an experienced Wiki editor) inserts further text sourced to Wrong Planet bulletin board.[70]

A thread on Wrong Planet [71] questions whether it/they (WP/bulletin boards) are reliable sources, and Alex Plank responds with:

if sandyGeorgia is the one who reverted it, you should just revert it back to your version. She's a wikipedia troll who attempts to control articles on wikipedia. she has no authority, however. ... It was SandyGeorgia. I reverted her edit. The only way to stop her is to not let her bullying pay off. Make sure to watch the page and revert ok?

At the same time, similar issues are occurring at the Wrong Planet article. Because of past issues/arbitration with members of Wrong Planet, it would be helpful if other editors would step in to attend to the Wrong Planet disruption of the Autism Speaks article and insertion of information that is not reliably sourced. If Wrong Planet has the membership base it claims (17,000 members, although I doubt it), help will be needed on the Autism Speaks article, and I've been slandered enough on that bulletin board and would prefer not to be the person watching over the Autism Speaks article, considering past history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilco, will watch. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted and left a general note on the talk page regarding online forums as encyclopedic sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, [72] seems to me to require some action. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Am I reading that correctly (that he may have published confidential info that he obtained as webmaster of Wrong Planet)? I also just noticed that he said (see above), that he had reverted me, so he must be one of those IPs or other accounts ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't make out where it came from, but it's obviously grossly inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a matter for WP:OVERSIGHT to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. All the info on Wrong Planet is properly sourced. User SandyGeorgia is a disgruntled former member of the site who was banned for trolling and has an ax to grind. I do run the site and have made no claim that I am not involved with it. I don't see it as a conflict of interest because I leave my bias at the door when entering Wikipedia. Perl (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Perl, making up stories here (just after re-instating a lot of non-reliable sources just removed from the article) is not going to bode well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perl, SandyGeorgia is a long-standing Wikipedian of stellar reputation, whereas you have just caused me a lot of work getting your egregious privacy violations oversighted. You want to escalate this? Feel free, but I can give you a pretty confident prediction of who will win. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also a long-standing Wikipedian and have been a wikibooks administrator and am currently an administrator for another language wikipedia. I've been here much longer than SandyGeorgia and I guarantee you that no one's privacy has been violated. Perl (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, setting aside the egregious privacy violations you made of another person that were oversighted today, calling me a troll on Wrongplanet, advocating reverts of valid edits, edit warring on articles to insert information sourced to your own bulletin board (not a reliable source), COI, possible sockpuppetry, past canvassing against Wiki articles on your bulletin board, and now putting up some serious lies about me here, you've got a great reputation going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about egregious privacy violations yet that is a complete fabrication. I find that suspicious, TBH. Perl (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, JzG (and everyone else who saw the post before it was oversighted) fabricated the whole thing :-) By the way, did you obtain and post that personal information about that fellow from your position as webmaster of your bulletin board? If so, that wouldn't speak well for the value you place on your "17,000" members. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you're talking about? Perl (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. All of the personal information about some fellow (since the post had to be oversighted, from memory, his name, address, school, IP addresses, e-mail addresses, and whatever else was in the oversighted link of your "egregious privacy violation" of some poor fellow's confidential information). Again, since you just posted a call to arms on WrongPlanet ("we have a problem. need major backup:"),[73] I hope you treat your bulletin board members better than that fellow was treated. Fortunately, since I'm not one, I won't have to worry about my confidential information being posted to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perl, David Gerard does not oversight edits for fun. There were five edits killed, in which you revealed, exactly as Sandy says, someone's name, email address, location, IP address and other private data, in furtherance of an apparent vendetta. As privacy violations go, it doesn't get a lot worse than that. It is also clear that your edits demonstrate a conflict of interest, and that you have used Wikipedia to further an off-wiki agenda. You have been caught bang to rights, I'm afraid, and now would be a good time to show some contrition and a commitment not to continue or repeat such behaviour. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That information was gleaned from an email sent by the individual to a public email list. No details were posted that were not publicly posted to the internet by the guy in question. Perl (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG, I'm sorry, but you are being sold a porky by SandyGeorgia. It may not be obvious to you - but even though she may be otherwise a good contributor to Wikipedia, her handling of this issue is laced with bias against Wrong Planet. It's not just a forum. Alex has articles as well. Just for the record, I think you'll find that Aspies for Freedom have a similar view of Autism Speaks as Wrong Planet does. And I would point out that while individual statements on a forum might not fulfill WP:RS by themselves, a collection of statements that agree with each other would be a very strong basis for a reference style comment on the article concerned. I'm pretty sure that has been done in the past.

Now maybe Perl may have a WP:COI issue re the mention of Wrong Planet. But that doesn't mean dump the whole thing. I certainly hope a blacklisting of Wrong Planet is being considered because I'll fight it straight away and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Planet is self-published; those views don't belong in other articles unless they are published by reliable sources, although Wrong Planet views can be stated in their own article, within policy. No porky here; Fenric (would that be Quatermass on Wrong Planet?); just Wiki policy, WP:V. (Are all 17,000 members of Wrong Planet planning to weigh in here? Fine, but that won't change Wiki policy.) Wrong Planet only marginally meets notability anyway; they have a Wiki article only because William Freund gained national attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that SandyGeorgia is a banned member of WrongPlanet (for trolling) who is engaging in ban evasion in order to post messages from the Wrong Planet forum. Her role in this is hardly that of an objective observer. Perl (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Alex Plank (aka WikiBot, aka Perl), I took the evening off last night to allow time for you to re-consider your wanton abandoment of the truth in this attempt to discredit me; striking untruths is the way you can retract them on Wiki and that will end the problem you are starting for yourself. Yesterday I was inclined towards making allowances for your brazen false attacks on me; today, considering you've repeated, I note that this behavior is not part of the Asperger syndrome profile to my knowledge, and there is no reason for me to make allowances a second time. Please strike the false statement to retract it; I came to the situation on WrongPlanet originally by googling to find out where the canvassing on the Asperger syndrome article was coming from,[74] and that was when I discovered that I was a frequent topic of conversation there.[75] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

edit war brewing at Main Page

There seems to be an edit war brewing over the design of the main page - Nat (talk · contribs) wants to be bold, others are suggesting discussion and it's likely that his most recent change is also going to get reverted shortly. I have no idea who is in the right, I'm frankly not interested but I'd suggest that some uninvolved admin get involved and suggest to all concerned that they discuss any major changes to main page on the talkpage. --Fredrick day 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Or at least work on a sandbox... -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An administrator isn't really required in this case methinks. You could be bold and make an attempt at WP:Dispute Resolution. If not you, anybody could give it a light weight start. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And yes, creating a subpage as a temp sandbox for experimentation might be beneficial. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

it looks exactly the same: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&undoafter=199629281&undo=199631190 compared it to current revision) nat.utoronto 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather misleading response, given the fact numerous other edits that you performed significantly altered the page's appearance. You also introduced code that hasn't been thoroughly tested to ensure compatibility with all of the major operating systems, resolutions, browsers and screen readers for people with visual impairments.

It's rather disconcerting that you were continually "fixing" your new version on the fly (both at Main Page and at various transcluded templates) instead of doing so in advance. —David Levy 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, it's a serious problem. No edits related to the Main page should be done on-the-fly, except emergency ones. El_C 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Nat's contribution log for the eight edits labeled "mfix" (including one that undid another after Nat realized that it broke the Wikipedia languages section) performed after the new code was introduced. —David Levy 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My question is why are edits even being made to the main page in the first place? I don't have the time to look at the discussion at the moment, but any changes there should be discussed in depth by multiple editors. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, Nat has been convinced of that. —David Levy 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

IP user showing ownership tendencies

I hope that this is an appropriate place to bring this up: 124.43.130.201 has taken over editing of Nissanka Wijeyeratne‎ and Edwin Wijeyeratne‎, and has repeatedly reverted the addition of article improvement tags. Both articles are full of "peacock" language and are in dire need of some improved references and a good cleanup. I left a note on their talk page about article ownership, and left notes on the talk pages of both articles, but 124.43.130.21 has not yet tried to dicuss any of the issues, or even left so much as an edit summary for the reversions. I didn't post this at WP:AIV, because I wasn't sure if this counted as vandalism per say, but if it would be more appropriate there, please let me know. Dawn bard (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalism per se, it is, however, disruptive. I would take it to WP:AN3. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a message on the user's talk page about WP:3RR and encouraged them to use edit summaries and the talk page. An administrator can take it from here if he/she feels it is necessary to intervene further. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Justpassinby

I'm requesting the assistance of an uninvolved admin with an obvious tendentious editor in the article Jon Courtney: WP:SPA Justpassinby (talk · contribs), who evidently also edits as Joncourtney (talk · contribs), 78.105.130.169 (talk · contribs) and 86.141.25.254 (talk · contribs) (see former SSP report and ongoing SSP report.) This is not an ordinary content dispute, but ongoing, immediate and active disruption. This individual has an openly stated bias against the band Pure Reason Revolution and this article, which he nominated for deletion and which I closed as keep by consensus. (I had no familiarity with the user or the article at the time.) After he left a warning on my talk page that by closing with that reading I was causing an edit war, I went to the article to see if I could prevent that. I discovered there that he seemed to object to promotional, poorly sourced text, so I revised the article in an attempt to address those concerns. Rather than appeasing him, this evidently enraged him, as he spent the next little while vandalizing the page, including this edit under his primary account and this under one of his suspected socks, evidently pretending to be the subject of the article objecting to the page. Now he is blanking sourced content under misleading edit summaries (in spite of being advised that doing so leaves the block quote without a source) and blanking neutral reliably sourced material under alleged BLP concerns. He has rejected all reasonable efforts of communication at his talk page in regards to this issue and, I note, in others--including repeated requests made there by another editor that he stop signing contributions to article space. He responds with personal attacks and accusations of bias. He refuses to avail himself of the dispute resolution methods of addressing the article which I've pointed out to him (at first he did not explain why he did not choose to propose a merge, see deletion review or go to the WP:NPOVN. Now he says it is because I am omnipotent.) He has previously been blocked for disruptive editing at the band article Pure Reason Revolution. He has also previously been reported at ANI, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An obvious problem editor, but what is it you need help with? Do you feel you're too involved in content disputes with him to block him, or do you think that another admin might have more luck than you in convincing him to abide by policies and guidelines? Because it doesn't look to me like either is true. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note this recent diff, his most recent. I'd be prepared to AGF there until he gives us evidence that doing so was unwise. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for weighing in. :) He has made it plain that he does not regard me as an uninvolved administrator in his response to my warning over edit-warring on Pure Reason Revolution, here. He has already accused me of "abuse of...admin privileges" in that thread for working on the Jon Courtney article at all. Since he seems to have had a history of viewing disagreement as personal, I would prefer an uninvolved admin to issue any necessary blocks just so as not to feed his belief that he is the target of admin abuse. Anyway, I hope that the latest diff at BLP does reflect an honest change of opinion on the matter, and I'll bring it back here if disruptive behavior persists. If others feel that it would be more appropriate for me to block in that case, I will. Meanwhile, I will restore the sourced information recently removed from the article. Thanks again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the impression that anybody who blocks him will just be a puppet of yours or a cabalist or somesuch anyway - I'm not a big believer in letting blockees decide who's sufficiently unbiased to block them. Anyway, hopefully no block will be necessary, but keep us posted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All right. I guess assuming good faith is a mistake, then. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Other admins, feel free to adjust per your best judgment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just had to note how well you called that one. From the unblock request: "opinion has been swayed against me by a 'mafia' of fans of Jon Courtney". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban?

←Thanks. Given this user's self-professed conflict of interest with regards to neutrality on this article and those related to Pure Reason Revolution, would it be appropriate to consider a topic ban? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is basically a single purpose account that is, in pursuing its single purpose, being tendentious and disruptive. So on the one hand, you could say "well, it's only being tendentious and disruptive in that one topic, so why not topic ban?". On the other hand, you could say "it's being tendentious and disruptive in every topic it edits; if it doesn't shape up, ban it entirely". I probably tend towards the second view - that he's on a short leash once the block expires and is getting progressively closer to an indef block - but if you think a topic ban might help, I'd probably go along with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true that this has been a single purpose account. I suppose my question about a topic ban is primarily to give him another chance to demonstrate good faith if he so desires, but only on unrelated articles. I think given this user's history and how quickly the user goes from this and this to this that it's reasonable to assume the user either cannot or will not contribute constructively to those articles. Enough is enough, I think, unless the editor can demonstrate through sustained contributions elsewhere that he has some legitimate interest in content building on Wikipedia and is not just here to voice his dislike for this band. In any event, I think a short leash is a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tim!‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s block of User:One Night In Hackney

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

Resolved

 – Blocking admin admitted he was wrong, nothing to see here, Tiptoety ^talk 18:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrator User:Tim! has blocked for 31 hours for "abusive edit summaries".. this is a horrible block for the following reasons.

A) No warning at all on ONiH's page B) Tim! is in an edit war with One Night In Hackney already on several articles involved. (reverting sourced information and put in tags requesting sources/citation!)

One Night In Hackney has requested the unblock, but someone needs to have a word with Tim! about inappropriate use of blocking powers. SirFozzie (talk)

ONIH has now been unblocked by User:Spartaz. _GB^T/C 17:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And the wikidrama begins.... NOW... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully not. It's not like I'm asking for a desysop or something, just for Tim! to get the point about using his administrator actions properly. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SF here. No need for any drama, just a recognition that this was a bad block which should not have been made and should not be repeated, then we can move on. --John (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take care of the autoblock of ONiH? I'm clueless about how to deal with that. SirFozzie (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Working on it. He needs to post the unblock-auto template, not the unblock template. I have left him the instructions on how to do so. This should be cleared up presently... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Block was wrong, unblock was right, so long as nothing else happens, it's over and done with, I think. Wizardman 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it over and done with has Tim! even acknowledged that this was an abuse of his tools, or is it just a case of he's unblocked lets leave it at that?BigDunc (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oooh, bad things. See [76] - this is not a good sign. ONIH is - ahem - undiplomatic sometimes, but it looks like he and Tim are in long-term dispute here. Please say it ain't so. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge this was a bad block and will try my best to avoid this error in future. Instead I will report conflicts to the appropriate channels to let uninvolved thirs parties resolve disputes. Tim! (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption and rulebreaking

Resolved

(I'm logged out to avoid detection - please see prior edits from this IP. sorry so vague.)

I've found a user whose disruptions and WP lawbreaking go back years and continue to this day. It's on a scale that blows the mind.

To prove the full extent, I need to refer to sites that the user posts to. Unfortnately they content is under her control and I think she'll try to hide herself. An admin told me to email an admin I trust to talk about it, but I don't know any admins. Is there anyone that could volunteer a few minutes of there time? I can give you my e-mail address first if you're afraid of spam...... Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.104.255 (talk • contribs)

Errr.. if you can't point to on-wiki evidence of wrongdoing, it seems unlikely that said wrongdoing is actually a problem. Friday (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Try emailing a member of Arbcom at the addresses given at WP:AC. Thatcher 19:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I recall of someone using a web site as a source; when challenged that the web site did not say what was claimed, the web site was miraculously rewritten the next day, but this would only be proveable if someone had before and after screenshots. I can see the possibility of merit to the allegation, but no way to approach it without more info. Thatcher 19:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi thatcher "good to see you again." I can give you more info. As much as you need. Partly, I just want to let this girl save face because the rabbit hole goes pretty far down. Partly, the extent of the violations of this person are so insane that I actually worry about retribution. How should I proceed? Do you want my email? thx 75.45.104.255 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Thatcher may be referring to the banned Ilena. In any case that was an example, but the google cache caught most of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, vague descriptions of wrong doing are hard for us to deal with. I would strongly recommend you contact ARBCOM directly as described in WP:ARBCOM if you feel that public "outing" will be a problem. This discussion gives us no help in dealing with the problem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know sry. Just wanted to know what to do next. I'll email them. Thanks 75.45.104.255 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Another pair of eyes, please

Ok, so there's a guy at WP:AN who keeps posting new sections against another editor with whom he was in a content dispute with (the page has been protected, so it's ended). The continual posting is getting disruptive, and I'm on the verge of blocking this guy. Could someone else please take a look at it? It's under the sections about "Wikipedia going topsy-turvy" at the end of the page. Thanks. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the four threads into one conversation. I think he just meant to be using bold and thought that's how it was done. Just a hunch. No comment on the validity of his/her claims, or whether he/she should/shouldn't be blocked. Just fixed his wiki markup, that's all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Don't protect the page. No need to. Every person has told him to stop, if he doesn't just ask an uninvolved admin to block him for 24 hours for disruption. Blocks are always preferred to protection when dealing with a SINGLE user problem... it is FAR less disruptive... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's Acalamari's problem. It was a good call, they were both on the verge of 3RR blocks. The other guy seems to keep wuiet about all of this, moving on, which is highly commendable, but I'll block this guy (the first one) if he continues. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting and blocking like crazy

User:Kafziel has been reverting cited/sourced/referenced edits with the reason "disruption". What's with this abuse of power?

Why did he try to delete cited informations? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odin&diff=199702012&oldid=199701728 He just locked pages so that people won't be able to add the cited facts which he does not like. Last time I read the rules, deleting cited facts is vandalism. Sysops are allowed to vandalize as they please? 64.34.179.148 (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Edit warring using open proxies or zombie computers, and adding your personal opinions about how Vikings are savages and worshipped cuckolds and prostitutes is probably not a Good Thing. Corvus cornix_talk 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes. Same editing pattern as 123.19.46.241 (talk · contribs). Kafziel did a good job. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 23:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody have a talk with User:Poisongirl1912?

User talk:Poisongirl1912 is full of warnings about uploading of copyrighted images, and yet she persists. I just reverted one that was obviously a copied image, though her upload claimed to be self-created, but at any rate, it overlaid another image with the same name that was already in use. Corvus cornix_talk 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on for two months. I have left a warning that her next breach of image policy will be her last here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User Spellmanloves67 is making personal attacks and being vulgar

There is an ongoing problem with Spellmanloves67 . These problems have already been reported WP:AN#Spellmanloves67, one article WebCT was locked, and Spellmanloves67 is also reversing other valid edits that I've made on other articles. One of these is for Capella University in which I updated statics.

Spellmanloves67 is now engaged in calling names talk:WebCT#Page protected and has created a vulgar page : Wikipedia:Don't be a dick.

Spellmanloves67 seems to be on some type of personal vendetta and has continually blanked his own talk pages because he has been warned many times in the past for being abusive to others: here are a few examples:

[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 1]

[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 2]

[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 3]

I have made numerous attempts to communicate politely but he is consistently hostile. I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you.Sxbrown (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, users are allowed to blank their own user pages anytime they would like, for any reason. Also, Spellmanloves67 did not create WP:DICK, it's been around for a while. Redrocket (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. In this case, I have tried to discuss the issue with Spellmanloves67 on his talk page but he keeps removing it. It also seems very inappropriate for Wikipedia to permit the vulgar page. Sxbrown (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. And sometimes, you just have to remind people not to be a dick. Redrocket (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Blackworm disrupting discussion pages

Blackworm (talk · contribs) has resumed his long-running campaign of soapboxing on gender-related issues, currently at at Talk:Sexism and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#What_is_systemic_bias.3F and Talk:Sexism#More_information_about_misandry_than_misogyny. I left a warning on his talk, which was removed with the comment that it was "harrasment".

Blackworm's recent troubles include assuming bad faith when offered mediation: see [User talk:Blackworm#Request_for_mediation_accepted]] ... but it's hard to pick out parts of Blackkworm's history in this area without being arbitrarily selective, because almost the whole of Blackworm's involvement in these issues appears to involve conflict.

The latest episode fits a long-standing pattern which is akin to trolling: trying to engage editors in wide-ranging debate by raising open-ended philosophical questions on relatively simple issues (such as the purpose of WP:SB), and then accusing others of personal attack or censorship when asked to desist.

Can this be dealt with by admin action per WP:TE and WP:DE, or is a matter for an RFC? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Another relevant discussion thread is this one[77] at talk:Wikiproject gender studies. There was an WP:AN posting about this same issue back in January where User:Pigman brought many of the same problems to community attention[78]. Since then Blackworm has continued with the same tendentious behaviour, still treating WP as a battleground and as a soapbox. These are some instances of accusations he has leveled at specific editors: Lquilter, myself and SirFozzie and Pigman--Cailil ^talk 13:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been loosely following Blackworm's participation in discussions and work since I posted to the Admin's noticeboard in January 2008. I've hesitated to take action because his perspective and arguments run counter to my own. This has made it a little difficult for me to discern whether my motivations are purely to counter his disruptive and tendentious behaviour or to act to eliminate an opposing but entirely valid viewpoint presented in a somewhat abrasive manner. In an ideal world, I'd be entirely clear on the distinction between violations of WP policies and spirited counterargument. In this case I'm finding it difficult to sort through.

Blackworm has consistently made attempts to insist on his views in the face of the often overwhelming consensus of other experienced editors. My observation is he is determined to insert his minority views on gender/sexuality related articles by invoking WP:NPOV and claiming these views need equal representation. The problem is that he rarely offers little in the way of good WP:V and WP:RS sources to support these views. Then it comes down to him saying he thinks a perspective should be represented equally with all others, regardless of sourcing, a very problematic viewpoint for the encyclopedia.

As I noted in January, his contribs are overwhelmingly on talk pages, indicating he is more interested in discussion than actual work on the articles. Normally, this would be a commendable sign of communication and attempts to reach compromise and consensus but, generally, I've observed him to be argumentative and belligerent rather than working with others to reach solutions in conflicts.

Because of my ambivalence in this case, I'm not comfortable with personally taking action but I entirely agree with BrownHairedGirl and Cailil that Blackworm's participation is more disruptive than productive. Cheers, Pigman☿ 15:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is my posting?

Resolved

 – Question was answered. It's in the archive

I posted a thread here on this page on March 15 or so (I believe) entitled "Abuse by an Admin" (or some such). Where did that disappear to? Why did it disappear? And where is it? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

It was posted on March 15, and it was titled "Abusive Administrator". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Your thread is archived here. There seemed to be a consensus that no admin abuse actually occured. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So, an admin can manipulate policy as fits his personal agenda ... disregard the concept of consensus ... and that's not admin abuse - correct? Interesting. So, if that is not considered "abuse" by Wikipedia, ummmmm ... "standards" ... then what would constitute admin abuse? Dying to hear this one. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

How about blocking Joseph A. Spadaro for starting this thread? That's the best example I can think of. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 04:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think an admin incorrectly closed an Afd, the proper venue for review is WP:DRV. Is it there? I don't see it. If you think an admin is abusing powers, the correct action is a request for comment. If the latter fails, the option for Arbitration arises. All these are set out. Whinging on outside of procedure, however strongly you feel, is not. You know your options. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu is exactly correct. However, welcome as you are to investigate the possibilities of opening an RfC or going to Arbitration, you should do so under no false pretenses. The issue you brought forth was not admin abuse. It was not abuse of any variety. At best, it was a good judgement call; at worst, it was a mistake made in good faith that happened to not be in line with your own opinion on the subject. That should be the end of it. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. #1. Why was I sent to this page? And, more importantly, #2 ... do you realize that this exact quote is at the top of this page: "If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here." Yes, I am border-line retarded (unlike you guys). So, what exactly do those quoted words mean? Help me understand, oh Great and Mighty ones. Thanks so much! You guys are great! Unreal ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Coming to this page was the right thing to do. You asked what could be done about the admin abuse, and were subsequently told that it was not in fact abuse of any sort. That was the discussion: you asked, and several people chimed in to answer. If you are looking for a more long-winded approach to the situation, you are welcome to bring it up on my talk page, however the consensus here is that the matter is "closed", so it probably doesn't make sense to have any further protracted discussion on the AN/I page. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) For what it's worth ... this .... ummmmm .... "community" (ya, right) is among the most un-helpful I have ever known. Just so you know. (2) When I ask how is this not admin abuse, the circular response is: "it's not because we say it's not". Well, that explains everything, then -- thanks! And, ummmm, ... am I dealing with a group of third-graders or what? I'm just trying to clarify. Or, in the alternative ... I guess it's a bit much to expect, ummmm, intelligent answers? (3) Anyone here know what the English word "discussion" means? It's actually a relatively commonplace term. (I guess, after third grade -- perhaps?) The top of this page says that this is the place to discuss such a matter. And, within --- what? --- 30 seconds of me posting my question, some horse's ass marks it as "resolved". Before I get to reply. That's conducive to a "discussion"? On which planet, exactly? Lemme know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Want some cheese with that whine? Let me know! Thanks. JuJube (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling on you! I'm telling on you! I feel as if that comment was uncivil! What recourse do I have? Can any Admin help me? I feel that User JuJube violated the incivility policy with that comment! Who do I tell? How can I tell on him and get him in trouble? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Joseph what do you want? You asked about admin abuse, people looked at it and decided that in thier opinion there wasn't any. And now you come back again and ask the exact same people the same question and seem surprised to get the exact same answer. Calling people third graders, unintelligent, and unknowing of definitions of common english words is exactly the wrong way to go about changing people's minds. I'm going to mark this as resolved, Calm down and take the matter to deletion review. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, you seem to mean well. But, you also ignored every question in my post. And, regardless of its tone, the questions are valid. Reread them and please reply. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

She obviously read them and has replied in her previous post. She suggested you take your concerns to deletion review. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to answer any questions you have but not here. (this thread will get out of hand) Post them on my talk page. I'm going out now but will be back later today. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

copyright violations and edit warring without establishing consensus

User:TheDoctorIsIn has continued his edit war after being told to stop editing against consensus.[79]

TheDoctorIsIn is adding copyright violations again after being warned he could be blocked if he continued.[80]

Please read the talk page of the chiropractic article. There are serious objections to the controversial changes.[81] Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The copyright violations and edit warring without established consensus has continued.[82] QuackGuru (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ip vandal 69.108.105.178

Resolved

This guy is installing nonsense and reverting reverts of nonsense. At fairly high speed. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Reports like this are probably better off at WP:AIV, for future reference. Thanks. _GB^T/C 07:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I went there first, but they seem to have some protocol for formatting messages that I couldn't figure out, and if you get it wrong it is ignored. Loren.wilton (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Loren's talk page. _GB^T/C 08:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall hitting enter....

I've both reverted a disruptive edit and added a gallery to Austin K2, and when I go to the revision history, I noticed that Wikipedia logged an edit change 2 minutes before I finalized my intended edit. Trouble is, I never hit enter, rather the preview button a few times. During that time, I was undertaking previews of the editing (mostly due to me screwing up the gallery part by leaving in certain parts of the image tagging, like the brackets and the thumb part.). Is this a fluke in the program or am I gonna get automatically penalized for violating the 3RR rule even thought it's a mistake?? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What you did doesn't appear to have been a revert, and it doesn't appear that you were involved in an edit war, so you have nothing to worry about. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats good to hear. But I still have to ask how did the system "catch" that phantom edit?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Saheb Qibla Fultali

Could someone familiar with the area take a look at this and decide if it is a problem, please? Loren.wilton (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

yes the tone is wrong, and the rest of the article is not all that much better; furthermore, none of it is referenced. It is quite possible that it's notable, but some source information at least is needed, in some language DGG (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Igniateff is Joshuarooney

Igniateff

Joshuarooney (talk) was someone who tried to get TharkunColl and myself blocked from wikipedia not to long ago.

If you check TharkunColl's talk page you can see most of it play out. Essentially TharkunColl got in a little trouble for a picture, and Joshua blew it up into something quite bigger, even to to point where he was able to convince many Admins to take part with him in a witch hunt, even convincing them he himself ran a Check User, and getting TharkunColl and myself temporarily banned. However eventually the admins were made realize that no check user request was ever run by Joshua, that Joshua himself was sock-puppet, and that I was in fact not one. Right after these events I posted in the RCU page that righted Tharkun and myself "owned". I was pretty upsert at the time (still am a little) and I just felt i needed to say it.

After that had all passed Igniateff shows up, and posts in my talk page and gives birth to a whole new ruckus, just view my talk page for details. Here are the reasons why I believe Igniateff is Joshua.

1. Brought up an old comment: If you check the talk page, he was reprimanding me for something I did quite a few days earlier, warning me not to 'troll' somewhere, that I obviously was not trolling, or had ant intention to return to.

2. Threatened me: For those of you who looked at what Joshua had said to thark and myself, he did quite a bit of threating, as to our consequences. On my talk page you can see Igniateff immedtiely threaten me with a "Final Warning" followed by "reblocking with no chance for rebate". Such threats are within the character of Joshua.

3. New Account: His account was created right AFTER JoshuaRooney's account was blocked. In none of his mannerisms does he act like a new members, for instance digging up old RCU's and giving other members warnings about them. Then threatening the member with blocking, and posting an ANI on it. All of which do not add up to the actions of a new member. (Account Created AFTER JOSH'S was disabled, and gravitated TOWARDS THE OLD RCU)

4. Admin Attack : Previously Joshua's strategy had been to round up Admin's and convince them they needed to punish/block us. Just as before he did the same, finding admins to come get upset at me at my user page, one of which very nearly blocked me again, thus doing exactly as he planned. What can I say, he knows how to manipulate the admins? Also on my talk page you see him mention how he has "Two admins" on his side, again alluding to his conscious efforts to recruit and subvert admins against his targets. (Last time he tricked them into blocking me..)

5. English? : Not one of my stronger points, but like Joshua, he is also from England. There are only so many people in england..right?

Those are my main reasons why I suspect him as being Joshua, I feel the evidence, especially in consideration of when his account was created, is at least enough to give cause for further exploration. ShieldDane (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, you believe that (1)Ignaiteff is the new username of the blocked Joshuarooney, (2) that he has continued the behavoir that got him blocked to begin with and (3) he should blocked again. Am I understanding correctly before I investigate?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's in the affirmative. ShieldDane (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this assessment. It's likely in my opinion. Rudget. 12:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to keep him from creating vast Admin armies to attack me? As much as i like being yelled at for 3 days before anyone listens to my side...I'm sorry, it's just this kids tactic is to get admins to come down on me, and so in general all i ever see are admins showing up to do just that. So what next? Do we check user, does this count as sock puppetry? ShieldDane (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Return of a banned user

I would like some opinions on the issue of an editor apparently returning to en.wiki after being banned for one year. Namely, Stefanomencarelli initiated an arbcom that ruled substantially against the incivil behaviour exhibited. The banned editor may be operating under 190.140.234.59 but has so far although returning to the "old neighbourhood" and making mainly inconsequential submissions, has been a "good faith editor." I would be inclined to keep an eye on this account and other anons who exhibit similar editing patterns but again have not participated in any disruptive actions. What say you? FWIW, the aforementioned editor may be legitimately trying to re-establish himself as a reformed contributor, and I would have no problem with that. Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

Hi there, some users might actually change from being a ¨vandal¨ to a reformed contributor, as you said. Therefore, for now, I would assume good faith! Have a nice day! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)