Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

TonyDanza

There's a new user TonyDanza who spammed Airplane!. I'm not so concerned about the spam, but this is probably an inappropriate username unless this is the real Tony Danza showing up to shill for some travel website.

Atlant 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Username blocked; the editor can always use his (I presume) talk page if there's good reason to lift. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And if it really is Tony Danza, get his autograph! ;-)

Atlant 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IP 24.57.20.241

Obscene vandalism.

User has stopped for now. Please use WP:AIV for future reports, thanks—and, don't forget to sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~) at the end. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IP 12.10.34.242

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

Giovanni33 once again

Giovanni Part One

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think we have a problem here. The user was blocked by me for 48(oops) 24 hours edit warring over a sockpuppet tag on his userpage. He has many confirmed sockpuppets, such as...

• BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Freethinker99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...and some suspected such as...

• Professor33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NPOV77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's edit warring over his page is unacceptable. He resumed edit warring as soon as he got off the block. Look at his block log, it's very long... What should be done with him? --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you claimed that NPOV77 is a confirmed puppet of mine? Where was this confirmed? I think you will find that this is one of those in the "suspected" category. You know, no evidence, other than the "secret liguistic" evidence presented by ideological opponents who would rather I not be here to make it easier for them to bias articles with their POV. But, confirmed, No, never has been. I also note that you say 'he has many confirmed socket puppets, such as (naming two (one false), so as to suggest there are more than two--which is not true. I suggest you retract your statement, and I give you the benefit of the doubt of an honest mistake, since unlike others, I do assume good faith.Giovanni33 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni has two confirmed puppets, and ten suspected ones. And I hasten to add that they are not suspected simply because they have the same POV. Alienus, who sided with Giovanni, and reverted to his version, was never suspected of being connected to Giovanni. Neither were Agathoclea, Drogo Underburrow, or Robsteadman. AnnH ♫ 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's about community ban time. He was given the opportunity to come clean about his sockpuppets and turn over a new leaf, but chose to keep up the same old behaviour. He's obviously a smart guy, but he's a net negative at the moment. Rebecca 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

unjust labels of this nature, false to their core, will never stay if. I will fight it along with all unjustice with my last breath!. That's what he says regarding the tag. I think it's ban time too. --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But, ofcourse. That is your plan and desire, is it not? If you can't kill the message you kill the messenger. Nothing surprising there. Ban me for objecting to a false label on my own page alleging untruths? But its good to see in the clear the real goal and motive. Truth and honesty is always refreshing.

You also fail to mention that your block was issued by you while you were a party to the dispute to give you an advantage in the content dispute. How is this within the "rules and guildines?"

Turning over a new leaf? Yes, I did, however others did not. That is why they pursued me to my own user page to insult me with a label that purports to make a claim that is about 8 months old!! Yet, it is only now deemed necessary to affront my user page with it? No logical answer has yet been given for this odd timing, other than the obvious reason that such a scarlet letter serves to futher insult and humiliate, to poison the well to whoever takes a look at my user page. Indeed, its precisely because I "turned a new leaf" that I am not confronted with this user page personal attack on my good name. .Giovanni33 09:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm making no further replies to you. I'll let other people judge the situation as it stands. --Lord Deskana (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to reply to me. I'm asking to you review the statements of facts you are making, which severely undermine your crediblity, which I assume is an honest mistake on your part. So, don't reply to me. Just correct your own mistakes, which I do you a favor by pointing out.Giovanni33 09:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deskana's 24-hour block of Giovanni was most definitely not to gain advantage in a content dispute. Giovanni had reverted seven times within a 24-hour period, when Deskana got involved, and warnings had been sent to his talk page, so Deskana could easily have blocked immediately. AnnH ♫ 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Giovanni33 for one week...feel free to extend to indefinite.--MONGO 09:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 should be blocked until the very moment he admits his puppetry, at which point he should be welcomed back like the prodigal son, without prejudice.Timothy Usher 10:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work to do in that department...Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Giovanni33--MONGO 10:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the user identifies all sockpuppets and is at some point unblocked, are you offering to do the mentorship? Jkelly 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But it is the right course: blocking is preventive, and once the offender confesses and repents there is no further need for a block. Such is the creed of the Church of WIkipedia :-) Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't say I wish to devote the time needed to monitor this editor, not with the history of prolific sock creation to evade 3RR and to give appearance of concensus where there isn't any. Just this month, besides the Giovanni33 account, this editor has apparently used two other accounts as well, and this is well after previous blocks for similar nonsense.--MONGO 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I hope Essjaybot II's feelings won't be hurt, but I've undone the archiving of this section! I was getting ready to make a comment, and found it had been archived after one day. (I had previously been thinking that Werdnabot was over hasty in archiving after two days!) I've also changed the heading from "{{userlinks|Giovanni33}}" to "Giovanni33 once again", as it makes it possible to get directly to this section from the little arrow when looking at the history of the page. (Hope you don't mind, Deskana!) I think this discussion needs to stay active for the moment. AnnH ♫ 10:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni Part Two

In case people don't know, Giovanni posted to Danny here saying he wants to prove his innocence by showing that BelindaGong is a real person (faxing marriage certificate, and IDs), so that she can edit here again. He seems not to understand that her existence does not prove his innocence. As documented in various places, he was warned repeatedly, from 16 January, that he was violating 3RR, and continued massive violations. On 23 January, he was sent a message saying that he had reached his maximum number of reverts allowed under the 3RR policy,[1] and less than half an hour later, BelindaGong, from an IP, did "rv to better version. I've been following in talk page".[2] She then registered an account, and made a total of five reverts in just over four hours, and started following him to other pages, to help with votes, and reverts, while they pretended not to know each other. Likewise, with his "friend" Freethinker99. Giovanni wants him to be allowed to edit again. His short career on Wikipedia consisted of:

1. turning up at the Christianity talk page when Giovanni was blocked for puppetry, saying he was new but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni,[3]
2. reverting to Giovanni's version,[4]
3. saying he had read the WP:SOCK policy,[5]
4. saying "Geez, thanks. It really makes me feel welcome as a new user." when the issue of more sockpuppetry came up at the talk page[6]
5. making more talk page posts in support of Giovanni
6. this awful signature blunder, which was followed hastily by this
7. saying that he had written the message referred to above, for Giovanni[7]
8. saying that he had allowed Giovanni to use his computer to write that message {well, which was it?) and acknowledging that he knew Giovanni[8] after it had been discovered
9. making two more reverts[9] [10] and several more talk page posts
10. being blocked

The problem with Giovanni is that he seems not to be able to acknowledge that his behaviour has been problematic. For over five months, he denied any wrongdoing with regard to the Belinda and Freethinker puppetry. He posted things about how had had violated 3RR once or twice in the very beginning, when he didn't know the policy, despite the fact that there are numerous diffs to show how he was told about the policy and continued grossly violating it. (See here.) After about five months, he finally acknowledged that getting his wife and friend to join and support himi was a "mistake". He claims that he didn't know that the Belinda meatpuppetry (if that's what it was — there's some indication that he made some of her posts using her account) was wrong, although there are diffs to show that the WP:SOCK policy (which also forbids accounts created by friends for support) was explained to him at the time. He also carried out some rather unpleasant trolling at SlimVirgin's talk page, when she temporarily left Wikipedia, and he took up residence at her page and started telling everyone that this was just emotional manipulation, and that she wouldn't admit it yet but she was going to come back, and that if it turned out he was wrong, he'd convert and be a good Christian, and then started reverting her when she removed his taunts.[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] He was completely unable to see that it was objectionable, and started complaining about "censorship" and "abuse" and how he was going to "pursue this abuse in the appropriate manner", and even asked someone else to revert for him.[24]

Jayjg suggested here that he should be indefinitely blocked until he admits his sockpuppetry. There was considerable support for that proposal. I was hesitating over it, knowing myself to be in content dispute with Giovanni, and unsure as to whether forcing him to own up would be preventative or punitive — and then Werdnabot came along and archived it. Another sockpuppet has been found since. Is there any solution other than an indefinite block? On the one hand, Giovanni is not a vandal, and his talk page posts, though they're frequnetly objectionable with jibes about the moral and intellectual superiority of atheists over Christians, do not approach the aggressive, abusive hostility of, say, Alienus or FuelWagon. On the other hand, he frequently posts taunts at talk pages frequented by Christians, for example that Christians "don't like to talk about their origins. hehe", that when he looks at the Eucharist, he doesn't "see red blood cells. hehe", that Chrisianity is like believing that the moon is made of cheese, or referring to the Bible as "this particular book of such depraved moral instruction" etc. He has a history of reverting people who remove unwanted posts from their own talk pages. He has insisted on posting REALLY long essays (sometimes more than 3000 words) to "prove" that his POV is right, or pasting long sections of text from some website, again to prove that he's right, and sometimes cross-posting to other talk pages, despite being frequently told that the talk pages are for discussing possible improvements to articles, and not for determining which POV was the correct one. He was asked on various occasions[25] not to clutter up pages, and to link to other material instead of pasting it, but he kept on doing it, and sometimes even re-inserted it after someone else had removed it. [26] [27]. He is a notorious edit warrior, and sockpuppeteer. He has shown through numerous untrue statements that he cannot be trusted. Almost all his edits are connected with his POV on religous or political matters. His very high average of edits per page suggests that he's here for a purpose. You never see him doing chores like stub sorting, reporting vandals, copyediting uncontroversial articles. As David Gerard has said, "He's here to push a POV and will sock frantically to do it; he's not here to write an encyclopedia for anyone else."[28]

For months, we've had to deal with new users suddenly turning up to revert to Giovanni's version, and making the same spelling mistakes and showing the same mannerisms. Any tell-tale sign that he has been made aware of has been corrected. For example, after I drew attention to a post where MikaM finished a sentence and started a new one with a lower case "hehe", no puppet ever did that again. After I drew attention to the fact that BelindaGong, MikaM, Kecik, and Freethinker99 all had redlinked userpages when they turned up to support Gio, his next six (RTS, NPOV77, HK30, Mercury2001, Professor33, and NeoOne) all edited their user and talk pages as first and second edits before coming to Christianity. After I drew attention to the fact that Kecik had 27 reverts to Gio out of 29 article edits (and then 28 out of 30, 29 out of 31, etc.) and that he had never edited an article that Giovanni wasn't at, he made three very minor edits to other pages, and Professor33 took care to make a small number of edits to articles about Global warming (unconnected to Giovanni) while following Giovanni to other pages, reverting for him, and telling other editors in very Gio-like language why they were wrong and Gio was right.

If there were some way to block all his puppets as soon as they appear, I'd be happy with leaving Giovanni unblocked. He's definitely the main account, and when he's blocked the others don't show up to revert for him. But as he's completely unrepentant, what's to stop him from simply creating more? AnnH ♫ 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:71.74.209.82

Disruptive editor repeatedly removing sourced material from Illegal immigration to the United States, or adding commentary, personal opinions, etc. Suspected sockpuppet using several IP addresses. As I am editing this article I am not blocking him/her for disruption. I would appreciate if another admin takes a look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Other IPs involved:

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

Possible sockpuppet :

• Psychohistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It would also be worthwhile to look at the Anchor baby page, and its discussion page. Same individual using multiple accounts, same pattern. First he claims that something is not sourced; then when a source is given, he claims not to be able to use the source because of its format; once its reformatted he claims its just the opinion of some individual (who happens to be a Congressman on a .gov site). He can’t win the argument, but he certainly will not allow himself to loose either. Brimba 02:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi has harassed me about not having a user account until I got one. He has already posted an RfC calling me disruptive and been immediately turned down. Now he is threatening me with blocking my account because Ive deleted content which is off topic (he claims that deletion of content is vandalism when, in fact, it is only vandalism when done in an attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia - that was pointed out to him and he is still threatening to block me). I see his actions as an ongoing abuse of his admin powers and am seeking a resolution. I admit that I have logged on anon as well as in this user account, but I got my user account today and have sometimes forgotten to log on. Let me make that clear..I edited anonymously for some time before getting a user account (it was during this time that Jossi was harassing me about it). I got a user account today and have, when making edits since then, sometimes forgotten to log in. However, while admins have had plenty of opportunity to show evidence of me engaging in Sockpuppet abuse (which isn't just editing from different IPs, but detailed abuse as in the Sockpuppet page), they have failed to do so. Further, I have made no secret of being the same person and whenever I felt confusion might exist or when I was asked, I clarified. On one occassion, I posted in Illegal immigration in the United States to clarify that a post came from me when I had forgotten to log on and that explanation was immediately deleted by Jossi (and has not been undeleted). Seeing my explanation immediately deleted, I assumed that the best thing to do when it happens is just let it go.Psychohistorian 02

30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian confirmed that he is the same person as 1.74.209.82 Diff ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that, contrary to what Psychohistorian asserts, I have not refactored anything from talk:Illegal immigration to the United States. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note, contrary to Jossi's last comment, that comment about having failed to log in was made by me at 13:28 8 August 2006 and was deleted by Jossi at 13:44 8 August 2006 and remains, at least at this time, in the talk page history.Psychohistorian 03:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, I have made no secret of being the same person and whenever I felt confusion might exist or when I was asked, I clarified.

From a discussion on User talk:MER-C concerning this individual

Section: Recent edits to 198.97.67.59 I don’t know how easy this is to follow, but I am trying bring for the relevant parts of the discussion:

WHOIS tells me that the two distinct IPs above are unrelated - one from Ohio and one from Virginia. I'll get rid of the notices MER-C 02:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and I am strongly considering getting an account. Its just that I didn't feel like submitting to someone threatening or pushing me into it and I didn't really, and still don't, see a reason for it71.74.209.82 03:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

At no time has he/she denied ownership of the other offending addresses. But appeared happy to allow you to reach that conclusion on your own, and failed to correct the misunderstanding. - from Brimba

Ahh, looks like the IPs weren't as unrelated as I thought. On further inspection (using the City link at the bottom of an IP's talk page) are about 60km away from each other. The Virginia IP was registered to an Time Warner subsidary in Virginia. (compare [29] [30] and [31] ). Therefore it is possible that they are the same person and given the evidence above it is likely. I think the correct conclusion to be reached is:

“ One of the employees at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base also edits Wikipedia at home with an IP of 71.74.209.82. ”

Once it was clear they where the same person:

Sorry to confuse you on that. I do post from the different IPs. I have not tried to mislead anyone on that fact. However, the Wright-Patterson IPs are shared by many other users as well.

Thanks Brimba 03:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Brimba claims that I was happy to have people be confused. Though, as Ive pointed out, I took it on my own initiative to clarify the issue whenever I thought the confusion existed (such as the edit I mentioned above to the talk page of Illegal immigration in the United States). I have to ask, why would I take it on my own initiative to clarify any confusion if I was happy to have people be confused?Psychohistorian 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been warned at least thirteen times for disruption through all your IP addresses, so this is not about confusing others, but about interfering with the editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You have claimed that I was disruptive because I deleted or edited an article in accordance with policy - an article, incidentally, which you have exhibited a stake in which is counter to my own opinions. You made an RfC on it and was immediately turned down. You are attempting to use your admin status in this regard as a weapon with which you can align the content of the article with your politics.Psychohistorian 03:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The RfC is still ongoing. I posted it yesterday and editors have yet to comment. As for the deletion of properly sourced material without discussion, just because it opposes your POV, and as these were done using four or five different IP address, I would argue that thess had the imprimatur of disruption, upon which I warned these anon users (that now we know are all one person). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where Jossi has used, much less abused, his admin tools in this matter. A content RfC is never inappropriate, though sadly they are often ignored. -Will Beback 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A content RfC is never inappropriate, agreed. An admin threatening an editor with having their account blocked for deleting content (which does not violate the 3RR) is, however. Let's be clear here, there are three issues. 1.) Harassment of anon editors (all that has been addressed was whether I was engaging in sockpuppetry, the harassment has not been addressed yet, though the evidence is in the Illegal immigration in the United States article), 2.) Whether or not I've been disruptive (and there is no evidence of that which has been brought forth), 3.) Threatening to block me because I deleted content in accordance with policy. All three accusations, especially when taken together, make it clear that Jossi is attempting to use his admin powers to control content in that article. Further, Will Breback, Brimba, and Jossi have all participated in editing that article and all share the same politics on the issue. MER-C is the only admin who has posted on this issue who does not have an emotional connection to the content of the article. I am looking for third parties who do not have an attachment to the content of the article to examine this issue.Psychohistorian 11:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And you say that you do not have an "emotional connection" to this article? You edited under several IPs, added your opinions to several articles in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and deleted material that was very well referenced just because it opposed your viewpoint. Many editors warned the different IPs you used about these deletions and behavior, which you ignored. As for my actions, these are there for the community to see: I have welcomed you, explained to you how to merge articles, how to add references, etc. as well as explaining to you the futility of editwarring. I have twice in the past 24 hours extended an invitation to edit this article amicably, that you rejected on the basis of your assessment of my integrity as an editor. I invite you for the third time to collaborate in this article amicably, to avoid making comments about other editors motives while ignoring yours, to desist from deleting properly sourced material from articles, and avoid inserting your opinions in the text of articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I welcome any third party not already attached to the article to examine my behavior in this matter. While we disagree regarding WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (I feel that you've violated those policies and you feel that I have), I have never threatened to lock another editor out of an article because I didn't agree with their politics. While we might disagree on what is not relevant material (sourced or not), I have never threatened to lock another editor out of an article because I didn't agree with his politics. Of course I have an emotional attachment to the article, but, again, I have never threatened to lock another editor out of an article because I didn't agree with their politics. You have done so. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to prove that such a block is warranted and, so far, you haven't done that. I welcome your attempt to do so using hard data, not baseless accusations. As for using different IPs, what this boils down to is whether or not editing anonymously is allowed by policy (it is) and whether or not third party administrators feel that I have done so to engage in sockpuppetry (the only one who has weighed in on the issue states that he doesn't believe I have). I don't believe you would have asked for a peaceful resolution on this matter if I didn't tell you that I was going to raise the issue. I believe you would have continued with your abuse if I hadn't told you that I was going to make an official complaint. Finally, I am convinced that you are looking to resolve it under the radar now so that you can continue with your abuse later.Psychohistorian 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are so convinced about my future actions, then there is no much to discuss, is there? For the record, the reason for my invitations to you to edit amicably, these were not done because of your complaint (which by the way I invited you to make when you first accused me of harassment) but because I believe that edit warring can be avoided when editors collaborate and respect each other event after a heated dispute. Also for the record, note that each and every one of my additions to the article were backed up by detailed references from scholarly journals, books and articles, and in complete adherence with Wikipedia content policies. So here is my extended hand again: I invite you to collaborate on this and other articles amicably within the boundaries of WP content policies and assuming good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe that, in harassing me about being an anon editor and threatening to block me for deleting content in accordance with policy, that you did anything wrong? I don't believe you do. If you don't, then there is nothing disinclining you from doing it again in the future. You have the power to do it again. So, I can't believe that you won't do it again. I could easily agree to a truce if you did believe your actions were wrong. And creating content, updating content, and deleting content in accordance with policy is what editing is about. It is inevitable that different editors have different understandings of policy so it is inevitable that wat one editor does, another will view as against policy. What should not be part of the editing process is an admin making threats against a user to use his admin rights so that that admin can have an article reflect his politics. My complaint is your misuse of your position as an administrator. My concern and why I cannot accept a truce at this time is that you don't see anything wrong with that misuse.Psychohistorian 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. On the context of your actions what I did was not "misuse" of admin powers. I did not apply a block, ony warned your multiple anon IPs about disruptive edits (joining the voices of many other admins and editors that warned you of the same). When I saw the need for a block, I placed a request in this page. FYI, I intend to continue editing this article but I refuse to edit war with you. Deletions of sourced material, addition of personal opinions, and otherwise dirsuptive behavior on your part that may warrant a blocking action will be reported here at WP:ANI for other admins to act upon. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You can continue to talk about me being disruptive, but the fact is that when the one and only admin who was not working on the article examined my actions, he ruled against you. For your part, you've failed, even here, to provide -evidence- of me being disruptive, you've only given baseless accusations. I sincerely hope that you do report my "disruptive" behavior here, at least that will force you to provide such evidence to third parties.Psychohistorian 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No admin "ruled against" me. A request that I placed on WP:RFPP intended to curtail what I considered disruptive anon edits, was rejected on the basis of "not enough activity to warrant semi-protection". On the other hand, eleven editors and admins warned you about disruption as can be seen in the talk pages of the IPs that you edited under: :71.74.209.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 198.97.67.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 198.97.67.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are nine relevant posts in these accounts. Many of them are from the same admins who all have an emotional attachment to the article. So, how did 11 admins create nine posts and many of them have more than one post? Is this a "breads and fishes" thing? Of those nine posts, three of them are part of the anon editing harassment. Those are Brimba's post to 71.74.209.82 at 06:57 7 August 2006, Will Breback's post to 198.97.67.58 at 16:22 August 2006, and Will Breback's post at 16:23 4 August 2006 to the same account. Of those nine posts, three of them I'll fess up to. They were a result of my not knowing certain policies and, once I was aware of them, what I was doing that lead to them stopped. Those are Will Breback's 21:00 23 July 2006 post to 71.74.209.82 and both of the posts from Abstract Idiot to 198.97.67.58 (both of these were me deleting improperly placed claims of sockpuppetry - they had no evidence with them - Mer-C explaind the proper way to delete these tags and I stopped doing it). Of the remaining three posts, two were from Jossi and were part of the issue being discussed here. One was from Bachrach44 20:28 2 August 2006 to 71.74.209.82 and about him deleting a direct quote I had added to the Illegal immigration in the United States article on the grounds that that direct quote violated POV (how can a sourced direct qoote violate POV??).Psychohistorian 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right... all these warning messages by User:Wisden17, User:Tapir Terrific, User:Tawkerbot2, User:Will Beback, User:Dark Tichondrias, User:Brimba, User:Bachrach44, and myself and ohers were all mistaken. You are 100% right, you did not disrupt Wikipedia, you did not add your own comments to articles and you did not delete sourced material from articles that you did not like. We are all a bunch of idiots, that have nothing else to do than harass a newbie. In addition we are all emotionally attached to this article and do nothing but push our pro-immigration POV, while you only want to enhance Wikipedia and impress upon all of us the principles of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT that you have studied in detail over the short life of your editing experience in this project. We shall now all emulate your impeccable editing credentials and allow you to edit all these articles that you are so emotionally detached from, un-hinibited and without being harassed by abusive sysops. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, some of those IPs you mentioned are shared by more than one user - a fact which you are well aware of (and the user accounts are clearly tagged as such). I posted the relevant posts. Second, the other posts you mentioned were not warnings (for example, Dark T's post is, "Your argument with another anonymous IP user on the Talk:White (people) is very hard to follow if you do not sign your posts with an account name. It's harder to distinguish two IP numbers than it is to distinguish two user names. To sign your posts after you create an account simply type in --Psychohistorian 02:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC) two bars and four tildes. Wikipedia will automatically sign your post with the user name you created" - not a warning). Your misrepresentation of these facts is an indication that you're not done playing games.Psychohistorian 01:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated in Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States I am taking a break from actively editing that article, because it has become too toxic for my liking. I will continue monitoring the article in the event that material that is properly sourced is deleted. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I was not confused by Psychohistorian's actions, I just simply overlooked something and jumped to the wrong conclusion. The discussion on my talk page wasn't about the user's edits but the allegations of sockpuppetry, which have been resolved for all I can see. Editing at work and at home under different IPs is fine, as long as it stays clear of WP:SOCK. I'm going to step away from this issue because it is now a content dispute on a topic that I know little about because I live on the other side of the world. MER-C 09:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Duh duh duuuhhhhhh....! Thewolfstar.

User:KingWen popped up around today and picked up Thewolfstar/Lingeron's torch. Edits and style are nearly identical. The user talk page edits are almost exactly the same style: see here. What articles does this user immediately begin editing? Why, Democratic Party (United States), attempting to remove the historical basis of the party in Jeffersonian government; Anarchism in the United States, giving Jefferson that good 'ol anarchist pedigree (with almost exactly the same edit summary); Anarchism, making the same edits as Thewolfstar/Lingeron (sorry, WP:AGF; she magically found them from weeks ago and thought that they were so great that they should be reinserted); and so on. This one seems like a no-brainer, but I would appreciate it if someone else took a look at it. --AaronS 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and wha....? --AaronS 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, she might actually be juggling two accounts. See User:OceanDepths and edits like these where they piggyback. --AaronS 03:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've strongly suspected KingWen of being Thewolfstar since she first showed up on User_talk:WillMak050389. (OceanDepths I have no opinion on right now). It's either her or another environmentalist religious Jeffersonian anarchist with a strong penchant for user talk chit-chat and fiddling with various user talk subpages. Sigh. Now, do we block now or wait to argue with the trolls first? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Block now, if its so obvious that they're thewolfstar socks. WP:IAR. ~ c. tales *talk* 04:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Block now. And Abunchofgrapes, if you are referring to me, I'm sorry. — Deckiller 04:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't, I promise. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I ran into them on Talk:Capitalism. I thought I smelled something fishy. The Ungovernable Force 04:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked KingWen. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Maggie's farm grows many socks. Another head of the hydra gone. More to come, no doubt. Geogre 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point, we probably need another checkuser to put to bed her claims that we're doing this without evidence. You know, because she's not accepting the fact that she just jumped onto the scene a few days back and started pushing the exact same edits that Lingeron and Wolfstar did as evidence. And she considers it a coincidence that she's spouting the same rhetoric about the featured article review on anarcho-capitalism being an attempt to "destroy the article." So maybe we should checkuser her. Or maybe just lock her talkpage because it's not like Lingeron accepted a checkuser last time.--Rosicrucian 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not needed. It's obvious enough, especially considering their comments towards me on their talk page. There is no doubt this is thewolfstar. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi ( again )

See User_talk:Tobias_Conradi#Civility_warning. This user Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has went back to being less than civil. (here's one example, there are others, check his contribs: [32]) I warned him about it and got some incivil comments back. Based on his past history I blocked him for 24 hours to give him time to think but he resumed incivility to me and to other admins that turned up and counseled that he calm down. So I increased the block to 48 hours. According to him I'm an abusive admin who is out to buy him and I have a Napoleonic complex which I've suborned into harrasing him personally. According to me, I'm just doing what we're supposed to do, keep an eye on users with a past history of difficulty with our norms. So... here I am. You decide... I invite review of this block. ++Lar: t/c 07:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive119#User:Tobias_Conradi for more background on a previous time we had a flareup. ++Lar: t/c 07:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly an impartial party in this, but I agree that it's far overdue for someone to tell Tobias what we expect in the way of civility. --Golbez 08:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would never personally block an editor in response to rudeness to me. However, I cannot find fault with this block either. His behavior was clearly out of line. Friday (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree for blocking for "personal attacks." One reason I do is that the person who makes them is usually breaking a number of other rules and conventions at the same time. Take this guy: he seems to be here to disrupt. He came to DRV shadow boxing, throwing jabs at nothing, just begging for someone to quarrel with. That's disruption. It isn't even civility, as much as it is hysteria, if not outright paranoia. I support the block, as he has had multiple occasions to choose between writing articles and writing attacks, and he has chosen the latter. Geogre 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking back through his history. Previous disputes include an article which stated, in its entirety: "Eisenkappl is located in Austria." I have not the words. Just zis Guy you know? 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Cardsplayer4life by Kelly Martin

I'm seeking a rough consensus to unblock User:Cardsplayer4life. Background information follows. This is quite condensed and I may well have omitted something important. I encourage you to do your own research before commenting.

User:Kelly Martin declared that there was now a policy that anyone who reverted edits to a certain state would get blocked. [33] When questioned how this new policy came about, Kelly explained:

"I have now formulated a policy as a result of the discussion. You may continue the discussion if you wish, but the policy is now made, and will be enforced." [34]

"Anybody on Wikipedia can attempt to set policy. I just happen to be good at actually doing so, especially in the copyright arena, and so I have decided to do so in this case. If you choose to ignore the policy that I have decided is best for Wikipedia, you may find yourself blocked, a state which many Wikipedians find problematic." [35]

When Kelly was criticized for what seemed to one person like a "unilateral and intimidating" statement she explained:

"It was unilateral, and it was intended to be intimidating." [36]

User:Cardsplayer4life disagreed with Kelly and reinserted images she had removed with the edit summary:

"According to the policy: "Sports team logos may be used in articles or aticle sections where the team is discussed", so logos are ok as long as teams are discussed. (they are))" [37]

Kelly reverted this edit with the rollback tool [38] and blocked Cardsplayer4life. I feel a block is not necessary and I asked Kelly if she would consider lifting it. [39] I've waited an hour and she seems not to be online so I'm taking the issue up here instead. Would there be a rough consensus for unblocking User:Cardsplayer4life?

I have no opinion on the policy question. Using the team logos in this way is, as far as I can tell, well within the boundaries of fair use law but it's still something we may wish to avoid. In non-emergency situations we usually set policy by discussion and consensus rather than fiat and intimidation. Haukur 10:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my block. Our policies on copyright have long supported aggressive blocking of violators. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In the case of long-standing clearly defined copyright policies but I don't feel this is such a case. I've long been opposed to us having galleries of unlicenced images, see my post here, for example: [40] but I don't think the case with the sports team logos is as clear as you imply. Whether the logos come in a batch ahead of a list or one-by-one as a part of a list does not seem to me like a crucial distinction. I'd probably tend to side with you in avoiding the batches but I don't feel we should block those who disagree. Haukur 12:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use has always been explicit in this regard: images may be used only for illustrating the subject. Image galleries, userboxes, user space and so on have never been acceptable places to put unfree images. Sure, we'd love it if the logos were released into the public domain so we could have those nice image galleries that magazines have, but as I understand it we have had legal advice on this from Brad, and his legal advice is that we have to take a conservative approach or rik having our asses sued. Just zis Guy you know? 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I delete Category:Pokémon images and block anyone who reverts me? Haukur 13:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but if you see a gallery of fair-use images in a Pokémon article, delete it on sight. Of late there's been a fair amount of effort on behalf of the Pokémon Wikiproject to reduce the use of fair-use images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So I could delete the exact same content on sight if it were anywhere else? Why can't I delete the gallery at Category:Pokémon images? Haukur 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This phrase certainly rings a bell, I seem to have heard it somewhere before... right Cyde? ;) - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is bordering on the Chewbacca defense, Haukur. Yes, the gallery in Category:Pokémon images should also be removed, for the same reason. I've added NOGALLERY for that reason, just now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It was added months ago, doesn't seem to work today. I don't intend this tangent as a Chewbacca defense I'm interested in the Pokémon gallery issue in its own right. If you feel it has nothing to do with the other issues discussed here then that's okay by me. Haukur 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

While this might be a borderline case where copyright is concerned, the 'gallery' format for displaying the logos looks like it runs afoul of our policy. Subjectively, I'd be inclined to argue that the gallery format doesn't look very good, either—it's just an array of logos chunked into the middle of an article. In any event, there was an ongoing (albeit rather slow) edit war going on over the inclusion of the images. There should have been a discussion and resolution on this issue before the images went back into the article, and Cardsplayer4life should have known better to continue revert warring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, fair use laws suck. We all know that. However, we have actual legal advice for this, and we must follow it. --mboverload@ 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link for the actual legal advice? Haukur 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes legal advice is necessarily not published so that one doesn't become liable to outsiders. --Cyde Weys 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this such a case? Haukur 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You can ask Brad yourself (in private) ... Cyde Weys 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've now sent him an e-mail. Haukur 13:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not a lawyer. I do however work in a high-level govenment agency that is stacked to the rooftops with lawyers, and personally deal with complex legal matters almost every day. Generalised copyright law discussions under privilege? That seems highly unlikely. I'd say "almost bloody impossible to believe" but then I might be pushing the edge of asuming good faith. - brenneman ^{L} 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This branch of discussion is irrelevant because the usages can be legal and still be a violation of our policy. ed g2s • talk 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also needless conjecture. Jimbo Has Spoken, and he has spoken with the pretty clear force of having spoken with his friend Brad. Consider for a moment: you are a founding trustee, another trustee is a lawyer, you are considering the legal issues surrounding use of copyright images. Do you (a) make it up as you go along or (b) phone a friend? I know which I'd do. As the audience ocmes a pretty poor third in my view, which is what we're doing here. Just zis Guy you know? 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between doing someting that is probably be correct and doing so while acting like a total prat. Which are we discussing here? - brenneman ^{L} 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly was right in terms of policy, and I support the block. She may have pushed the limits of WP:BLOCK by enacting the block herself ([41]), as she had been involved in the dispute herself, and it could have appeared that she was breaching

"Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute".

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_12_Conference&diff=68399467&oldid=68338674 and
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_12_Conference&diff=next&oldid=68494626

However, if we accept (and I do), that this was not a content dispute but a copyright issue, I'd say she acted legally here. Whether she could have handled the issue more sensitively is another matter.

Not that it makes much difference to the issue being discussed, but I thought the galleries looked poor too. --Guinnog 13:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel Kelly may have been a bit harsh with blocking, even if she is right about how galleries involving logos should be handled, particularly because it came just hours after the policy addition (or clarification). However, it definitely was not a good idea for User:Cardsplayer4life to revert over an edit that had "anyone who reverts this article to include the gallery WILL be blocked." in the edit summary. The better course of action would have been to discuss what he felt was right with Kelly Martin. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

She didn't exactly invite further discussion with the four consecutive edit summaries of: "This ends, now", "enough", "the debate has been weighed and is now over" and "discussions may not continue forever". As for the fair use question I still feel that there is very little difference between this (which Kelly says we should block people for) and this (which Kelly says is qualitatively different and needs to be discussed separately). I don't think any court would draw a line in the sand between those two styles, though, like Kelly, I prefer the first. Haukur 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The block itself

It's pretty clear: If there is any question about fair use status, don't re-insert the image. It's a no-nosense block when someone does this. - brenneman ^{L} 13:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this, but add that there needs to be a clear, unequivocal policy on this that we can refer users to. I believe this user to have been engaged in a good-faith effort to improve the project. Ambiguity in policy leads us to this sort of unpleasant incident. --Guinnog 13:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? There's never no question, there is no limit to what copyright holders will claim they're entitled to control. Remember Mad (magazine)#Mad v. Supreme Court? Someone made an intelligent comment at m:avoid copyright paranoia:

"It isn't Wikipedia's mission to keep fair use alive. It is within Wikipedia's mission to keep Wikipedia alive.

Nevertheless, there's altogether too much anti-"fair use" rhetoric thrown around in the effort to keep Wiki secure.

"Copyright paranoia" is generally a bad thing -- a very bad thing, which causes us to voluntarily abandon our fair use rights before they are even legislated or adjudicated away from us. In the very narrow realm of the wiki, copyright paranoia is mostly a good thing that is, very unfortunately, conditioning many users toward a view of copyright that is every media corporation's wet-dream."

It's likely Brad can't share confidential legal advice with random users (as opposed to with the Foundation board). However, if there's been some kind of Wikipedia policy shift as the result of an open Wikimania discussion, it would be good if a transcript (or at least audio) were posted on-wiki. And if we really want to be paranoid, we better also get rid of all the source citations everywhere in the wiki, that consist of fair-use quotation of text. Images aren't special as far as copyright is concerned. Phr (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Automatic galleries

This is meant as an honest question, not a trick question. Why is this gallery of 12 fair use images from 12 different copyright holders used within the context of discussing the 12 entities represented a blockworthy offence but Category:Pokémon_images, a gallery of 200 copyrighted images from the same copyright holder, used outside the context of discussing those entities not a problem at all? Haukur 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, the idea is that the nature of the use is very different. We're not presenting the category thumbnails as an article or finished product; the image list and thumbnails are automatically generated when images are in a category. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation is probably closest to being on point here, but IANAL, and YMMV. Deliberately creating a thumbnail gallery and distributing it as part of an article is a much different usage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

True, our intentions are different but still. If you go to an article about a particular Pokémon there'll be a prominent picture of that Pokémon. Click on that picture and you get a page about the image. That image page has a link to Category:Pokémon_images. To me that link says: "Hey! You want to look at some Pokémon images? Here are lots more!" So, unintentionally, we've created and widely linked to a page which is nothing but a gallery with unlicenced images. Saying "well, it's not a finished product so we're not really publishing it" sounds awfully weak to me. Search for "Pokémon images" on Google and this Wikipedia gallery is your second hit. [42] How can we reasonably say that we are not publishing a gallery of Pokémon images? Haukur 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do all image categories create galleries instead of lists of links (like other categories)? If so, this needs to be changed in the mediawiki software. If this particular category is set up to display specifically as a gallery, that should be changed. There is nothing wrong with the category per se, but it should display as links, not pictures, if possible. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally, adding __NOGALLERY__ makes it show up as a list of links instead of a gallery of thumbs. I don't know why it's not working in that category. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha, see Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#NOGALLERY_tag. But not nearly all categories which need this tag currently have it. I just added it to Category:Star Wars characters. Haukur 15:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly add it wherever it is appropriate. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds as if __NOGALLERY__ needs to be deprecated and __GALLERY__ needs to be an opt-in' measure for categories, then, if we're going to be serious about our standards. -- nae'blis 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The way it was done

Totally inappropiate. The discussion at Logo talk is frankly the most shocking thing I have ever seen an administrator say. - brenneman ^{L} 13:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with the strength of your statement, but it would have been better for Kelly to have involved others and to have issued more warnings, in my opinion. --Guinnog 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How many warnings do you have to issue? The user clearly knew that he was violating the policy and that Kelly was going to block him, unless he didn't read the previous edit summaries, which would've been very foolish. On a page that has had copyright material added inappriopriately about a dozen times, stating "do this again and you will be blocked" is entirely appropriate. If someone, in the face of that final warning, does it again, it's a clear cut case for an instant block. ed g2s • talk 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I accept that. However, see my comments above about it being desirable to have a clear policy to refer editis to in cases like this. Involving more people would have more clearly preserved the appearance of fairness, which is important. --Guinnog 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Our policy is not the same as "what is Fair Use". The second case is not acceptable under either, it's just not covered by this specific policy, which relates to galleries. ed g2s • talk 14:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And again, it's possible to do the right thing and still be totally wrong about it. "I have just made policy" and "It was meant to be intimidating" are just about as far wrong as you can go with adminstrative powers. Or is it no longer meant to be "no big deal" after all? - brenneman ^{L} 14:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. There's ways to be persuasive and emphatic without making it such an overt domination of will - in fact, I would say that being overly-dominant, together with a hint of smarm ("many Wikipedians find [being blocked] problematic.") encourages the behavior of rebellion more than an approach that seeks comity. KWH 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line, it seems to me, is we need to balance keeping our project free and immune from criticism on copyright issues, and not putting off good contributors. Let's put it another way; although I agree that the blocked editor acted very unwisely, and as I said I support the block, when we have to block people for this kind of thing it is a good sign that the policy needs tweaked and/or clarified, so that it won't happen again. --Guinnog 14:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been a participant of the discussion on the logos almost from day one. In fact, I proposed a clarification to the logo guideline that would have specifically clarified that galleries were not OK and that certain other uses are OK. You can read about this at [[43]]. There was productive discussion occurring on this over the last several days. Then Kelly Martin, apparantly based partly on some discussions Kelly had at Wikimania, decided to swoop in and unilaterally declare what the policy should be. In my opinion, this is not the right way to do things.

The discussion was going along fine and Kelly does not have the right to come in and attempt to exercise some sort of veto and then begin blocking people. I have openned up a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2.

By allowing Kelly to issue blocks on this - we would be playing right into Kelly's hand of unilateralism, which would be a shame. Johntex\^talk 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am getting really sick and tired of having the word "unilateral" thrown around like some meaningless sort of epithet. Every time someone uses any admin action now you hear the peanut gallery decrying it as "unilateral". I believe the discussion on this page so far clearly demonstrates that Kelly is not acting unilaterally. --Cyde Weys 14:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd. She said she was. Regardless, when I used the word, I was referring to the appearance of her initial proclamation. That other admins have decided to support it is irrelevant to how the pronouncment appeared when issued. Powers 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not meaningless - Kelly actually acted unilaterally. Your agreement with her unilateral actions doesn't somehow make it a multilateral one. It's funny - those who act within the basic policies and guidelines when it comes to creating policy or acting in a divisive measure don't get accused of unilateralism. It's not hard to figure out when those tenets are abandoned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Policies are put in Black and White in Wikimanias? Gasp! Then I guess I have to make sure Wikimania is held in Singapore next year! =O - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's appropriate to be agressive in defending against potential legal problems. However, cases like this should remind us all that it's possible to do the right thing in a wrong way. Whatever objectives can be accomplished by rudeness and bullying can be accomplished even more effectively without rudeness and bullying. Friday (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with Friday. Though I may disagree with the outcome of the "policy" dicussion, the hostile way which Kelly Martin chose to deal with this does not assist reasonable editor and admins that just want to work to clarify the issue and, in the end, make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. The bottom line is that Kelly had other options, and she chose the one that blocked a dedicated editor, aggitated those that disagreed with her interpretation of policy, and opened this entire issue up to outside scrutiny. To say that this is the only reasonable way to achieve her policy goals is patently untrue. In the end, you reap what you sew. -- Masonpatriot 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a concerned about one aspect of this thread: I was at Wikimania, & I never knew any substantial & formal discussion about image galleries took place. (Maybe I was too busy meeting various Wikipedians from "the old days" like Andre Engels & Sannse.) Not that I would have attended any meeting on this matter because I had other interests in attending; yet one item I remember that was discussed repeatedly at this conference was the need for transparency. Call me a process fetishist, but if a decision like this is made, either it should be done as visibly as possible or its implementation needs to be as gradual as possible. -- llywrch 22:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate the idea of Wikipedia policy being determined in outside fora with no formal connection to Wikipedia, and I'm not thrilled about another questionable block with Kelly in the middle, either. Honestly, is it really that hard to drop a note here and let someone else do it, if you feel like it just has to be done? We've gone over this ground before, y'know? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 11:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a brilliant idea!

If there was a powerful consensus at Wikimania backed by Foundation legal council, how about we wait for some who, ideally, has strong and offical ties to the Foundation, considering the importance to the Foundation of the copyright policy, to explicitly edit the policy before we start throwing around the result of discussions at Wikimania as justifications for blocking, revert warring, and other such frivolity. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But where would this leave the folks who enjoy being a fanatic? ;-) Friday (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Telling each other that operating system X zomgpwns the others. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much drama. KM should have just edited the pertinent policy page, sparing us the latest. El_C 19:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Boring. If we stopped giving Wikitruth material they'd have to go out on the street with "Will dance for food" signs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cardsplayer4life again

The blocked user has now commented on his talk page:

"Wow, thanks everyone for all the nice comments and positive support. I have never been blocked before (never even received a warning before). I would comment on you guys' individual pages, but I can't because I am blocked. I really enjoy editing on wikipedia, and wish I would have got a warning or something before being blocked. (you can look back at my post record, I am not a troll or anything like that) Reading through the policy, it seems as if I was indeed correct in my edits, as I understand it. I will be leary of any edits I make to pages in the future, as it seems making edits to pages might result in being blocked again in the future. I guess I will be hanging up my Wikipedia hat for awhile, since it seems as if I might be causing trouble that I did not intend to cause. I apologize if I did anything to cause too much trouble, I sure did not mean to. As a word of advice to admins, in the future it might be good to give out a warning telling an individual what they were doing wrong, before blocking them, especially when the policy is ambiguous at best, and direct them to the place where the official policy states they can't do what they are doing. (I still haven't received anything telling me why what I did was wrong. All references I have seen have only backed up what I did as being correct.) In any event, it has been fun. Perhaps I will be back in the future at some point. (Cardsplayer4life 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC))" [44]

Irrespective of whether the original block was right or not, can we unblock him now? It seems to me that this is a good user who didn't mean any harm and won't do any harm if unblocked. Haukur 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I support an unblock. Blocks are for damage control, never punishment. It certainly appears that the point has been made. Friday (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I also support an unblock. I thought this is what talk page warnings and messages were for.--Firsfron of Ronchester 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

While I support Kelly's wish to uphold Fair Use policy, I would also support an unblock as blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive. I do not think there is any benefit to Wikipedia in leaving him blocked. AnnH ♫ 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking should do no harm, and might do some good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I will consider an unblock request if and only if Cardsplayer4life promises not only not to do this particular thing again (that is, insert a gallery of unlicensed images into a page on Wikipedia, something which is clearly outside of policy), but also to ensure that he has examined both the history and the talk pages of any article before editing it. His failure to do so is the cause of this block. Ample warning was in place that reverting the gallery would be responded to with a block; his unawareness of this is due to his own negligence. Ignorance of warnings placed on talk pages or in recent edit history is not an excuse for gross breaches of policy. Also, please don't expect a threat to leave Wikipedia to generate sympathy; please see meatball:GoodBye. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If and only if? I'd have thought that several people supporting the unblock, all for similiar reasons, might be reason enough by itself to consider unblocking. Friday (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was "clearly outside of policy" we wouldn't be having these problems. I still haven't gotten a clear explanation for why a bunch of images inside a <gallery /> tag is "clearly outside of policy" while the same bunch of images outside the tag isn't. Powers 19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I support an immediate unblock. Kelly's insistence on a personal apology for supposedly violating a supposed policy which is not even on a policy page is out of line. Johntex\^talk 17:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently six people have come out in favour of unblocking and none against except Kelly. I've gone ahead and unblocked the user. I hope that was the right thing to do. Haukur 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Make that seven. I'd have done it too. Bastique▼^parler _voir 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Of course, should the user re-insert the galleries, block him again (now there has been more than ample warning). Kusma (討論) 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I also fully support an unblock. --Conti|✉ 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock. I appear to have the ability to edit now. I harbor no ill will towards Kelly, as I hope she does not towards me. Having policy decided beforehand, so that people are clear on what they can and can't do, might be wise in the future, or at the very least having a discussion before blocking might be a way to handle things better in the future. I was perfectly willing to discuss matters (as evidenced by my posting on the discussion page), but using moderation powers to come up with individual policies makes it very hard for individual Wikipedians to know how to make edits. (in other words, moderators can come up with policy spur of the moment, with no offical written policy, and it is hard to read the minds of them beforehand). In any event, I will try to keep my edits to a minimum in the future to avoid causing any further trouble, I am generally a very peaceful individual and really dislike conflict. (Cardsplayer4life 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

It should be noted that Cardsplayer4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted the gallery back onto the page as a logged-out user while he was blocked. (I don't understand why he wasn't autoblocked, but that's an issue for the devs.) It now appears seems that an unblock was quite inappropriate. However, in the interest of comity and given that Ed g2s has already reverted the reversion, I will refrain from imposing the one week block to which Cardsplayer4life is fully entitled. Any more shenanigans and I will not hesitate to impose the one month block that is the penalty for a third intentional violation of copyright policy, however. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue, no doubt, is that Ed blocked anons only, whilst allowing IPs to edit. The obvious solution, since the IP is reasonably static, is to block the IP with all editing disabled and see if anyone has the temerity to complain about the collateral damage. Granted, a check of that IPs edit history make it pretty obvious. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly... Could you show me what section of copyright policy prohibits the use of galleries such as this specific case? It's quite clear the images are being used in a fashion which fits one basic principle of fair use, "describing the subject in question." --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 00:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

They're not "describing the subject in question". They're decorating another (admittedly related) subject. And our "fair use" policy does not allow that. The use of a team's icon in an article about a league that the team is a member of adds no more information about the league than does the inclusion of the team's name in its list of members. Since the former requires the use of unlicensed media, and the latter does not, we preference the latter. I am not going to point to specific policy because this is simply obvious common sense, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

From the above I'd say you're owed seven apologies. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Give us a break. As if this makes the wildly inappropiate behavior all ok in some manner. When someone makes a block, it's courtesy to talk about it before unblocking, and that's what was shown here. Apologise for courtesy?? On the other hand, demanding that the editor aspire to some arbitrary higher standard before you'll consent to an unblock, especially in light of the adminstratorial conduct here, is simply farcical. Yes, it's bad that the ip/editor again chose to re-insert images while discussion was ongoing, but this damage is easy to contain. The damage from the corrosive attitude displayed in "creating policy" leading up to the block is not easily contained, and is thus a much larger problem. Is it really so mentally difficuly to seperate these two things: Block ok, manner of block not ok.
brenneman ^{L} 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Has that IP actually been check usered to be confirmed as him, or is just assumption as it rolled back the edit? The other edits by the IP appear unrelated. rootology (T) 01:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've applied the second level block; this guy clearly knew what he did was wrong, and yet he used block evasion to come do it anyway. Despicable. But what's even more despicable was that he was awarded a barnstar by an administrator for his actions. When did it become right to reward insincere apologies and block evasions while condemning our administrators who prevent fair use violations? --Cyde Weys 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As I just posted to Kelly on the RfC, she said she did checkuser him, but...before we set this guy out to hang, would it be possible to just get a neutral/3rd party CheckUser user to confirm? Not calling you a liar, but the last two times I piped up to lend support one or way or another on a behind the scenes Wikipedia thing it turned into not just a nightmare, but had people screaming all sorts of accusations. Just that way everything would be "above board" and no one could come back after Kelly to say anything negative later. I'm not saying this sudden turn of events is done as spin or anything, but having another 3rd party checkuser person check it out and post the results would nip everything in the bud for possible speculation like that. rootology (T) 01:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen is a checkuser. i take his statement as confirmation. Thatcher131 (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know now, I didn't when I posted here. It's all sorted I guess, just being discussed on the talk page of the RfC now. rootology (T) 04:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I came here before the RfC. Just so anyone checking in will know the answer. Thatcher131 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I support blocking him for sock-puppetry and block evasion. This bad behaviour by Card does not change my opinion that the original block was invalid, but that is no excuse to evade a block that would soon have expired anyway. Johntex\^talk 05:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree; might be able to get an indefinite for this. — Deckiller 05:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this certainly does not warrant an indefinite block. Cardsplayer4life shows an agreeable and cooperative attitude in his comments above and on his talk page. If he, while blocked, logged out and reverted again, that's a very bad action, but it may well have been an action made in frustration about being blocked so brusquely. Given the attitude of cooperativity he displays here, I think we should be forgiving in this case. At least ask him first if (and why) he did it.

Also, blocks should be preventive, not punitive. Is there any reason to expect any more wrongdoing from Cardsplayer4life's part, or are some people here entertaining the thought of a punitive block? (Note that he says on his talk page he will not edit that particular page again.) — mark ✎ 08:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Mark. I believe all recently blocked users should be cut some slack regarding what they do in the frustration of reacting to the block. For instance, don't scrutinize their posts for personal attacks, don't expect model behavior, don't take it so personally if they tell you how abusive you are. A block is a shock. All admins are more powerful than all regular users; but admins are so much more powerful than a blocked user that it should give them pause. It's not the right moment to express your irritation with how much trouble the user is being by slapping on an indefinite. Assume even more good faith than usual. This all goes double if the first block can be seen as dubious or unfair. I support unblocking now. Oh, and btw, I'm assuming good faith on Deckiller's comment that we "might be able to get an indefinite for this": I'm sure he didn't mean it as crassly as it sounded. Bishonen | talk 08:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

I would agree that a certain amount of "lashing out" should be politely ignored in most cases; here however he reinserted the edit for which he was blocked in the first place. The minimum should be to serve the full 24 hours originally applied. Whether to extend it depends on whether this was an accident or whether he has a history of making dubious edits while logged out (see Mackensen and Haukur's discussion below). Thatcher131 (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the evasion and reverting, and his apparent intransigence about the copyright violation, I support Cyde's block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the usual penalty for editing around a block (first offense) is a reset of the timer on that block, but I don't think a one week block here is horrible, either. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling war

User:Peterpansyndrome has started a spelling campaign, changing many words and dates to his own idiosyncratic preferred spelling/format. He is now repeatedly changing the table at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) without discussion or even giving references. I think he has now broken 3RR, but the problem seems more general than that. JPD (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I also note that it is not inconceivable that this user has something to do with previously banned User:Pnatt, who was also interested in Cranbourne and engaged in spelling wars as an Australian using spelling that tended towards US usage. JPD (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that it is pnatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same group of articles, same fight, and he even used his first name with this account. I will block him. I suspect that he will go on a tirade vandalizing my user page again. -- JamesTeterenko 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, he has started already as 203.49.189.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Pretty soon he'll start calling me a wombat again!  :) -- JamesTeterenko 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

By the looks of it, he's now re-registered as NHLfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): he's reverted Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) back to Peterpansyndrome's version, has requested that Cranbourne, Victoria be unprotected (compare this and this), and his user page consists of a list of "watchlist" articles, which give the game away somewhat. --RFBailey 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked this sock. At least he is making it easy for us. -- JamesTeterenko 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Should Pnatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be community banned, or should we give him opportunity to reform?? I think we should try and help him to reform. --TheM62Manchester 22:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to help in this project. I've tried to help when he was still able to edit legally, but found it extremely difficult. He has some sort of OCD that urges him to do things that make it hard to AGF. However, other editors manage to survive with similar tendencies, so I wouldn't rule him out completely. I just wish this had been handled with less rancour and more understanding right at the start. --Jumbo 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's my point. Maybe we should unblock him, and put him on probation. --TheM62Manchester 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that there was a very clear consensus to ban him before. He should not be unblocked without consensus to undo that. I know Jumbo feels that he can be reformed, but many administrators believe that he can not. -- JamesTeterenko 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it would be easy. In fact my heart quails at the thought! But I can see his point of view. However, this is not a question that could be decided without input from those who have dealt with him before and I doubt very much that there would be any consensus to unban him now. --Jumbo 22:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this related to User:SpNeo's recent spelling change edits? Reverted example here Pete.Hurd 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Pnatt's style is swift and confrontational. If only he would slow down a bit, get consensus for his changes, and not engage in edit wars, then we could work constructively with him. Some of his edits are of genuine merit, and he cites sources to support his views. --Jumbo 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it does not appear that this user is the same as Pnatt. The editing pattern is very different. -- JamesTeterenko 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs saying, but it's worth making clear that I, for one, would completely oppose an unblock. We tried "mentoring" him, and it didn't work. I wouldn't consider an unblock sooner than a year after I implemented the community ban, leave alone a month. I know this will sound harsh to Jumbo and others that have done their best to reform Pnatt, but I'm not sure why this particular tendentious edit warrior has received so much sympathy compared to the others that pass through this page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he is back as User:Peterenko. JPD (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Time for action on Tchadienne?

Tchadienne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Search for his name above in this page and he pops up more than a few times now. I do not propose a community ban on the user, though others might: this individual has contributed a lot of good stuff to the encyclopedia and I think only ArbCom should be allowed to make that kind of decision in a case like this. I will note that Tchadienne has announced his intention to switch accounts, but to occasionally use the Tchadienne account for edits in those areas he has previously edited in. Instead, if you look at his contribs over the last day or so (since he was unblocked), he has used the the account for fighting, name-calling, personal attacks, and a disruptive spate of incivility. This is not a legitimate use of multiple accounts. I therefore propose that Tchadienne be blocked indefinitely, with the understanding that he is for now free to go and peacefully edit under the new account he has probably switched to by now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Heartily agree, as one who previously argued for giving him a chance. See my user talk page, for example. There is no value in having this account remain open. --Guinnog 18:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As a small aside... the word Tchadienne is French for "woman from Chad". So "he" is much more likely a "she". (→Netscott) 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did wonder about that. Either a she or a less-than-perfect French-speaker! It makes no odds; I am no longer going to advocate on his/her behalf and I would now happily see them banned. The good they contribute is greatly outweighed by the bad. I have a bad feeling about my own role in the matter; not one of my more successful mediation attempts. Oh well. --Guinnog 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He/she has compiled an impressive block log between the three accounts they've edited under. See here for details. Aren't I Obscure? 19:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Impressive indeed. You missed out

• 19:45, 6 August 2006 Ral315 (Talk | contribs) blocked "NOBS (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sockpuppet used to evade a block.)

not to mention all the user's IP identities... --Guinnog 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It does indeed look like a repeating pattern of disruption, trouble, and moving on to a clean sheet to start all over again - interspered with numerous valuable contributions. The question is whether we should block the old accounts, including Tchadienne, and await developments (history indicates that there will soon be an association made with the old accounts) or whether to go to ArbCom now. Since Tchadienne has now asserted (s)he is switching accounts again I think ArbCom is unlikely to accept, so I think we bank the evidence, block the old and disruptive accounts as an inappropriate use of alternate accounts, assume good faith in respect of the change, and stand ready with the Wikitrout if it starts again. Just zis Guy you know? 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. chuckle chuckle chuckle. You morons probably arent too familiar with La Tchadienne now are you? No, I didnt think so. Bunchograpes, this section has... what purpose exactly? I already stated I was permanently leaving this account. If you werent such a fool, and had actually gone through my contributions, you would have seen that I tried to leave quietly. but no, you had to be a dumbass and try and exacerbate the situation. W/e. The last laugh is mutual. Tchadienne 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe an indefinite "community's patience" ban of all of this individual's accounts isn't out of the question? (→Netscott) 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for one week for disruptive incivility. Comments welcome. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done. This account was predominantly used for bickering anyway, so it will be no great loss to the community. --Guinnog 19:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added "new user" to Obscure's list, as this was an obvious sockpuppet.--Firsfron of Ronchester 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think 1 week is good (no offense). I would go for a permanent ban; if he's leaving this account anyway, he doens't need it, and, as Guinnog said, it's predominantly used for bickering anyway. —Mets501 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, reading his comments, 1 week doesn't seem like enough, especially when you consider that he's been acting like this pereodically for months... I don't think a week will really change much. And if he's done with this account, why does he need to use it anyway? --W.marsh 23:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You know me; when it comes to blocking for personnal attacks I'm just a big softie. I support an indefinite block if anyone wants to extend it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would advise against jumping to an indefinite block in this case, at least for now. When it comes to editors that have a history of positive contributions to Wikipedia, indefinite blocks should be the very last measure taken (preferably decided by group consensus). As far as I'm concerned, indefinite blocks should only be used when a user has shown beyond doubt that he or she will never make a positive contribution to Wikipedia, ever. If that hasn't been proven, but a long-term block is necessary, go with three months or so. That's plenty of time to allow someone to cool off and put things in perspective (and should be enough to discourage most unrepentant vandals). You never know when an unruly editor may just have lost his cool after a frustrating day (or week). Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 01:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

TB, did you read my suggestion up at the very top of this section? Noting that he has repeatedly announced his intention to abandon the Tchadienne account and move on to a new one (something he may well have already done), I suggested we make sure that happens, by indef-blocking that account, but explicitly permit him to quietly and hopefully productively move on. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't address your initial comment very well. To clarify, I have the feeling that we're pushing this user into the position of having to creating a new account to escape other users' vengeance, rather than using blocks as a temporary measure to discourage policy violations. I do appreciate that you've proposed an alternative which allows him (or her) to fly back in under the radar, and agree that Tchadienne's behavior is inappropriate, but I sense that vindication may be outweighing mercy here. And I don't mean that as an accusation, just an observation.

In any case, if Tchadienne has already moved on and no longer uses his/her former account, a block wouldn't be necessary. If it becomes apparent that a disruptive sock has been created, then it shouldn't be too difficult to address the issue at that future point — going for an indefinite block now may be a sort of chilling effect. ...but, then again, a few months back I tried encouraging Thewolfstar to mend her ways up until her first indefblock. I may be guilty of extending mercy to a fault here.Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sudden huge rush of new accounts

This may not be anything bad, but it looks suspicious to me... Just looking at recent changes, and there was an enormous list of new accounts all being made at the exact same time... Looking at new account log, there is a whole page full within the last few minutes, though none of the few I checked seem to have done anything yet. At the same time as I saw that go by, almost nothing else was showing up on recent changes (not for lack of room, just like nothing was happening), and I was getting site errors saying it was having trouble. Maybe a coincidence, but thought I should mention it. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that people who know more than I do are looking into it, so that if several turn out to be socks of a banned user, they can all be blocked at once. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this happen before, when there are database problems, so you can't update articles. User accounts are, I guess, a separate database, so registrations continue. So when you look at the recent history, you see a whole bunch of new registrations, but no page changes. It isn't a rush of new accounts, it's a lack of anything else. Fan-1967 21:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe a nafarious user waited until there was a database problem, so he could sneak in under the radar. Or maybe you should all just ignore my paranoid suspicions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeated reverts at Kardzhali

User:Valkov is repeatedly removing (like this [45]) the Turkish spelling of this Bulgarian city's name for some nationalist reason. I and User:CeeGee have tried to stop him and explain our grounds as to why the name should stay (population is 62% Turkish), but Valkov has refused to provide any sufficient rationale and has even engaged in personal attacks against CeeGee (this edit summary).

His reverts do not violate WP:3RR, because they are usually one or several days apart (but are regular). Todor→Bozhinov 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the reason explained very clearly by Todor as above, I ask an administratot to warn User:Valkov seriously or to block him if a warning won't help. Thanks a lot. CeeGee 05:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Chemical usernames, new vandal??

What is it with the new usernames:

• I WILL STEAL YOUR BORON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I WILL STEAL YOUR CARBON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I WILL STEAL YOUR OSMIUM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is this a new WoW-type vandal?? Looks like we'd better watch out!

Anyhow, I'll create a new template for this vandal soon! --TheM62Manchester 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your time on this one, they're lame. Naconkantari 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Did I miss something? As far as I can see, none of these people have edited and they're indefinitely blocked it appears for username violation. And TheM62Manchester has created an entire category and template for "The Chemical Vandal". How can someone be a vandal without actually doing something? Do they deserve a category and template without doing something? Metros232 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, bad idea of mine, apologies. What a bad idea --TheM62Manchester 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As a RC patroller, this is a silly idea to create these specialized templates to glorify certian vandals. PoolGuy loved his template so much, he started tagging his own sockpuppets with it. This 'vandal' hasn't even edited, and that 3rd account doesn't appear to even exist right now. Kevin_b_er 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please deny recognition and avoid making any fuss over vandalism. - brenneman ^{L} 23:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:BEANS. --Guinnog 00:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Given this thread, most particularly the creator's agreement that the template in particular shouldn't be used, I've deleted it, and its redirect. The category was already deleted by Naconkantari. -Splash - tk 00:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Quick, let's reward them with an LTA subpage! --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC) bitter? moi?

I'm new

hey whats up everybody i'm new here, want some tips. I want to become an admin quickly. merci.FrenchDude 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No-one becomes an admin quickly - those who do lots of work backstage, do it well, and become well-liked by the community, may pass a request for adminship nomination after about six months. As for tips - if you're writing articles, write neutrally, cite your sources so others can check that what you've written is verifiable, and read Wikipedia:Your first article if you're starting a new article. If you're talking to others, be civil and generally act like you'd like to be treated. If you're looking for stuff to do, try the Community Portal. And if you have further questions... please don't ask here, as this board is for when something goes wrong and an admin is needed to deal with it :-). Try the help desk for help with Wikipedia, the village pump for other queries, or you can just ask anyone on their talk pages and they should be willing to help. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain we're being put on. --InShaneee 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean Shannee?FrenchDude 01:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• FrenchDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked infinitely, for the sexual solicitation of minors. El_C 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I so called it. :P --InShaneee 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Warnings for anon-proxy, postblock.

I figure this might be a good place to ask; [46] is me trying to avoid a revert-war over the issue. When Tor proxies are blocked, should we just drop the warnings to history and leave the Tor notice? Also, considering the new blocking system, should we be using full or semi (anon-only) blocks? Scuse me if these have already been covered. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 00:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would assume that open proxies should always be full blocks, since the idea is to keep people from using them to abuse editing privileges--64.12.116.65 00:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Open proxies should be indef hardbanned until they are no longer open proxies. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Comanche cph

Comanche cph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the edit summary to this edit the user referred to a fellow editor as "fjeldape" which means mountain ape. This in it self is not good, but when you factor in that this is a nationalist derogatory term used in Denmark against Norwegians it becomes highly unaceptable. The reported editor is Danish and the editor which was labelled a mountain ape is Norwegian. The editor has been warned against personal attacks numerous times, but has removed many warnings from his talk page. He is presently blocked for 3RR violation, but a reaction for this violation would be in order as well.

The user has been involved in a handful of articles now and the mode of operations seem not to improve. Frequent reverting sometimes just within the 3RR, sometimes braking it. A common trait is also personal attacks against editors disagreing with him.

A third point is some of his random insulting edits such as [47] [48] against muslims and his entries of 17:42, 30 June 200621:32, 30 June 2006 and 13:49, 9 August 2006 to the Turkey article.

He has been involved on this page on the following occasions before: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive121, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive122 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125.

Sometimes administrators have given him warnings which he has broken without penalty and sometimes administrators have stated that penalties would increase if the mentioned behaviour continued, but that has not been followed through. He is frustrating and using up time for many editors and not showing any signs of improvement, but adminstrator involvement has been short. I fear that he will be alowed to go on just because of the narrow nature of the articles he is involved in.Inge 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see that Comanche is currently under a 24h block. Just to get the record straight from the beginning: I had a long discussion with Comanche yesterday (see Talk:Denmark-Norway), which became a rather frustrating experience. I'm worried about the attitude he has shown on Talk:Viking Age, Talk:Scandinavia and other pages. Some time ago I wrote a long message to him trying to persuade him to become more friendly [49] unfortunately without success. (To be sure he understood it, I wrote it in Danish, and any Dane, Norwegian or Swede can confirm its contents since our languages are mutually intelligible). His later edits prove that he *did* read the message since I asked him to simply ask people nicely "what is your source for saying this or that". Now he uses this phrase [50] but it seems like he simply ignores information that disagrees with his own views.

Since I'm a Dane, I can confirm that "fjeldabe" is an offensive and derogatory term used against Norwegians, and its use here is highly inappropriate (Inge's translation is correct: it literally means Mountain Monkey / Mountain Ape). He has accused User:Inge of being a nationalist before, and this really bothers me, since Inge is a very fine contributor. For my part, I am frustrated. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This case is slowly exhausting the patience of the community, and as time passes, it becomes more and more alike to others of edit warring and nationalistic POV-pushing (User:Molobo comes to mind). In just 2 months, he has already served 6 blocks without showing any signs of improvement in his attitude, and he continues to defy at least 4 different, non-negotiable rules. I think the next breach of NPA or 3RR should be accompanied by a longer block as means of giving him time to examine said policies in detail, as well as the potential consequences if he continues to ignore them. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 11:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nod. I'd support a fairly long block (measured in weeks not days) as the last step before indefinite. ++Lar: t/c 11:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for getting involved. I really appreciate that. It sometimes gets lonely when dealing with Comanche cph. I have the view that he should be given a longer brake from wikipedia now. Action speaks louder than words when it comes to this editor and he has been given many such chanses before. He has been given so many warning of the type "if you do this one more time...." which have not been followed up that I don't think he respects them. I believe he has been given too much slack already. I was very surprised when his "joke" about muslims linked to above didn't earn him a long block or even a warning. The mountain ape thing on its own deserves a long block. Inge 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

user talk:Comanche cph is now on my watchlist, and I'd also support a long block if the racism and abuse continues. --ajn (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Sharon and Lar here, this is just becoming tedious. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If even Phaedriel can't see the good in this user then a block must be a foregone conclusion. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a long block at this point or even an indefinite one. He's had many second chances now and his behaviour has not improved. I'm also hard-pressed to find a single unquestionably useful edit from him. Haukur 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind the admins he does have an IP which will need to be blocked as well. There has been (2) accusations he is using sock puppets. The one is linked on the IP page Inge thinks is his (User_talk:194.255.124.250), the other has been resolved (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Comanche_cph). --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 17:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well now he's back. His second edit was to remove the warning I put on his talk page for his personal attack mentioned above. Inge 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He is also continuing his revert tactics...Inge 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well now he has removed the warning I gave him not to remove warnings. This is not a good start...Inge 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks because you have used so much time on me. I have had probelms with my way to talk with "some" other users. (Does who make unsourced and wrong edit's). I have allways made a joke on the page Turkey. (nothing harmfull). Sorry to that.

I will keep moving all user:Inge edit on my talk page. That user seems to have pested me since i'v made my early edit in moving some wrong edits from that user. I don't move warnings from my talk page witch comes from a moderator/administrator. But since Inge have made many attacks and fake warnings on my talk page in hope to get me banned. I will not tolerate that user on my talk page. Thanks and have a nice day. --Comanche cph 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I have also seen a fake accouses that me and user:supermos should be same person. That is not true. --Comanche cph 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Comanche cph, as I tried to tell you on your talk page, warnings are not issued in order to attack you or try to get you banned. They are issued in order to let you know what is and is not axceptable behaviour and to let you know when you have crossed a line. That way you will become a better editor. Inge 20:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe i should put some warnings on user:inge talk page for all the unsourced edits on wiki and fake adminstrator recalls on me. Hmm, no! I will not sink that low. --Comanche cph 20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours for continuing disruptive edits.--File Éireann 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My take is that non admins making informal warnings can well have their warnings deleted, but if they have a concern they should ask (here) for assistance, as Inge has done. Admins making more formal warnings should not have warnings removed without some evidence that the warning was read and understood... removing a warning unread or with an insulting edit summary is, in my view, cause for a block as the user is showing that they do not intend to heed warnings or change behaviour. Inge is not an admin. I am. I have reviewed this users contributions and while there have been some issues in the past I wasn't able to spot recent issues that clearly called for a warning, other than the Turkey (bird) one given above ([51]) which I did issue a mild warning about... Do you have recent diffs that might show this? ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC) PS snicker at the new standard of irredemability: "If even Phaedriel can't see the good in this user..."! Nice way to turn a new phrase JzG... ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The drop that caused Comanche cph to be reported this time was him calling a fellow editor a "fjeldape" which means mountain ape in the edit summary to this diff. If you look at the very top of this entry you will see a more in depth explanation as to why this is a very bad thing to do. Inge 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Inge, Barend. I can only say that I am so extremely sorry seeing this word used against any Norwegian. Please don't doubt that the average Dane both likes and respects Norway and its people. For what it is worth, please accept my apologies on his behalf. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:AOL yada

This is unusual. Does this raise any eyebrows? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 03:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked and deleted the template. Naconkantari 03:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a disaster to have a template that allowed us to know when a known dos vandal was creating collateral damage, no wonder you deleted it--205.188.116.65 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates like these only encourage vandalism. Naconkantari 03:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Then work the autoblock feature into the regular sockpuppet tag--205.188.116.65 03:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Better? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Skull22

Skull22 (talk · contribs) is moving from page to page and vandalizing. I'm trying to keep up with reverts until he gets blocked.—Chidom ^talk  03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• In the future, Try taking this to AIV, you'll get a much faster response, although user is already indef blocked so it really doesn't matter either way--205.188.116.65 04:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, they were blocked before you reported it here, so it really doesn't matter all that much--205.188.116.65 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, Holocaust Denial, etc.

Looks like we have much vandalism—some of it on racially charged subjects—some Holocaust denial, etc. coming from 198.54.202.82 (talk · contribs). Could be a shared address and all, but there seems to be a lot of this sort of thing from this IP, and nothing I could see in 10 minutes or so of looking that was clearly not from the same user, although there are some harmless edits on white South African cultural topics, etc. Not sure if there is something here really worth any action, someone may want to look more closely.

Also: do we have any policy about Holocaust Denial stuff on the talk pages of Holocaust-related articles? Do these talk pages unavoidably become, in effect, free hosting for this ugliness? - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would quietly archive it (after unlinking any weblinks)) to ~article~/Trolling. Oh alright, something else, but you know what I mean. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A DRV request

Recent Delete: There was an AfD dialog for Jayram Menon which resulted in a delete due to non-verifiability. The original AfD was initiated by an administrator was based the AfD on an erroneous premise on the number of hits that was got through a Google search. However the dispute remained on the verifiability. I am enclosing a scan of a press/news item that was featured in a leading newspaper in India that does acknowledge the notability and verifiability of the individual. (Verifyability for Jayram Menon]. Its upto the administrators to review the deletion and be fair. AshleyMiller 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The place for that is WP:DRV. Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet - User:Francespeabody?

User:216Cali may be a sockpuppet of User:Francespeabody, or the other way around. Contributions for 216Cali, and for Francespeabody. There is an RfC I see open in regards to the Franscispeabody account. They both linger in the exact same few articles, and the 216Cali account often seems to appear to defend Frances as their primary contribution. What made me suspect was this edit by Frances and what followed. Another editor reverts her, per the concensus we're reaching on the talk page. 216Cali then arrives to back Frances, with this edit, which features the summary of "Wow, FP, you were right, same ol' same censorship. I have updated the article and renamed the section in question to more accurately define why it is included". 216Cali also extensively defends Francespeabody as seen here. Another thing that makes me suspect a puppet connection is the fact that the 216Cali user did nothing at all on WP from 28 July 2006 until today, when people pointed out that Francespeabody would violate 3rr if she reverted once more--and the next edit is 216Cali doing the same edit again.

The confusing bit is that the 216Cali account technically edited Condoleezza Rice first, so I'm not sure which would technically be considered the master. rootology (T) 07:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Can You Help

I was blocked all today for truing to be Neutral on Potter's House. I have written the reason for it a dozen times to deaf ears - long story see links (i.e. sore typing fingers), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House

I have tried everything - appealing to you guys was recommended on a page I saw.

The people involved have bullied me before - but when I appealled to admins it got sorted.

Can you help? Potters house 07:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you were blocked for breaking the three-revert rule. But you are now unblocked. Just zis Guy you know? 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Potters house, it looks to me like the suggestions various people left on your talk page were good ones; as for the article dispute, please try to work things out through the mediation once a mediator arrives. They tend to be pretty helpful. If mediation doesn't work out, there's some further dispute resolution procedures available, but don't worry about that unless it becomes necessary.

Sometimes the way we do things takes some getting used to, but the people trying to help you on your talk page generally know what they're doing, so please try to accept their advice about citing sources and that type of thing (the policy docs they mentioned are also important to understand). Also, yes, the 3RR results in an automatic block, so be very careful about reverting--discuss the issue on the article's talk page instead. Good luck! Phr (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

I hope this is the right place for this... Please could someone help me, I'm being attacked by User:OrangeGum. I've twice tried to remove his or her speculative, original research edit here. I can't talk to this user on his/her userpage as it has been locked. He/she keeps calling me a Nazi (see the edit summary here, this comment on my user page, and this, which I really found very upsetting). If anyone can unlock their talk page and try to help resolve this, I'd be very grateful! Thanks, Jenny Wong 08:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling a user a nazi completely unacceptable, but doing it at multiple times in different places is nothing short of malicious. I'm sorry this happend to you Jenny. An admin should be by soon. --mboverload@ 08:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jenny, that user is already blocked. Phr (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Phr. Is that definitely correct? The previous block has expired (the attacks took place this morning) and no new message has been added to their page to say that a new block is in place or that they shouldn't be calling me a Nazi... Jenny Wong 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the block's expired: [52]. But, I agree that OrangeGum's behaviour was egregious, and I've taken the liberty of an additional block without warning. Sorry you had to go through that Jenny. -- Samir धर्म 10:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! Jenny Wong 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(heh, edit conflict): Further: it looks like OrangeGum has been making some basically ok edits, but has WP:OWN issues and is acting out childishly. S/he's (originally) blocked for talk page warning removal (now for attacks), and the talk page is protected. Personal attacks are not mentioned in the block message talk page. Samir, it would be good if you could add a mention of that, plus something about WP:CIV and about citing sources, and ask the user to act more maturely in general.

Jenny--don't let this kind of thing get to you too much--you're probably dealing with a dweeb juvenile who is way overaggressive online, something that happens quite often, so don't take it personally or lose sleep over it. It's just someone else's behavior problems and/or sugar overdosage that you were unlucky enough to get mixed up with temporarily. Generally, I'd suggest either backing away from the person or trying to communicate in a way that tones down confrontation, even if the other person is needlessly combative. See: WP:COOL. Of course this is not always easy to do, and admin intervention does help when it gets bad like this ;-).

As for the OR-ish edit about what model of guitar was shown in Back to the Future Part II, it's not very damaging even if it's wrong, so for that kind of thing I generally prefer to add a {{fact}} tag and bring up the issue on the talk page rather than reverting immediately. I'd only revert if 1) some time goes by without the citation request being responded to; and 2) I thought the claim was actually wrong or controversial. This is just a matter of trying to get along with other editors on a collaborative project like this. Phr (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cardsplayer4life for the third time

Arbitrary break one

Cyde has now blocked User:Cardsplayer4life for a week for, in his words, "Sock puppetry and block evasion, CONTINUED violation of copyright policy, as confirmed by CheckUser". Here's a timeline of my interpretation of what Cards says happened.

• 22:50, 8 August Cardsplayer4life reinserts the sports logos into the article
• 23:30, 8 August 2006 Cards makes his last edit for the day
• 03:47, 9 August Kelly blocks Cards
• 15:48, 9 August Cards comes back to the computer but isn't logged in. He checks the sports page he edited the day before and finds that his edit was reverted without an edit summary. He reverts back with a similar edit summary as before.
• 16:15, 9 August Cards now logs in, sees he is blocked and makes a contrite message.

The alternative theory, which Cyde assumes is true above, is that Cards was logged in, received the message saying he was blocked and logged out to intentionally evade his block. In that case the IP address in question would have been recently used by a blocked user (to receive the message) so the autoblocker should have prevented Cards from editing with it. You can see above that Kelly is puzzled why this didn't happen.

If the charitable interpretation above is accepted I think Cards should be unblocked again. The things that might count against it is that Cards has previously edited through his IP address to complain that "the moderators suck", perhaps indicating that he intentionally uses it for edits he wouldn't make with his user account. The lack of autoblock can be explained by Cards logging in and receiving his block message at another computer than he usually uses. I don't have access to checkuser data and I don't know exactly how the system works so a) I may have assumed something that isn't correct and b) it might not be possible to tell anyway.

In any case I'll take no further action in this case. Thanks to everyone who commented. Haukur 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

• • 22:43, 8 August 2006 images back into Southeastern Conference
• 22:50, 8 August Cardsplayer4life reinserts the sports logos into the article
  • 23:26, 8 August 2006 images into Atlantic Coast Conference
• 23:30, 8 August 2006 Cards makes his last edit for the day
• 03:47, 9 August Kelly blocks Cards
• 15:48, 9 August Cards comes back to the computer but isn't logged in. He checks the sports page he edited the day before and finds that his edit was reverted without an edit summary. He reverts back with a similar edit summary as before.
• 16:15, 9 August Cards now logs in, sees he is blocked and makes a contrite message.

Arbitrary break two

I neglected to mention one obvious thing which I'd better spell out. It's inherently unlikely that Cards would happen to have been logged out and then happened to edit the one page which would get him into trouble unless he had a habit of editing IPnonymously, which hasn't been established. It would seem likelier that he noticed his block, felt it was extremely unfair and decided to evade it, then calmed down a bit and wrote his reply. On balance I would still prefer to unblock the person but I find it unlikely that I'll be able to get a rough consensus for it so I'll go and do other stuff now. Haukur 09:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it depends on how we define "rough" doesn't it? - brenneman ^{L} 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion isn't acceptable and never has been. Furthermore, I recommend that you look at that IP's edit history. This isn't an isolated incident. Mackensen (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did look at the IP's edit history as I lay out above. Haukur 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Go back a week. Mackensen (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did. In the post above I quote a week old edit from that IP's edit history. I said: "The things that might count against it is that Cards has previously edited through his IP address to complain that "the moderators suck", perhaps indicating that he intentionally uses it for edits he wouldn't make with his user account." If there's something else you want to particularly draw our attention to then please go ahead. Haukur 11:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry, missed that. No, that's about all. I'd actually considered posting earlier recommending a long, healthy block on the IP address since it's used for disruption and disruption alone. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This kind of behavior qualifies as disruptive sockpuppetry, for which we tend to hold the main account responsible, particularly if there's overlap in the edits. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether or not the use of the images is a violation of our copyright policy, Cardsplayer4life was engaged in an edit war. Whether logged in or not, he should have known that reverting was a bad practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't think it's worth a week-long block. And at least he used detailed edit summaries while Kelly reverted him with the rollback-tool. Haukur 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say edit warring over copyvio content while using a sockpuppet (which has been revealed to be a disruptive sock in other issues) is worth a week-long block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not a copyright violation - it was content that was arguably against our policies (though even that is disputed). The sock, if you want to call the IP address that, was not disruptive. The worst it did was saying "the moderators suck". Haukur 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: we have an editor who engaged in a brief outburst. The sock allegation has a semi-plausible innocent explanation. He shows evidence of contrition. He is engaging in reasoned debate. He has a fair amount of sympathy. Without for a moment criticising AMIB's block, which seems to me to be justified certainly then and there, could we also agree to unblock? The reason for blocks is to prevent disruption and it seems unlikely at this point that further disruption will occur; it would also seem appropriate to keep Cards on a short leash for a ehile. If he reforms, then we have done a good job and can pat ourselves on the back; if he does not then we will surely have unanimity for a future block. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Zur? Cyde blocked Cards, not me. I'm just wholeheartedly supporting that block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I meand Cyde, of course, but got distracted by the Man In Black in your sig :-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, we hand out milder punishment for worse offences all the time. The damage was microscopic, the editor (mostly) congenial, blocks are only preventative. Explain to him that his chances with regards to fair use are well and truly used up, if he says "I understand" we unblock. It's pretty simple. - brenneman ^{L} 14:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support unblocking as a probationary measure. Mackensen (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm repeating my support for an unblock from one of the threads above, just in case, as this issue is all over the page. Mark Dingemanse supported it too btw. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

What I find most troubling here is the conduct of Cyde- he seems almost gleeful about the block, and he's going around picking on people who supported unblocking. This is conduct most unbecoming an admin. I just re-read his RFA and found significant opposition to him based people seeing him as sometimes uncivil and overly confrontational. It saddens me that rather than taking this criticism to heart, he's just continuing in his ways. Friday (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some links to gleeful/taunting edits, since I'm too lazy right now to find them myself. (We tell noobs to bring diffs when they post here, just spreading the love.) brenneman ^{L} 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just check Cyde's contributions. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Diffs means diffs. --Cyde Weys 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was trying, rather clumsily and clearly ineffectively, to point out that you have not been picking on people who supported the unblock. I see one relevant User talk: contrib, and your conversation ended on a mutually respectful "agree to disagree" basis. I honestly don't know to what Friday is referring. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh whoops, I thought you were implying that all of my recent contribs were gleeful & taunting. My bad :-P Cyde Weys 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I left off the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags. Trying to be subtly sarcastic just doesn't work I guess. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what an incredibly biased sequence of events. It's missing the other times he reverted to fair use image galleries in violation of policy, as well as the incredibly wonky wikilawyering on his talk page. He made the same excuses for his behavior before and after his anonymous edit, not even fessing up that he had done anything wrong at all. And of course, there was the promise he made before the anonymous edit not to do it again if were unblocked ... though he then went on to make that revert anonymously, rather than even waiting to be unblocked. What we have here is a classic troll trying to widen rifts in the administrator community by playing the innocent user struck down by tyrannical actions, when the truth is anything but. --Cyde Weys 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have got my timeline mixed up but from all I can see the promise you refer to was made after the anonymous edit. Could you clarify with diffs? Haukur 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've spun out the timeline and added Cyde's diffs. Feel free to improve it. - brenneman ^{L} 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clear up a very important misconception. It has been argued above that Cards should have been caught by the autoblocker. Recent improvements in the blocking mechanism allow blocks which don't affect logged-in users, therefore Cards wouldn't have been caught by the autoblocker. That's what happened in this case, which is why I reblocked the IP last night with all editing disabled. That block has run out by now of course, and with a block in effect on the actual username is now moot in any case. Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And now, I highly suspect, but cannot prove, that our buddy Cards went through a Tor proxy to make the same reversions again. The edit summary language is very similar at the least. --Cyde Weys 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there are a few other users with this particular bug up their butt. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what gave them the idea that trying to make the edits on anonymous proxies would help resolve anything. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothign like goign through a proxy to lose you any friends you might have had :-/ Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is spread all over the place, but as Bishonen noted above, I also support an unblock at this point, because the week-long block by Cyde was clearly placed as a punitive, not a preventive measure. This goes against the blocking policy. To all involved getting a little heated, I think WP:COOL might offer good advice, in particular its tips to 'take it slow' (point 3) and to 'sometimes just walk away and leave it to others' (point 8). This case is not as urgent as the heated discussion here makes it out to be. In the meantime, though, let's make sure that we don't have a fine editor blocked over this for a week. — mark ✎ 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You're accusing me of what? My fear is that, given this user's lack of qualms of using proxies or anonymous IPs to make his reversions, if we unblock him, he's simply going to do it with his main account. That is preventative, not punitative. If you look on his talk page he's already made the comment, "I was trying to revert the page that I had already been trying to revert. I just went straight to the page and reverted it." That's a direct quote from him. He doesn't even care about discussing any of the issues, he just wants the page to look the way he wants it to look, policy be damned, and he really only considers these blocks a temporary measure preventing him from doing so. Why in the world should he be unblocked? --Cyde Weys 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He didn't do anything bad after I unblocked him yesterday. In particular he didn't revert the page in question again and his only article-space edit was perfectly fine while his other edits were mostly gracious. Why not give him a chance? If he really does go and revert the page then you can just block him again and there'd be next just about no support for unblocking him. Haukur 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This user doesn't strike me as simultaneously technically savvy enough to go through a proxy and silly enough to make the edit yet again. This might have been some random person trying to stir up more trouble (looking around, sure enough, the usual suspects are already discussing this case). I still say we assume good faith and unblock him. I won't do it myself, though, since I was the one who did the last unblock. Haukur 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to assume good faith in the evidence of bad faith is lunacy. Even without the anon proxy edits it's obvious that this user isn't here for the good of the encyclopedia. Go read some of his statements on his talk page. He doesn't care about discussing, he just wants to revert things so quickly that sometimes "he doesn't bother logging in first". He's a revert warrior. And he certainly doesn't care about any of the relevant fair use issues. And you should actually try using Tor; it doesn't require being technologically savvy at all (unless being able to download, install, and run a program counts as "technologically savvy", but plenty of people have managed with Firefox, AIM, et al just fine). --Cyde Weys 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, continuing to assume good faith in spite of evidence to the contrary is the whole point of the policy. It's appropriate to stop assuming good faith once the evidence for bad faith becomes clear. Quill E. Coyote 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel you are mischaracterizing the user. He has many useful edits. He's clearly here to help build an encyclopedia. He's never been blocked before or even received a warning. Haukur 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This TOR business seems a bit previous, can you provide any evidence? - brenneman ^{L} 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP involved 217.173.129.76 (talk · contribs) is on the Tor open proxy list here (at least as of this timestamp; I assume they change). Thatcher131 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. So the suggestion now is that this user is really really dumb, and logged in via TOR to repeat the exact actions as before, knowing that there are like two hundred eyeballs on this, probably knowing it would be reverted. Patently ignoring that there is strong support for unblocking them, to boot. While of course it's possible it's also not easily falsifiable.... Sorry, but that stinks more than a high summer roadkill skunk. - brenneman ^{L} 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking editors of anarchism-related articles

I was recently blocked by Stifle for violating WP:3RR on anarchism. Stifle was acting in good faith, and I don't contest the grounds of the block, as he understood them. However, I was reverting the edits of the socks of banned users Thewolfstar and RJII or Hogeye. All three of these users are notorious for ban evasion, as well as for disruptive editing. I'm not sure as to whether or not Stifle was aware of these facts.

I was blocked yesterday, because the obvious sock of one of these sock puppets reported me to WP:3RR. Stifle apparently did not look to deeply into the matter. It seemed obvious to him that I was simply violating WP:3RR. But, I was not. I was reverting the edits of a banned user's sockpuppet, which is a clear exception.

I urge administrators to understand the context of the disputes surrounding these articles. It's very disappointing to find out that you've been blocked for trying to help out. Even the most partisan editors, who are polar opposites, manage to make progress. Only these banned users, and their sock puppets, cause problems. I see more and more good editors of these articles leave Wikipedia out of frustration because nobody is taking the time to understand the disputes, regardless of a number of requests for mediation, requests for comment, requests for arbitration, and more. It's like Groundhog Day: the same thing is repeated every day. --AaronS 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: per a user's suggestion, I made this a bit shorter. --AaronS 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of blocked users' edits and reversion of vandalism is not subject to 3RR. Perhaps a note on WP:3RR that this particular article gets a lot of contention? I think people shy away from the mediation, in fact, because it's such a viper's nest over there. Is the Mediation Cabal still operating and still manned by well-meaning folks? All Anarchism related articles need a wet blanket thrown over them to extinguish the flames. Geogre 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points, and an interesting suggestion, as well. We've got some more neutral editors working on them at the moment, and that seems to have helped quite a bit. It is a bit of a hornet's nest, but for the most part, everybody gets along without causing disruption. It's just that two of Wikipedia's most notorious trolls happen to be very attracted to this part of the encyclopedia. I'm going to suggest adding that note to WP:3RR. --AaronS 16:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as a point of historical interest, Anarchism has always attracted the most dedicated warriors (well, except maybe fascism). Today, we have these two, but in the past we had others. No "fart" scribbling vandals, these. These are the ones with a set jaw and an inexhaustible amount of time online. Special kevlar and asbestos ought to be awarded for any neutral and careful people who edit there, because when an editor there goes bad, he or she seems to go all the way bad. Geogre 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think any non-self-declared anarchist who gets involved with that page deserves some serious kudos (and protection). If I weren't an anarchist I'd probably avoid it like the plague. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I say we permanently protect all the anarchism-related articles and assign the job of editing them to a university professor somewhere. After all, the editors there have demonstrated conclusively that anarchy cannot possibly be a stable form of government. ;-) --Carnildo 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, I wonder about that sometimes. But in real life, it's easier to kick a trouble maker out of a group than it is online when that trouble maker can come back cleverly disguised (although they rarely seem to do so cleverly). Also, there's the whole idea of autonomous communities--in the real world the rival factions would just go form seperate communities, but we've only got one page here (and if we had more they'd be deleted as pov forks) so we're stuck with each other. Sorry, I know I'm taking this too seriously ;) Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be fooled by AaronS. He claimed in the comments next to his edits that I'm a sock trying to get around a ban but I'm not. I consider the allegation a personal attack. Hopefully he sincerely thinks I'm a banned sock and not just making a false claim in order to delete the edits of other users with impunity. You could say I am a "sock" in a sense because I use different usernames when editing articles that may get me in trouble in my professional life, like the anarchism article. But as far as I know there are no policies against doing that. But I am not banned and have never been banned from Wikipedia. AaronS shouldn't be throwing claims around like that and system operators shouldn't consider the claim to be true without evidence. The system operators did the right thing by banning him. That'sHot 04:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ermin Šiljak

Ermin created an account and put his bio up for deletion. It's been two days, and it's all keep votes, or comments favoring a close. Can an admin close this thing? I was almost tempted to close it myself.... :P The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ermin's account, User:Lightbulb-Bulblight, sabotaged the AfD. I was tempted to say something, but his last edit was two days ago, so it would be somewhat worthless. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

the Lightbulb account was just indefblocked by me, since it looks like a bad faith nom and changing the votes is a no no...and denying it is trolling. I'd close it but I can never remember the afd closer templates, and I rewrote my js closer helpers to do cfd instead of afd. :/ Syrthiss 14:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's {{at}} and {{ab}}, which are shortcuts for {{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}}. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Huzzah! Syrthiss 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC) had to look up whatever it is that you put on the talk page tho ;)

Damn! Nobody told me! :( I was sweating away typing all the extra letters these past two months! Argh!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

At least you knew what those extra letters were. Chin up! :) Syrthiss 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Striver's additions to Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Striver (talk · contribs) originally added this comment saying that the terrorist plot foiled was an attempt to get Europe to attack Iran and mentioning a "Pearl Harbor 3", to Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. It was later removed for its irrelevancy, but was subsequently re-added by Striver, who said not to remove comments from talk pages and added an "I told you so". I commented that it should have been removed, and another user concurred, citing that talk pages are not soapboxes and that they're for talking about articles. Then, someone else removed it again, citing the prescribed concerns. Striver re-added the statement, again saying not to remove his comments. Half an hour later, yet another person removed the statement, but User:Irishpunktom reverted. In an edit conflict (I didn't notice the previous two edits), I removed the statement and then explained to Irishpunktom the rationale; I also copied a similar message to Striver's talk page, after seeing that he re-added the statement yet again. Striver responded on my talk page, saying that talk pages are for discussing points-of-view. Once again, yet another editor has removed the statement from the talk page, but I don't picture this being the end. I'm not going to continue to remove Striver's comment (especially since others will anyway), but I think it's quite clear that people want the comment gone. But Striver seems reluctant to accept that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight: He's making these comments on a talk page? Not the article itself? --Kbdank71 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Correct. It appears Striver may have given in as he has changed his statement. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the comments, but aren't talk pages meant to be for discussion? If the comments didn't border on incivility or personal attacks or disclosure of personal info, why should they be removed from talk pages of articles, provided they are related to the discussion? --Ragib 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• • That's what I was thinking also. --Kbdank71 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point, but here was my assessment of the problem with the comment. And given the number of times it was removed, people obviously saw it as a potential issue (although perhaps it was just Striver's persistance that suggested to them that perhaps it didn't belong). I personally don't have a problem with him mentioning a conspiracy theory, even if I don't agree with it. But the manner in which he says it and his persistance with pushing the idea that it is true, calling the situation a psyop, could potentially attract even worse debate. Of course, you are free to disagree. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving it rather than deleting may be preferable if people actually start responding to it and it disrupts discussion of the article. Without reliable sources (which I seriously doubt will be forthcoming) this doesn't stand a chance of getting into the article. JChap T/E 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what's said above -- talk page comments are generally excepted from the usual rules -- but I also think this should go into the "Striver file," as the fellow has a pretty serious desire to see the boogey men and hobgoblins discussed everywhere, and he has been disruptive in the past. If he goes beyond muttering and into harassment or more fringe article writing, he may need a mentor -- if one were available and acceptable. Geogre 18:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

His constant POV pushing is not likely to attract many people interested in helping his cause. However, I don't like seeing dissent silenced, so, as long as he sticks to the talk pages to discuss bizarre changes, maintains civility and doesn't become disruptive, then it's no big deal.--MONGO 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't mean to silence dissent, I'm sure. It looks like the current post is reasonable as it doesn't silence dissent, but also doesn't go over-the-top with the idea that he's right. From here, people can express their disagreement (or agreement) with the theory, if they want, until the cows come home; no need to remove Striver's comment now, in my opinion. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is Striver Wikipedia's resident conspiracy theorist? Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Aren't talk pages supposed to be for discussion?" Yes, but they're expressly meant for discussion of the article, not its subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth man

The user User:Laurentdion has began a series of childish attacks on me after I posted a comment asking as to when the AfD would be closed, seeing as the Afd has been opened for 8 days. He has begun to go to other websites I have posted to and post information from there as a means to disparage me. I have warned him on his talk page with the npa, npa2 and npa3 templates. Wildthing61476 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not personal attacks... that's stalking. Rather more serious, IMO. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can check my talk page for more of his actions in regard to the contested deletion of the Earth man and Dion Laurent articles. He keeps blanking his usertalk page, so you have to dig in to find the info there, but I would certainly prefer not to have to hear from him anymore. He has recreated the deleted article once already today and is generally ignoring rules and guidelines, as well as being creepy and rude. Richardjames444 21:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Laurentdion posted personal information about my employment along with racial epithets on my talk page. Can we consider a short term ban to settle him down, and then let him participate again on civil terms in a week or so? Richardjames444 00:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

AOL user butt obsession

[53] [54] Note this appears to be in response to this which was left at an earlier AOL IP address used by this person. Phr (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...those AOL vandals. I'm thinking that he's related to the F.U.C.K...S.H.I.T...C.U.N.T... vandal, too. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Range block! Range block! :o) Just zis Guy you know? 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you dare! Geogre 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC) (no longer an AOLamer, but still sympathetic)

(Edit conflict) I've pinpointed that 99.999% of anonymous IP vandalism comes from the range 1.0.0.0-255.255.255.255! Quick, indef range block! --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Carnildo 22:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Another one: [55]. These are from AOL, so blocking (for now) can cause cause collateral damage. Blocking a single address won't really help (notice the person's address is changing all the time) but range blocking will clobber a lot of users. Are we getting XFF from AOL yet? I thought I heard they were going to start sending it. Phr (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And: [56] Phr (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the destructive and the tyranny of AOL users. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, contributes to the gathering of human knowledge, for he is truly Wikipedia's keeper and the finder of lost sources. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my Wikipedia. And you will know my name is Jimbo when I lay my vengeance upon thee. --mboverload@ 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

POV edits at Ayn Rand

User:AOluwatoyin and User:LaszloWalrus constantly make the same POV edit, removing Anton LeVay from the "influenced" section of the infobox despite the fact that we have a cited source proving this. LaszloWalrus is a known vandal and POV editor, and has never been disciplined for the chaos he causes at this article (although he has been blocked several times in the past for unrelated infractions). AOluwatoyin constantly makes personal attacks against me and other editors in reaction to reverts of edits (which he tries to justify with his POV rather than any sources), both on Talk:Ayn Rand and on my talk page. -- LGagnon 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Missingno

Missingno was the subject of a complaint here recently, he (I guess it's a he) was engaging in odd behaviour, running multiple accounts, making no edits to the encyclopaedia and generally being a pain. I blocked all but the one account, and in an uncharacteristic assumption of good faith I advised him to edit articles about cats since he seems to like them. The result was a few additions of pictures of kittens to Cat, and the creation of a user sub-page of pictures of women he loves (please, no jokes about pussy). This was then moved to an entirely inappropriate pseudo-user page (User:Missingno-Women I Love). I've blocked Missingno for a month, deleted the gallery of women, and also deleted his user page, which was the focus of his activity here. Four article edits, the aforementioned kitten additions. If anyone feels I am a wicked and evil person, please slap my wrists. --ajn (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IP 81.1.73.247 Vandalism to the Jim Hawkins article

I reverted an edit on the Jim Hawkins article by the above IP making a "Siegthaler-esque" reference to the Kennedy assisnation. This BLP subject has been watching his article through various IPs. He is currently trying to get it removed, even threatening legal action. This IP and Article should be on a few admin's radars. Thanks Agne 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing Topics & Archives

What happened to archives 126 and 127? There appears to be at least two missing topics.—Who123 19:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which topics? I opened Archive127 but Essjaybot won't add anything until midnight tonight. Last night it added to 126 and indicated 126 was full (over 300K) so I created 127 and added the navbox but nothing will get archived there until tonight? Thatcher131 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. My mistake.—Who123 20:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarastro777's user page

This user's user page is dedicated to personal attacks and divisiveness.The user had originally posted a diatribe, basically accusing all non-anti-Israel editors as pawns in a vast conspiracy to modify wikipedia. Another user, User:Oiboy77 who frequently edits hand-in-hand with User:Sarastro777 added a list of what he called "rogue admins". This was removed three times [57] [58] [59] by three different editors as an attack. Sarastro restored the accusation. Sarastro also exhibited poor knowledge of wiki policy and guidelines, with edit summaries such as “What part of bad form to edit other people's userpage do you guys not understand?? Leave it alone! Nobody but me.. everyone is asked to cease” [60], in contradistinction to the wiki policy on user pages and WP:OWN, which was pointed out to him on his talk page [61]

Now the user in engaged in adding a list of snippets from the various editors he disagrees with, and collecting their arguments with him, both on his style as well as on his content, and liberally intersperses his "editorial" commentary on many of them.

At this point, I believe the user is engaged in a gross violation of WP:NPA, WP:Civility, WP:AGF, etc. and I think the user page should have this type of material removed. -- Avi 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support an enforced blanking of that page. --InShaneee 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. El_C 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He's put it back (which I've rolled back), and is arguing ownership. If there's no objection, I will protect if he puts it back again. --InShaneee 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The ownership is by the "Community", by bypassing the steps to Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution, you have deemed yourself as "the community" and essentially used your admin tools to try to win a content war with protect. This is not the purpose of the page protect. Sarastro777 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

Admin User:El_C misused protect to take the upperhand in what is clearly a content dispute after blanking my page. This is a matter of a handful of people upset over what is admittedly controversial material. Wikipedia was made specifically as an open tool to cover controversy. [[62]]

First, I documented Megaphone desktop tool which is hardly an accusation against ALL or even necessarily any Israeli editors. I highly resent your mischaracterization of my sourced material and making me out as some kind of lunatic conspiracy theorist. This is documented and cited in the article here, on my userpage, and from major media outlets.

Second, you are including information written by someone else and using it against me. I have no association with User:OiBoy nor any control over anything he has added. Saying we edit "hand-in-hand" is at best a malicious lie. Just as I cannot prevent you from blanking my userpage, I cannot prevent him from adding things. I requested that ALL editors stop adding material (like this), and now you use this as a basis for another attack against me as claiming ownership. This issue of User:OiBoy being associated with me is a red herring argument to bias other people against me. I have never restored anything he added to my userpage.

Third, the so-called "personal attacks" are in fact quotations by other Editors. I am allowed to share my opinion on matters on my userpage, as is specifically cited as a purpose behind the userpage and is documented on the bottom of my userpage, where you are asked not to blank material. There are no personal attacks.. I don't call anybody names nor do I attack them. The only things that are "personal" are actual quotations from other editors which is their own words, placed by them in the history record. I have every right to recount these as I see it pertains to Wikipedia, especially on my own userpage.

This ADMIN is bypassing steps to Dispute Resolution by mischaracterizing my actions, and acting as sole judge, jury, and executioner. Repeatedly blanking content on a userpage is arguably Vandalism. Now he has used protect in a content dispute to force the matter to his liking in a persistent state.

Sarastro777 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a content dispute, a conduct dispute. El_C 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Misc Related Conversation

The links are all there Sarastro, the user history cannot be hidden. Please read the links I posted a number of times on your talk page, and see that in this situation, the community is allowed to take action against the fact that you collect these remarks and responses from all over wikiedipa to paint those who disagree with you poorly, as well as what I feel is the insulting ad hominem intimation that all such editors are Israeli pawns. You are beholden to process just as the rest of us are. -- Avi 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage is protected until Sarastro777 demonstrates that s/he is prepared to bring whichever pressing issues to dispute resolution. El_C 21:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's first address the misinformation:

• "all such editors are Israeli pawns." -- Something never said, again "intimation"/"Your perception"-- not said, not my opinion.
• I have nothing to do with Oiboy or his edits. I defy you to show something from the edit history where I restored a change he made to my page. In fact I specifically asked all other Editors to quit editing the page altogether repeatedly. Let's quit pretending like this isn't known, if you have something that shows otherise then post it, else you need to quit perpetuating the lies.

Now we can address the hypocrisy:

Controversial material is protected by a somewhat judicial system of Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. Instead of following this, Administrators have now vandalized all content off my page, put a burden on ME to follow dispute resolution. I don't have a dispute with my own content. The people with the dispute are the people blanking my page. This is as clear as day a twisting of the policies designed exactly to protect this kind of content.

On Wikipedia, and its sister projects, you are welcome to be bold and edit articles yourself, contributing knowledge as you see fit in a collaborative way. So go ahead!

Pretty pathetic that not only can I not edit, the Dispute Resolution system is bypassed to censor me, and I cannot even include anything on my own userpage.... all done by somebody with a picture of Commandante Che on his webpage. The irony is all the self-proclaimed free speech experts, anti-vandalism unit members turned into censors is beyond belief. All it took were just a few quotes lifted precisely from discussion. I guess people with ugly faces can't look in a mirror. Sarastro777 22:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, this page is not the part of the Dispute Resolution process that you need to be pursuing in order to get your userpage unprotected. Making unfounded [or at least unsourced] accusations of hypocrisy here is not going to do your case any good. Take a break, if you need to, and come back with a cool head. If you're incapable of reaching an agreement with the protecting admins, then you need to take it to RfC, not here. Cheers, Tomer^talk 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are involved with a project on Judaism then you have a potential serious conflict of interest, as the material in question deals with "Jewish Activists" deemed in the media to be colloborating with the Israeli Gov't. We need comments from people without identifiable sources of possible bias. It's nothing personal, but the possible bias is obvious enough. Hopefully you can understand that. Sarastro777 23:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Because I'm a member of WikiProject Judaism I have a "potential [sic] serious conflict of interest"? In what material? There is no material in question. All I have said is that this page is to give notice to administrators of activities of interest. It is, categorically, not a part of the dispute resolution process. I have no interest, nor I'm sure does anyone else here, in your comments about "people [with] identifiable sources of possible bias", as they're not only an obvious strawman, a violation of WP:AGF, an identifiable possible violation of WP:NPA, a clear breach of WP:CIV and can serve no rhetorical function other than to poison the well here. That said, I'll paraphrase myself for your benefit: either take this opportunity [not on this page] to resolve your dispute with the admins involved, or take it to dispute resolution [again, not this page]. TIA. Tomer^talk 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't have a dispute with my own content. The people with the dispute are the ones that have blanked the material from my userpage. They have bypassed Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution which is why we are having this discussion right now Sarastro777 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You do indeed have a dispute by virtue of displaying your criticisms of specific editors on your userpage; in order to take this dispute to its logical conclusion, you need to go through the formal DR channels, which also allow for others to comment. It cannot remain in stasis. El_C 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I find Sarastro777's complains about alleged bypassing Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution particularly funny in the light of his active participation in this recent ArbReq. I already commented on his behavior there and sorry to say that it didn't improve. And now this adorable Jewish conspiracy mongering and calling WP admins "fascist censors"... ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One would think our involvement in your arbitration hearing, and your "material" on the page that has been blanked would be grounds to recuse yourself from leaving comments like that on grounds of conflict on interest. Sarastro777 23:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see: so anyone who had the insolence of responding to Sarastro777's unfounded (this is per ArbCom) accusations, or who is "involved with a project on Judaism", cannot comment. Thank you for making this clear, let's make it a policy. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It obviously still pains you to recall that in fact another Editor initiated the Arbitration and I merely provided some material I felt they would find relevant to the accusations. If I had understood the process better, the 'evidence' would have been presented from the get-go. Sarastro777 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Living Person: Barbara Schwarz

This article has verifiability and neutrality issues and there are few reliable sources that are not primary sources.

Background

• Schwarz files a lot of requests for information under FOIA
• She has sued over her FOIA requests
• Someone claiming to be her on google groups, says the purpose of the requests is to prove she is
  • the granddaughter of Eisenhower
  • and daughter of L. Ron Hubbard.
• The sources for this article are sparse
• The article has survived two deletion discussions - and I think she deserves some kind of article
• Main source is article in the Salt Lake Tribune (official version - pay to view full text - potential copyright vio) about her activities
  • She sued over the article and lost on summary judgment and the appeal (Memorandum Decision)

The tone of the article is not good, and my efforts to whittle away at it yesterday - get some sourced, delete some eggregious stuff - gained little headway. I made another attempt today here. Any advice/clarification/etc would be appreciated --Trödel 21:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Niuke it. The principal source is a copyvio, life's too short. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That is just about certainly really Schwarz on usenet. The article (last time I looked at it, during the most recent afd) definitely at least needed npov cleanup. I've read a bunch of Schwarz's legal filings and they're as bizarre as they sound (the stuff about Eisenhower, the stuff about being married to Marty Rathbun and trying to get him out of the clutches of supposed Scientology kidnappers, etc). Schwarz has been agitating for a long time to get the article deleted, and per her less-than-extreme-notability and Formosa's Law, that might be the best solution. Any new article should be closely sourced. Her FOIA stuff has been written up in various legal journals and doing a closely sourced article should be possible if someone insists on doing that. I don't think the article is terribly valuable to the Scientology series. Schwarz is very visible to Scientology observers because she's a heavy poster to the Usenet group, but her actual effect on things has not been all that large. Phr (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How to take care of a copyvio

I removed text in the article Maafa which had been directly copied from this site. The tag made a big bruhaha about having an administrator remove the notice, but I figured since it was a clear-cut case of a bulk amount of text, the warning could be removed immediately. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

ParalelUni (talk · contribs) is displaying signs of WP:OWN. This is in front of WP:RFAR due to his refusal to accept mediation; essentially he reverts any change which points out that this is an unaccredited school. Since I'm now involved I guess I won't be blocking him for tendentious editing but my word this is tedious - a minority of one with absolute refusal to accept anybody else's opinion. Just zis Guy you know? 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone should take a look at JzG's edits/behavior with regard to this article, it's totally inappropraite, especially for an admin. Someone really needs to pull on this guys leash. I'm not the first user to complain about this guys totally inappropriate behavior. Senior admin should really look into how he acts here on Wikipedia. Spike 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not quite qualified to judge JzG's adminship considering your experience on Wikipedia does not extend past editing St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. I fully support JzG's position here because he has been editing this article as a responsible editor (like any one of us can be) while citing from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. I see no conflict-of-interest here since he has not used his admin powers to block or threaten you. If you want to continue to contribute as part of the Wikipedia community then it is your obligation to acknowledge the request for mediation. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Long experience indicates that minorities of one, especially single purpose accounts, are without documented exception the problem not the solution. Just zis Guy you know? 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am more than qualified as a member of this community and from a common sense prospective to question the motivations and actions of any admin. here. Are you to say that members here are not able to question the potentially self-serving and corrupt action of an admin. on wikipedia? That really says a lot about this site. You also should do your homework a little better, my editing extends beyond that single article. It's obvious this is just the case of admins closing ranks. One hand washes the other. Spike 22:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that your last edit, using an IP instead of your account, is better than violating WP:3RR with your main account? You don't think that might have been the teensiest bit foolish, given that several admins are now looking your way? Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you resort to libel? That's really just nothing short of truly pathetic. If you can prove that I am violating WP:SOCK, please do so, otherwise someone really needs to put a choke collar on you because you are getting close to crossing a legal line at this point. Spike 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As to your claim that you have edits to other articles, you have less than 20 edits to other articles, most of which are to articles related to St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. For example, you edited Ibrahim DIOP Mar, the founder of ths school. Similarly, you added the school to a disambiguation page [63], and edits adding the school editing over how the school is described in Medical school (United Kingdom) [64]. The only other topics you have edited are a handful of minor edits to Core worlds, Brazil Nut, Hollow (Charmed), SelectaVision. It seems like the description of your editing habits was correct. JoshuaZ 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I have edited other articles that really doesn't fit in with the point of single purpose accounts, does it? Regardless, if you look at all the individuals involved in the regular editing of the SCIMD article they are all SPA's. Spike 22:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read what you cite a single purpose account is one "used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related article." JoshuaZ 22:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that this use rhas now violated WP:SOCK and WP:3RR ([65], [66], [67], [68], [69]), does anyone feel like a little LARTing? Just zis Guy you know? 22:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "LARTing" but I've blocked him for 24 hours and left a note on his talk page. JoshuaZ 22:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua. For info, LART = Luser Attitutde Readjustment Tool :-) The thing is, if you look in Category:Schools of Medicine in England what you see is the established GMC-accredited schools. Imperial College, King's, Guys and St. Thomas's - and then he wants to add this oddball place named after its founder, registered in Senegal and not accredited by the DfES or GMC? This institution, whatever the hell it is, just does not belong in that category. Since my parents live not far from Luton I am minded to go there and scope it out some time. The behaviour of this user has nudged me towards believeing it's a degree mill, but mustn't be hasty. Just zis Guy you know? 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting: [70] - "Spike" uses the word "we" to describe the subject. WP:AUTO, anyone? Just zis Guy you know? 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia vandal

Note: The original report was filed on WP:AIV but has been moved here in case this vandal returns during the next 24 hours.

In the last hour we've had a spate of vandalism from Saudi Arabia's rotating national-level proxy servers including:

• 212.138.64.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.138.64.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.138.64.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.138.64.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.138.64.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.138.64.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Current status: Range block expired. Please monitor the above addresses for at least another hour before removing this alert. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion is currently taking place on what to do next at #wikipedia on Freenode. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is 212.138.64.0/18 a valid range block?--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

According to whois, it's a /20. --Chris (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

212.138.64.174 just vandalized again. 3h block. --Chris (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Since these are nation-level proxy servers, 3 hours seems a bit excessive. 15-30 mins and see what happens? --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I already range blocked for one hour. Please remove this listing if the vandalism stops.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris: since there's a rangeblock in place now, the 3 hour block on 212.138.64.174 should probably be removed now. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor not made aware of public accusations

Why is it that I discover now that various colourful accusations have been made against me? Did anyone think to notify me? Was I to be sentenced in absentia? This is utterly ridiculous and exposes the very worst of Wikipedia. I expect comment. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't attibute to malice that which can be easily explained by ineptitude. Everyone assumed you knew about it, so no one contacted you. There is no cabal. --mboverload@ 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While I did not participate in the thread, I did read it, and I too assumed you were aware. Sorry -- Samir धर्म 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But Samsara, you did know about it. This appears to be you taking part in a discussion about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up twice? In that diff, you see me respond to a comment by KarlV. Even if I do now see that someone made a reference to ANI in that same discussion, I should not have to go to the German Wikipedia to get my news, should I? Interesting that you were the main inquisitor. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where was I the main "inquisitor" and why is it "interesting"? Are you maintaining that pschemp, with whom you edit closely, didn't tell you what you were being accused of? Are you saying you edited a page about it on the German Wikipedia, but didn't read it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, Samsara is a big boy. He can read for himself. Why would I tell him about anything? pschemp | talk 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, having you put words in my mouth is my favourite past-time! Big hug. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, and to be honest, it's this attitude that has caused a lot of the problems. You're an admin. If another admin asks you a question, the best thing is just to answer it. It's not a trap, just a question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly great to hear that you're such a specialist in assuming good faith. It will help you avoid questioning other admins' actions in future, and save everyone a bunch of time! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, please don't edit the archive where the discussion took place. You should respond here on the active page. If you want to quote part of the old discussion so you can make a comment or reply, that would be better than editing the archive where no one will see it. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeepers, I said quote part of the discussion. That was a bit excessive. (I'm sorry I brought it up). Thatcher131 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:KarlV again

(see [71] for the history of this) KarlV has now posted this on his user talk: "Dear all, I didn't intend to engage in WP:POINT. I was just checking that the same mistake didn't appear in the English Wiki as it had in the German one. I'm sorry for breaking the 3RR rule and I undertake to edit within the policies from now on. My imperfect English led me to call what I was doing an "experiment", which some people have taken the wrong way. I won't make that mistake again, and I apologize to all concerned for the confusion I caused. Please can I be unblocked? Kind regards --KarlV"

I raised it on User talk:Pschemp and User talk:Lar (the blocking admin). I happen to think the user's statement that he won't repeat the behaviour should be taken as evidence to review this block; I think "When he apologizes for inciting people to label me and Samsara neo-nazis I might consider a shorter block, but unblocking right now is unacceptable." is over-severe of pschemp. It seemed to me that it was mainly the user's use of the word experiment that led to him being accused of breaching WP:POINT, and I certainly don't think he will repeat it. User:Lar suggested I bring it back here, which I agree with. Could we please review the current indefinite block? Thanks --Guinnog 23:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Pschemp is absolutely correct to place this condition. "Neo-nazi" is a very severe label that can cost people their jobs and livelihoods. As we have seen (in my case on two occasions), witch-hunting is still very much alive. The label should never be used carelessly in the way KarlV did - in his case implicitly (which is worse!). No go-ahead from me until that condition is satisfied. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the "mistake" KarlV is speaking of in the passage above? That internment camp be changed to concentration camp? El_C 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The only mistake he is admitting to is using the English word experiment. Hardly an apology. pschemp | talk 00:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm refering to mistake1 (aka experiment) — "was just checking that the same mistake didn't appear in the English Wiki as it had in the German one." El_C 00:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors were calling the camp a "concentration camp," although none of the sources were calling it that. Yes, I agree the block should be reviewed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's be very clear on this. You maintain that User:KarlV had the correct view on the issue, but he did not make any effort to improve the article that he maintained was wrong, nor did he provide any direct evidence that the definition given in that article was wrong (the definition of concentration camp which seems to be the centre of the initial controversy). But you can now read the entire discussion, revived as requested for endless hours of reading pleasure, below, so we need repeat none of it here (although, be my guest!) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vagueness is KarlV's special skill. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did the quoted passage above come from? Can the author link a diff for it, so that we can orient oursleves time/space-wise? El_C 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:KarlV, if you mean his apology (and that's his second). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in a clear account of the "mistake," concretely, concisely, and in English. El_C 00:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear and concise to me. And it is in English. I also think it's only fair to take into account that, though he ruffled feathers, he actually was right on the content dispute, has apologised for the stress he caused in the way that he did it, and has undertaken not to do it again. What more could we want? --Guinnog 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could enlighten the rest of us, then. El_C 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read his manifesto and follow-ups on the German Wikipedia? I hope you can read German, because I can't translate it for you (he has declared he will not accept any translation made by me as valid). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Material written in German is of no use for me. El_C 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you mean what KarlV regards as the mistake, I don't know. If you're asking what happened: in brief, KarlV was told that some far-right editors had managed to become admins on the English Wikipedia. Karl had had difficulty removing "concentration camp" from the German Wikipedia (with regard to a British internment camp), and he was told it'd be even harder to remove it from here because of the right-wing admins. So he came here to remove concentration camp from Bad Nenndorf, and to see whether he would prevented (none of the sources call it a concentration camp). Samsara and pschemp reverted him. He violated 3RR. Samsara blocked him for 24 hours. Then pschemp blocked him indefinitely for WP:POINT. Samsara also posts to the German Wikipedia. I don't know about pschemp. I asked pschemp to unblock because she was involved in the content dispute. For that reason, Lar took over the block. That's it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the reason given by him for removing it? On what basis did Samsara & pschemp revert? El_C 00:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He argued that the sources didn't call it a concentration camp, and he was right. I don't know why Samsara and pschemp reverted him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We reverted to stop an edit war while which term was correct was being worked out. Since when is it crime to stop an edit war so discussion can happen? That is the action that got Samsara and I labeled as a right-wing admin (ie. right wing in German means neo-nazi). Once again, the content is irrelevent, its the experimenting with Wikipedia and subsequent suspicion cast on people trying to improve an article that was his violation. And once again, the original block didn't happen until after the content dispute was over and the current article with NONE of those words was agreed on. I want a personal apology for his actions as they led to two innocent admins being accused of being a right-wing neo-nazi. I can' think of anything more disruptive and harmful. pschemp | talk 00:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How can reverting someone stop an edit war? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was he who was reverting without discussion. And he who broke 3RR without discussion. Stoping reverts between him and Burke's Peerage is sensible while working to come to a consensus. pschemp | talk 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So, on what (content-related?) grounds did you revert him? El_C 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't related to content. I don't give a crap what term is used, nor did I ever. I just wanted the constant reverting between him and Burke's to stop while the correct term was worked out. Which it was, and its now not an issue since everyone agrees on the current article. pschemp | talk 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you issue protection, or did you only revert to Burke's version (the original version?). El_C 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No one had to protect because KarlV broke 3RR. It never got to the point where protection was needed. I suppose I could have protected but instead i asked him to stop reverting. I always think of protection as the very last resort. pschemp | talk 00:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But you still reverted to Burke's version (the original version?) ? El_C 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, while the discussion was going on. Since when is that a crime? The world won't stop because something is incorrect while the issue is worked on. That version didn't even last the night. This is a wiki for God's sake, things change. I ended up changing it myself later as the discussion went on. pschemp | talk 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a crime, I'm only trying to doublecheck the facts, still (i.e. the original version?). El_C 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm a bit short with you, but if you work through the edit history of the original article, its pretty clear who edited what when. I'm a bit upset with being labeled a right-winger for trying to do the correct thing, thus my patience is worn. pschemp | talk 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply do not have hours to spare to methodically research this dispute, which is why I'm trying to circumvent that lengthy process by asking questions from the pertinent parties. El_C 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case you may also want to note that this is the first time either Samsara or I have ever edited an article even remotely related to concentration or internment camps or anything in that genre. Not to mention we both endorsed the current article which uses totally idfferent terms. Not exactly the actions of people pushing right wing agendas. pschemp | talk 02:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reflect a moment on why this discussion got so long. It was because people did not research their facts before they went to battle. It could happen to you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to discussion

See [72]. I'm sorry that there is now no other place to view those changes, or to reply. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a place to view it, in that diff, for example. Reviving that entire thread (which I have already read) is too taxing for this board. El_C 00:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, you say above that you weren't aware of the previous discussion, but you commented on it on the German Wikipedia. Can you explain, or have I misunderstood something? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm... No? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to edit the archive. You've added: "All it would have taken for the dispute to be settled without upheaval was for KarlV to supply two reputable sources that give a definition of concentration camp that would have put that article straight. The fact that he made no such suggestion and simply relied on his claim that the article (concentration camp) was wrong shows his non-constructive attitude that is being discussed here."

Are you aware that it is you who must supply a source showing it is a concentration camp; not Karl to show that it isn't? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to his attitude on improving articles. Read again and be enlightened. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I did read it. All Karl had to do was cite the sources, which he did. They call it an internment camp. He called it an internment camp. He doesn't need to supply a definition of concentration camp. No one was calling it a concentration camp. You seem to have misunderstood our content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand that the whole terminology issue has already been worked out. And I'm sorry but the Guardian did have the words concentration camp in it. Again, this isn't about the content, its about the disruptive manner KarlV acted in. pschemp | talk 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian did not say it was a concentration camp. Please show me a diff if you're saying otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember the Guardian did use some sensationalistic terms ("torture camp" if not concentration camp), but that doesn't make those terms neutral phrasing suitable for the article intro. In fact IIRC when the term was added to the article on de, the article also got added to the German category meaning "internment camps". Btw, I got an email from KarlV that I'll summarize later. I let it slide because the discussion had gone off the radar and he said in his email that he'd be away for a month. Phr (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See the quotes below for where the term was used, however this bears repeating: I didn't say here it was the correct term to use for our article. I'm just saying that no one pulled the term out of their ass. Thus subsequent insinuations that anyone who reverted to that term is a right-winger are incorrect and slanderous. pschemp | talk 01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you have completely failed to understand what I wrote. I am not defending the wording. That was resolved long ago. The issue I am bringing up is that KarlV stated that the concentration camp article was inaccurate (by his reading, I am not an expert on the subject), yet made no attempt to fix it, which should have been any bona fide editor's first instinct. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you show where KarlV argued that the concentration camp article was inaccurate? El_C 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[73] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he is asking for a source to demonstrate that this camp was called "concentration camp." El_C 00:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say in that link that the concentration camp article is wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So what is your concern? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The concern is that I originally asked you to "show where KarlV argued that the concentration camp article was inaccurate," whereas the diff you provided does not appear to show this. El_C 01:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

pschemp:"And I'm sorry but the Guardian did have the words concentration camp in it" Technically this is true. All 3 guardian refs in the article mention the term:

Declassified Whitehall papers show that members of the Labour government of the day went to great lengths to hide the ill-treatment, in part, as one minister wrote, to conceal "the fact that we are alleged to have treated internees I the German concentration camps". [74]

There was also what the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Frank Pakenham, later to become Lord Longford, described as "the fact that we are alleged to have treated internees in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps" [75]

As one minister of the day wrote, as few people as possible should be aware that British authorities had treated prisoners "in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps". [76]

However, the Guardian never adopted the term to label the Bad Nenndorf internment camp, and if you look closely, neither did Frank Pakenham, the minister in question. --tickle me 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was an the correct term for our article. I'm just saying that no one pulled the term out of their ass. Thus subsequent insinuations that anyone who reverted to that term is a right-winger are incorrect and slanderous. pschemp | talk 01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"I never said it was an the correct term for our article": Some quotes of yours:

Um, no government calls anything a concentration camp, even when it fits the definition. Its too much a charged word. Should we bow to their cowardice and POV? What I'm saying here, is that we shouldn't be replicating the bias of sources. That does no good for Wikipedia.

"As one minister of the day wrote, as few people as possible should be aware that British authorities had treated prisoners "in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps"". Now that is a direct quote from one of the sources, and although the facts are hedged upon, calling it a concentration camp is exactly what that minister did.

that's from one of the sources already listed, not anything I just made up or is unreliable. It isn't OR to call something what it is. matching something with its definition is not OR either. How does this not fit the definition of concentration camp?

--tickle me 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tickle me go jump in the lake. I was referring to this discussion. As a person I am allowed to work through what is correct and change my mind. If you notice, I eventually edited the article to NOT include concentration camp. And it does fit the definition, but that's OR so we didn't use it. Give it up on the content, its already been worked out.

Samsara, I asked indeed for you to be taken to task, you didn't react then. However, you edited Archive126 now, a funny thing to do. You wrote:

""Bollocks. The creator of that passage is User:I like Burke's Peerage [77] and you would know this if you had bothered to check my contribs. I'm increasingly sceptical of your selective use of evidence and that of several other editors here."

Do I understand you correctly assuming that you want me to elaborate on this issue? --tickle me 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, but at this point no one cares about your still continual rants about a content issue that has already been decided. That's the wiki process. Live with it. BTW you seem to be accusing people of being right-wingers again. You might want to stop that behavior. pschemp | talk

(moved here by --tickle me 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)tickle me)
If by elaborate you mean that you're going to correct your previous erroneous statements, sure I'd appreciate that. If you mean that you're going to tell us further versions of events that deviate from the truth, I'm happy for you to remain silent. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly where did I deviate from the truth? When I listed Bad Nenndorf edits, showing that Burkes did the initial forgery, while you did the polishing? (0, ctrl+F for "Samsara polishes it") --tickle me 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

--tickle me 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Above you just repeated that I should be taken to task, which refers to your earlier statement, Creator of the forgery's first, yet uncut version is User:Samsara, he should be taken to task, that you have never corrected. So apparently, you stand by your statement, which I have shown to be incorrect, yet you simultaneously deny that same statement. What is one to make of you? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"correct your previous erroneous statements" / "What is one to make of you? ": What am I to make of you? I corrected that a week ago. Besides, the mistake occured because pschemp withheld information, when I asked her for the forgery's originator. She chose not to tell me and got rude. She changed her mind though, when Slim asked. As soon as pschemp did tell what she knew, I corrected my error.

Incidentally, Slim asked you this on 06:16, 4/8/06:

"And then Samsara tidied the English, [1] adding that the newspaper had provided no evidence, which means he must have read the article. Perhaps Samsara could say which sentences of that newspaper article implied that there were other such camps. That would clear up the mystery."

She erred somewhat with the diff she provided, so she asked the right question possibly for the wrong reason. Is it that because you never answered? Would you mind clearing up the mistery now? I provide the correct diffs again, as I did earlier:

Why did you add a title to the forgery's reference, and why did you add a redeeming qualifier? Both of which you could only do for having read and understood the article Burke had distorted, making pass a neo-Nazi allegation as being a highly reputable newspaper's report. And so you said in German WP:

Ich bin dann die Quellen durchgegangen, um sicherzustellen, dass auch alle Statements durch Quellen untermauert sind

(I then perused the sources to make sure that absolutely all statements are backed by sources)

--tickle me 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You must really like dead horses. pschemp | talk 03:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Por si las moscas: Again, I ask all repliers to cite and quote, not to interpost. --tickle me 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You left it unmodified on ANI (now in archives), and pschemp had no obligation to do research on your behalf. You could have checked my contribs and got the answer straight away.

[X] You want to check the definition of "forgery".

Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're taking statements out of context. Yes, I went through the statements in the intent of removing any that would turn out to be unsupported by the sources. You can go and read the sources yourself if you care. That's why I provided inline references. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, stop interposting and don't edit what I wrote! If you want to argue about the semantics of "auch alle" you're welcome. --tickle me 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, excuse me?

I strongly appreciate people’s attempts to improve Bad Nenndorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but shouldn’t you be posting on Talk:Bad Nenndorf (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) for that? By the way, is there consensus on what to do with KarlV yet? If not, perhaps a quick survey of condensed opinions (i. e., without several days of threaded discussion in between) might at least provide an estimate of what remains to be dealt with, apart from issues with other editors’ behaviour and the article, of course. —xyzzy_n 01:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was the first time that he should remain blocked. I don't see anyone new in here saying he should be unblocked. pschemp | talk 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"I strongly appreciate people’s attempts to improve Bad Nenndorf...": Nobody's trying - it has been done already, thanks to Karl, among others. Now it's up to evaluate Karl's behaviour's propriety when dealing with Burke, pschemp and Samsara - so their behaviour's propriety is under scrutiny too. --tickle me 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go, accusing people again. How tiresome. pschemp | talk 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Bret John

Bret John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who may be at least a meatpuppet of User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com) is creating hoax articles at a rather alarming rate. Almost everyone of these articles are up for AfD or prod'ded; the one that has turned out to be true (Beacon House School System, Pakistan) has credibility issues because of his reputation. He's already created a new article (Rock N' Roll Racing (animated series)) that I'm probably going to have to AfD as well, since if I prod it, an anonymous user will just remove it. He's been a problem for at least five days now; action should be taken against him. Danny Lilithborne 23:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Integrity of the ANI archives

For various reasons I have the last few ANI archives on my watchlist. Several times people have inserted material into the discussions, which I have reverted. It seems to me the archives should be a record of what was said, not what one wishes was said. Samsara has added material to Archive126 relating to the KarlIV saga; I reverted. He told me that he considers it slander and will continue to alter the archive. I think he has a fair complaint in that things were said about him that he didn't have a chance to respond to; I also think archives should be archives. However, I'm not looking for a fight. I bring this to the attention of the group for consideration. Thanks. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure that our current archiving rate is appropriate for issues like this. The thread was huge, no one wants to read though it again, but the issue is current. It is unfortunate that it got archived, but changing it and then putting a note up about the changes doesn't bother me in the least. The changes are transparent that way. Reverting someones comments is never a good idea. pschemp | talk 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, if a thread is accidentally archived instead of modifying the archive either the thread should be moved over from the archive or a new thread should be created with a link at the top to the proper section of the archive where the original thread was, the latter is simpler but the former would assure that the archived posts are read by people who come late into the conversation. There should be no need for anyone to directly edit an archived post other than to possibly move it out or fix something that causes a display issue or something like that. If people are editing archives I'd suggest leaving a note on their talk page and reverting the change (note I said revert not rollback since rollback would be improper for this situation) If it can be reasonably assumed that they saw the note and are still editing the archives then block them since they'd then be ruining the integrity of even having an archive. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of leaving the archives unmodified. If an old discussion needs to be revived, paste it from the archive into ANI or into a new ANI sub-page. I think a sub-page is appropriate in this case given the length of the dicussion. Phr (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

it was pasted, and SlimVirgin removed it. pschemp | talk 01:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was the full discussion, good for Slim, two thumbs up. If it was a archive link, then it should be reverted. I can't find the diff. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell me why archives aren't protected? --mboverload@ 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that multiple people must edit the page to keep ANI from turning into one of those giant cell thingies from the stupid Jap/Chinese movies. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Curpsbot replacement?

Looks like our favorite pagemove vandal is back with a vengeance; any chance of getting something useful running to stop these guys earlier? Kirill Lokshin 01:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We need a pagemove velocity limit in the MediaWiki code. I'll ask the devs if they have any objection to this. Phr (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, bots don't monitor pagemoves? This section on the WP:WOW talk page says that a bot monitors pagemoves, limiting the destruction that Willy could wreck. Hbdragon88 05:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That's CURPSBOT. Which is missing in action.

POV revert and blanking war at Bob Brinker

Bob Brinker could use an admin/mediator again, to break up a months long edit war, complete with multiple daily removal, reinsertion, removal, etc., of three links that are not 100% positive about Brinker. Links have also been vandalized to make them not work. I attempted to mediate, without success. Some discussion has begun, but even other's comments on the talk page are edited or removed completely. Nearly all of the reverting and removal is done by anon IP accounts, without comment. I suggest semi-protection, to stop the anon-without-comment editing, and suggest mediation that is beyond my ability. ॐ Priyanath 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppets at Talk:Susan Polgar

I have a strong suspicion that the anon IP posting at Talk:Susan Polgar is the banned User:Amorrow. FloNight would know more about this. Phr (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Amorrow at work. i semi-protected the article. Looks like he has been busy. I think he has started several articles and one Mfd. --FloNight ^talk 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User page and talk page messages from retired/departed users

Occasionally I will see a comment that's of interest, click on the username to look at his/her user page or talk page, and find a message indicating that the user has left Wikipedia permanently. This always suddens me, but is of greater concern when the page not only indicates that the particular user has departed, but urges others to leave the project as well.

Are "retired"/"departed" users permitted to leave messages on their userpages or talk pages expressing their disgruntlement with the project and encouraging other users to leave as well? Should the message be left up for a short time so friends will know what happened to the person, and then blanked? Is there, or should there be, any policy on this issue? Newyorkbrad 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly think it matters; good byes have far less weight than the people leaving them realize. --Cyde Weys 02:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No reason to treat the user page of someone who has "left" the project any differently than a normal user page. Unless there is something particularly toxic on it, simply leave it alone. - brenneman ^{L} 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Let the goodbye note stay. It could maybe be argued that having statements encouraging others to leave the project is counterproductive, but, as Cyde says, very few read those notes, and second, deleting stuff like that has the potential of stirring up more hate and bickering from the departed wikipedian: 1) Someone leaves and writes a note about why, maybe that the admins here suck. 2) An admin deletes said note. 3) The displeased wikipedian notices it and re-creates the page along with a flaming note on WP:AN and god knows where else about how this proves his point and how wikipedia is ran by tyrants, etc 4)Flaming and silly debates ensues. It's not worth it. Shanes 02:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone leaves with a reason, there is nothing against others to know that reason. If we would know why good editors are leaving wikipedia, we actually would be able to improve it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Eddie Johnson (basketball)

Edward "Fast Eddie" Johnson Jr., a former NBA basketball player was arrested for pedophilia. Eddie Johnson (basketball) was NOT arrested for pedophilia. Unfortunately, the accusation has made it's way to the wrong page. The current page is correct but there are history's that have the false accusation. Per Living Bio's I have seen entries with libelous claims get permanently deleted. I am not sure if this is policy or not but it may deserve a look. I am not sure if regular admins can do this or if it's a bureaucrats job. Someone should go through the hisotry and permanently delete the entries with the false accusation content. --Tbeatty 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a libelous claim -- it's an obvious and understandable mistake. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆
  • Granted, it doesn't meet the definition of libel because it lacks malicious intent but it is due to a non-thorough check of sources. Due diligence was not done before the accusation was made. There is no need to retain that false history on a living persons bio. It is an honest mistake of a wikipedia editor but a mistake nonetheless that does not need to follow the subject into eternity. No one should be able to get a page that accuses him of child molestation. This has happened before and the result was delete. Only living person bio's get this specific treatment. --Tbeatty 05:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon user at 24.14.151.87

The user at this IP address (Comcast in the Chicago area) has admitted to being a student at Neuqua Valley High School and has vandalized that page several times. He or she has had those edits reverted by me, among others (as the page is on my watchlist), but this user has, for whatever, reason, decided to single me out and vandalized my user page and user talk page on multiple occasions. This led, yesterday, to protection of that IP address's user talk page and a 24 hour block on that IP address. I have attempted to be civil, and have been rebuffed at every turn. As soon as the ban expired, the user's single edit since was to go BACK to my user talk page and make snide remarks, which I have since removed. What I am asking for, if possible, is monitoring of further edits from this IP address, as I can't keep a constant eye on my own user page and the other pages on my watch list (not if I'm going to keep my day job anyway :). Please let me know if this is possible, as I do feel it's warranted - the behavior pattern has been established and I feel it may continue in the near future. --JohnDBuell 04:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) User_talk:JohnDBuell

Bot spamming an article need outside links blacklisted

His Dark Materials is being spamed by a bot. We need these external advertising links blacklisted to help prevent this. Here are some examples that I can find [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93] SirGrant 04:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just want to note that they are using either zombie PC's or IP spoofing or something like that because each vandalism edit comes from a different IP so blocking in this case isn't working we really need the URL's blacklisted so they can't be advertised SirGrant 04:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

zomg everyone look at da GoldToeMarionette case!!111oen

Someone's trying to add that garbage again. I gotta admit, I give (her/him) credit for persistance, but it's been, what, a month now since the block and (s)he is still going on about it being a bad CheckUser? Sockpuppet bashing time, anyone? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless some admins want to reconsider the exhaustion of community patience ban I'm pretty sure he's under, User:PoolGuy and his socks should be reverted as edits by a banned user. He creates lots of sockpuppets, and usually spams a similar manifesto. Kevin_b_er 05:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Recall redux

(No, not Redux. A fine 'crat.) FYI, there's a lively discussion going on about the recall process at Category talk:Administrators open to recall - may you be aware of it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)