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

Crum375 meatpuppeting on WP:LAYOUT

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

---

Result: Widely acknowledged as true, good luck finding anyone who cares. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

---

SlimVirgin has been edit warring on the layout guideline page. She wants an expansive view of "see also" sections. She started nitpicking the section in December. Earlier this week she made an undiscussed change [1] and it was reverted. Today she inserted disputed text.[2] The text she proposed two days earlier on the talk page had ZERO positive remarks before she edited the page. Two editors told her this was disputed text.[3], [4]. Her text was removed, and she reverted.[5]. She was called out for edit warring and inserting non-consensus text again [6]. When it was removed again, she made a disruptive WP:POINT removal of the admonition not to make see also into a link farm.[7]. This material has, in one form or another, been in the guideline for nearly two and a half years.[8] When this edit was reverted as POINTy, rather than go through another revert, she had Crum375 come by and perform the edit for her.[9].

This pattern of gaming revert wars by SlimVirgin and Crum375 is well known. Crum375 has never edited this page. Crum375 has never edited this talk page. Quite simply, Crum375 has no dog in that fight and is there to act as a warring proxy so SlimVirgin doesn't cross 3RR. This behavior is the definition of meatpuppetry. This behavior is deliberately gaming 3RR to make a disruptive pointy edit.

Something needs to be done to break up this tag team meatpuppetry. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 08:29, February 17, 2008 (UTC)

Admin action suggested? Any misuse of admin powers? Do you seriously want them blocked for meatpuppetry? (I strongly object to the removal of the section that represents a long-standing consensus as well, as would most people, I think, but seriously - meatpuppetry?) Relata refero (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly no abuse of admin powers, but I have to say I'm curious about the pattern of editing you describe. I've seen other similar reports about these editors; I'd be interested to know what the story is here. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have that page, along with most policies and guidelines, on my watchlist, and have been following the issues there. I happen to believe that "See also" contents depend on editor discretion and talk page consensus, not on rigid rules. I made an edit to that effect, noting my opinion in my edit summary. This was not based on any communication or coordination with anyone. If Schmucky has a problem with my edit, the article's talk page is a better place to address it than here. Crum375 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat is in fact saying he has a problem with what he perceives as meat-puppetry, rather than merely a problem with that specific page. The problem is that shared interests leads to the appearance of meat-puppetry among people who agree and the appearance of wiki-stalking among those who disagree. One must AGF as much as possible or one will see conspiracies everywhere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Crum. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are (at least) three issues here. First, as an experienced editor, SlimVirgin must know that WP:3RR doesn't allow her to revert three times, particularly without consensus. (In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.) After SV reached three reverts, Crum375 appeared. Second, SV often claims "stalking" whenever someone else edits an article for the first time;[10][11] Crum375 had never edited WP:GTL before. Third, this type of editing is occurring on other guideline and policy pages, for example WP:CITE,[12] where SV even started a section heading naming another editor to discuss sockpuppetry (subsequently changed when I pointed out SV's violation of WP:AGF and WP:TALK [13]). There appears to be a double standard; the WP:3RR violations and SV's accusations of "wikistalking" and sockpuppetry should stop, and extra eyes are needed on these policy and guideline pages, where ownership tendencies are apparent (reference the numerous past similar issues at WP:V, WP:RS and others). Policy and guideline pages benefit from stability, yet SV edit wars on them to instate her preferred versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 and SlimVirgin have established this pattern dozens of times before. Edit wars are bad. Meatpuppetry, even the appearance of it, is bad. I don't think it is out of line for administrator intervention to tell these two to stay out of each others edit wars. If one sees the other in "trouble", they can use the talk page to gain consensus rather than continue the poor behavior of edit warring. Two simple and well established rules: 1. Don't edit war. 2. Don't edit war for your friends. Why should this pair be immune to that? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think we should assume good faith here, the Crum375 and SlimVirgin accounts do overlap a lot in their editing interests, and invariably back each other up in editing disputes. However, these accounts are probably just two close friends who talk to each other, not the same person. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not alleging they are the same person. Close friends who talk to each other and whose interests overlap should not be tag team edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ah, sorry, I misread your post. I agree that since Crum375 has never made an edit to that page or its talkpage before intervening in this current dispute to revert for his friend, the claim that he "had it on his watchlist" is highly unlikely. I believe that he either followed another editor's contributions to this page, or was contacted directly and asked to intervene. Any other hypothesis is pushing AGF to the point of credulity. Therefore if revert-warring on this guideline continues, SlimVirgin and Crum375 should be regarded as a single account. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Here's witchhunt #3141529. Will ^(talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requiring editors to play fair isn't a witch hunt. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That Crum is Slim's meatpuppet most of the time, I think has been said by various people, many times before. Good luck getting anything done about it, though :) 'Meatpuppet' is a controversial word if you think about it, and it's usually used towards new users or those who work on a very limited type of articles. Merkinsmum 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Slim's postings are far more subtle, cogent, and bright than Crum's, so I just can't imagine they're the same person. There's too much stylistic difference. The duckling editing is obvious—Crum will show up whenever she does, on disputes. I basically agree with Merkinsmum and earlier comments: most everybody knows he follows her around, and that they must communicate off-site (which isn't disallowed).

But what to do? Admit they have a six-revert rule, and...? *Shrugs.* I mean, really, what can you do? You can't police that stuff.

I think it more important that people know Crum's signature. Slim remains herself: an intelligent, informed, and sometimes maddening presence on policy. Crum is a duckling—ignore his edits, because it's always "per her." That's my policy. Marskell (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"what can you do? You can't police that stuff." If this behavior is recognized and it's bad, then it's blockable. It's disruptive, it's pointy, it's 3RR, it's gaming. 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. If Crum and Slim are acting together and they go over 3RR, collectively, then block one or both. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Are you an admin? Want to watch their edits together? Block on the first breach of 3RR? Feel free. Marskell (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a recent example from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Animal Liberation Front references, Crum375's sole contribution to the discussion was a post that began with - "I think SV is right" Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point was lost in the shuffle; even without Crum's additions, SlimVirgin edit wars on policy and guideline pages. WP:3RR is not an invitation for SV to revert three times; talk page discussion was underway, and there was no consensus for her version. The double standard troubles regular editors like me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The solution is aptly described in User:Dmcdevit/On edit warring: "Block for edit warring, not 3RR." The double standard troubles me too. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack, and somewhat ironic given the claims of meatpuppetry. Sandy, I thought you and I had agreed to stay out of each other's way. There were 11 editors on that guideline's talk page wanting a change; just because you didn't get your own way doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to deprive you of it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice dodge SV. You're defending yourself by putting Sandy on offense based on the content dispute. What is at issue here is the behavior of serial tag-team edit-warring. Care to comment on the behavior? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Schmucky, if anyone's behavior needs correction it's yours: you start an ANI thread about me for having posted an edit expressing my view to an article on my watchlist, with an appropriate edit summary. If you don't like my edit, the proper place to address it is on the article's talk page, not here. Crum375 (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking your bait to defend myself Crum. You didn't use the talk page. You dived straight into an edit war to defend SV. This is a pattern that has occurred dozens of times, and I'm calling you on it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I wasn't "defending" anyone, and I didn't see a need to add anything to the talk page, as my edit summary said all that was needed to explain my view. You, on the other hand, attacked me for my edit, with no evidence to back your assertions, and a complete lack of good faith. That is behavior that requires correction. Crum375 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try and defuse this.

'No evidence' is absolutely correct, it was just a single example. However, I fancy it's happened to most people who've disagreed with SV on something. I am not currently in a dispute with her, and I certainly know I wouldn't win a dispute that descended to reverts, so it doesn't affect me; but it is true that it appears to be a pattern of behaviour on your part. If that is a mistaken impression, as it well may be, since I haven't studied your behaviour, only noticed it a half-dozen times, I apologise. However, I would be very careful about demanding evidence; I imagine it might be possible to check over a six month period what percentage of times SV reverted to the limit you've turned up to take it over the limit. (There are several alternative methods I can vagely think of.)

You have four options: deny you have a tendency to do that, throwing around accusations of bad faith and demanding evidence; say you're concerned that this is generally believed, and say you'll look out for signs of it happening; admit that you have this tendency, and that its because you trust SV to find difficult situations, to make the right calls in those situations, and what's wrong with that; or to just not comment any more, because there's nothing anyone could do. I would strongly recommend the third or fourth options, rather than the first, which might just madden people enough to start thinking about evidence.

Now, I go, because there really is nothing to be done here. I knew I should have closed this earlier. Relata refero (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Schmucky, you made 3 reverts of your own in about 10 hours. Takes two to tango. Gimmetrow 06:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case it took 3. But this is a single instance where I am involved with those two. What I pointed out, and what several others have agreed with, is that this is pattern behavior by SV and Crum. That's why it's an incident needing community attention, and not just a one-off dispute. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

And I'm saying that you have your own reversion issues in this very dispute, and you were the only one reverting SV. Gimmetrow 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? Everyone knows that Crum follows SV around, everyone knows that SV tends to over-revert because she never "loses" editwars while Crum's around, everyone, apparently except Schmucky, knows that nothing's ever going to be done about it, because its not technically illegal, and because SV's paid dues. Can I close this before people begin snapping at each other worse than they are already? Relata refero (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(od) As he contacted me, I must admit that I came down rather hard on Crum. I don't suggest ignoring the sum of his contributions here and I don't mean to denigrate mainspace contributions he has made independent of Slim. But there is zero daylight between these two editors on policy, and when they do run up to more than three reverts in tandem, it should be called out. (Gimme does point out the obvious: you can't have an edit war alone, Schmucky. My own record, admittedly, is not umblemished on P&Gs.)

"It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack." I must address this. TimV and I rarely interact and it would be hard to construct an argument that we conspire. I do, often, wind up on discussion pages with Sandy. But I never, ever follow her to revert disputes. I have never gone to the medical articles she works on, for instance, even when I know she's having difficulty. I make a point of not doing so, precisely because people view us as friends. I've actually been watching the LAYOUT dispute unfold on my watchlist, and haven't commented for this reason. It would be wise, Crum, to adopt a similar strategy. Marskell (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Marskell for your partial retraction. I believe that editing Wikipedia should be a fun process — I can't see another good reason for investing a lot of effort over a long time for free. If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously. I do agree that canvassing of others for help, e.g. by putting out a call on IRC or elsewhere, is wrong, especially if the others have no particular interest in the issue. I don't see a problem with like-minded editors working on a given entry, however, if this is something they are interested in and enjoy doing. Crum375 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Crum, is that you seem to suddenly have a strong opinion whenever Slim gets into a revert dispute. Schmucky is right, no doubt: a look at your contribs would turn up dozens of examples of this sort. Between you, she, and Jayjg, there's likely hundreds. A reasonable person is going to call this gaming of 3RR.

Simply offering an opinion in support of a wiki-friend is not something I have a problem with, as far as it goes. It's what human beings tend to do. But reverting has specific policy implications. I'd advise, bland as it sounds, that you pause and ask yourself whether you should revert to Slim the next time you notice something like this (or have it pointed out). Maybe, instead, you should just move along and leave it. As I've just discussed with you off-site, I don't think you're insensible to the fact that people view you and Slim as tandem reverters, and I don't think you're unconcerned. Marskell (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, you need to stop the poison. This is one of several poisonous threads you've either started about me or gleefully joined in. It has been going on ever since I opposed you changing the content policies many months ago. Since then I've had nothing but the drip, drip, drip of toxicity from you, SandyGeorgia, and Tim, and from one or two other of your friends, but especially from you and SG. I would say there's much less harm in following someone's edits to articles than turning up, as you do, to attack people simply because your friend disagrees with them about a content issue or admin action. If I'm wrong about this, I hope you'll prove me wrong in future.

That's hopefully all I have to say about this. Crum is a good editor, and a kind, decent, and intelligent human being, who does not deserve the abuse you've heaped on him in this thread. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not start this thread and I'm not participating gleefully. Schmucky raised a specific concern: gaming 3RR. It's valid, in this case. My first comment re Crum was obviously intemperate, and I did retract in part.

Anyway, if you're concerned about people dealing in poison, I'd start at home. Marskell (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously. Thank you for that clarification, Crum, as I may have misunderstood your position previously on other pages, where I have plenty to contribute. Since SlimVirgin has left inappropriate and threatening warnings on my talk page about "personal attacks" (which have never occurred),[14] it appears that this discussion is very upsetting to her and would best be wrapped up. It's surprising that an admin considers discussion initiated by someone else on ANI of her three reverts in three hours as a personal attack. I've reviewed this thread and am unable to find any instance of a personal attack by me, but do find examples of failure to assume good faith in SlimVirgin's false accusations. I hope admins reading this will consider the double standard the next time they're inclined to block another editor for edit warring, and I'm dismayed to see that SlimVirgin has continued unfounded accusations on other policy talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SV accused someone who didn't let her get her way of committing a personal attack? I'd say these tactics by SV and Crum are getting old. Yes, this is an implied warning that this behavior of theirs needs to stop. Cla68 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia needs a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" policy. I've seen rank and file editors summarily banned for the sort of behavior that gets explained away when people higher up the pecking order do it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern here was not so much the meatpuppetry that was raised originally by Schmucky as the double standard tolerated wrt edit warring. The change to WP:LAYOUT arose out of a content dispute SlimVirgin was having at Keith Mann;[15] expressing concern about an admin edit warring to change guideline/policy when engaged in a content dispute is not WP:LAME.[16] The false accusations of a "personal attack" on my talk page are a new concern; I'd like to see SV use diffs more often to back her allegations. That another policy change is proposed at WP:V because of content disputes arising in other Animal Liberation Front-related articles is also a concern. Repeating, more eyes needed on policy and guidelines pages, to help avoid edit warring and ownership issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia, there is absolutely a double standard regarding the edit warring of olde-tyme-valued-contributers. As a community we need to either decide that's what we want or decide that's what we don't want. Right now it's not entirely clear (consensus may be changing). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, how dare you continue this extreme bad faith? As you know very well, the proposal for change at LAYOUT was not started by me. It was started by Sean's Potato Business supported by CrZTgR and Boracay Bill. [17] All I did was agree with them, because I had seen Threeafterthree a few weeks earlier go systematically through a bunch of articles removing See also links for no reason. He was even removing links that weren't in the article, but that he thought ought to be -- though he didn't add them; he just removed them from See also, citing LAYOUT in the edit summaries. Altogether about 11 editors on that page wanted that change.

This is exactly what you did to Zeraeph. Constant needling and personal comments about her to other editors until you got her into a position where she was so upset, she started lashing out at you. Then you used that to get her banned. If you want yet another ArbCom case, Sandy, you're heading in the right direction. I hope instead you'll accept my proposal of yesterday that we simply try to avoid each other instead. It's a big encyclopedia.

I've also changed the attack header to this thread. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing diffs may help refresh memory. Here is the talk page where you started the discussion at WP:GTL about the long-standing guideline during a dispute at Keith Mann. Please stop the personal attacks on me and repeating the tale that I got Zeraeph banned. Remember, I didn't want the ArbCom, I didn't want her banned, I wanted escalating sanctions;[18] you put up roadblocks to sanctions, and right after I put up a very generous compromise and then announced I would be busy with my family for several hours,[19] the ANI thread was closed (I believe that was supported by Crum and the thread was closed by Jossi) and the issue went to Arbcom, against my wishes and better judgment, as I knew the evidence and what would ensue.[20] I'm sure when you write these things, you believe them to be true; please review history and diffs before making unfounded allegations and attacks on me, as the community tires of rehashing old history. Had you supported or allowed reasonable sanctions, that whole situation might have been avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply to the unfounded accusation of personal attacks on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) A look at Keith Mann leads me to assess it as being a bit on the hagiographic. That's typical of articles with advocacy wikiprojects standing over them, and unsurprising considering that of the sixteen cited works, six are autobiographical and three are from advocacy groups on his side. But that's neither here nor there. More relevant is that the "see also" references all appear in the big navbox, so either the latter is excessively comprehensive, or the "see also" section is redundant. Guideline or no guideline, something in the current layout of the article ought to give.

What really bugs me is that this is yet another instance of people changing a policy/guideline to gain traction in a dispute. I've been in another of these, with the same people no less, and in my opinion it is destructive of any kind of order within the project. Policies and guidelines should be stable, or else they are useless. WP:BOLD, applied to policies and guidelines, is an invitation to abuses; it makes the "solution" for any dispute over a "rule" spread the dispute to the rule itself. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Like all editors, SlimVirgin and Crum375 sometimes agree, sometimes do not. I've seen them have very serious disagreements about articles in the past. It seems that they are in agreement about WP:LAYOUT. Editors agreeing is not "meatpuppeting". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please provide a link to "SlimVirgin and Crum375 [having] very serious disagreements about articles in the past." Thanks. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Even Dan Tobias and I disagree sometimes. Well, actually we disagree a lot. None of that seems to be to the point. The accusation is that a person-- a friend, an ally, a conspirator, what-have-you-- stepped forward to take over from SlimVirgin when she was about to run over the 3RR limit. That the same person did not assist in some other circumstance is irrelevant; it should not be that we are excused from our sinning because we aren't consistent about it! Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR applies to individuals, not groups of people. If Crum agrees with Slim's edits, and disagrees with a person reverting her, then he is not "meatpuppeting" in expressing his beliefs via his edits. A "meatpuppet" is a non-Wikipedian recruited to do a Wikipedian's bidding. Slim and Crum are both longterm independent editors, each with their own unique interests. When two independent editors agree that a particular article version is a better one, it is not a "sin" for them to express that view via their edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That they may have disagreed in the past, even seriously, isn't relevant to the issue at hand (which is tandem reverting on an article Crum had never edited before), but I'm relieved to see now that both Jayjg and Crum375 have noted that editors sometimes have similar interests and edit similar articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, it would be wonderful if I could get every person who ever reverted me on an article they'd never edited before sanctioned as a "meatpuppet". Look here, User:Tiamut did this exact thing to me, just two days ago.[21] I was involved in content disagreement with Nishidani, and suddenly Tiamut shows up to revert for him. But I didn't come running to AN/I, complaining about her being a "meatpuppet". Do you think I should have? Because if this is the new standard, I should have no difficulty getting at least a half dozen people sanctioned as "meatpuppets" over the next month. And then my editing would be so much easier. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, how do you feel about SlimVirgin falsely accusing SandyGeorgia of personal attacks? Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do come running to AN/I or to WP:AE. For all we know, there may be some kind of off-wiki coordination, perhaps a mailing list of some sort. Relata refero (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, your other examples do not have dozens of previous instances of the exact same tag-teaming behavior that SV and Crum have. I mean, there seems to be a lot of "ho hum, of course they do and it's well known that they do, but who cares" responses here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

As I said 48 hours ago, yes, that is the general attitude. Now can I close this thread? Relata refero (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that a lot of people don't care that it's happening, so much as it's difficult to do much about it. How's about just a polite suggestion to Slim and Crum on this board, that perhaps they could try not to edit in a way that could be and has been frequently seen as meatpuppetry? Whether it is or not, there's the perception by many that it is, and so maybe they could try to avoid that appearance for much of the time, much as an admin might avoid blocking someone with whom they'd had many previous disputes themselves (to give an unrelated example), as it may appear malicious to the person. That is assuming people care what others think. For instance I have people I like on wiki but I wouldn't read their contribs and step in to back them up in every dispute they were having, or the value of my opinion is lessened. But if I think something really wrong is being done to them I step in, then I think it gives more of the sense of an outside view. Hope you all get my point lol. Merkinsmum 14:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merkinsum, Marskell already covered that (polite suggestion to Slim and Crum about their editing patterns to avoid the perception of tandem reverting) pretty well. I've covered my concern that there's a double standard wrt WP:3RR (that most editors would be blocked for three reverts in three hours when talk page discussion is ongoing and there is no consensus). Crum375 and Jayjg have both put to bed the issues of ownership and "wikistalking" that sometimes surface when others edit articles SlimVirgin is editing, by clearly stating anyone can edit an article where they have something to contribute. So the only remaining issue I have here are the false allegations of a personal attack on my talk page, but I have no problem with closing this thread now Relata refero, since I don't expect much to happen on that front and I think this discussion has run its course. I'm glad these threads aren't being closed precipitously and that discussion can run its course; I've been on the receiving end of threads closed prematurely right after I announced I'd be busy with my family for just a few hours. Since the concerns about meatpuppetry were raised by Schmucky the Cat, I wonder if s/he considers the matter resolved, and whether the thread should be closed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, if you think Jay and Crum have put the issue to bed, then you are more easily satisfied than I. I merely think that it is unlikely that anyone will be able to do anything about it.

About closing the thread, yes, certainly, I'll wait for Schmucky to conclude. Relata refero (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Put to sleep, no. But this conversation has exhausted its usefulness, so I think it best to close. There's a possible thread for WT:3RR in here somewhere. Marskell (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thread started. Marskell (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's way past stale. While Jayjg and Crum may be correct according to the letter of our policies that they can purposefuly proxy for SV in a revert war, I think that is seriously against the spirit of collaborative editing, etiquette, & etc. It's no surprise they didn't defend their actions, but chose to attack those raising the issue. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

Is it okay to use my real name?

Resolved

 – User has been discovered to be the sockpuppet of a banned user and has since been blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to know if it's okay with other editors if I use my real name to edit Wikipedia. Jason (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can edit under any name you like, as long as it is not promotional or offensive. However, you cannot redirect your userpage to an article, and your signature really shouldn't point there either. - Revolving Bugbear 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead, I do. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one reminder, that you can't uncork the genie. If you use your real name, and things go pear shaped somehow, you cannot magically take back the information about your real name. It's out there. SirFozzie (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jason Smith, you need to fix your signature to avoid Cross-namespace redirects which are not allowed. Also, given that you claim to be Jason Smith, the actor, you should not edit that article, per Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not OK to use your real name to edit Wikipedia if your real name is also the name of someone famous, unless you are willing to prove it by contacting the Wikimedia Foundation office. Try info-en-q@wikimedia.org. It is also not forbidden to edit an article about you but it is discouraged, please read the conflict of interest policy. Thatcher 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, It's not like everyone knows my name. I'm not a household name like Barry Bonds. I was only asking if you're allowed to edit Wikipedia if you have an article about yourself. Jason (talk, profile) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to edit, although you might want to steer clear of the article about yourself for various conflict of interests purposes. However, if for whatever reason you think that somehow having you appear by your name here might in the future potentially lead to trouble, as anyone can see anything you do on the internet at any time, you might want to follow Moscow Rules like some of the rest of us do and use a name other than your real one. That is a matter which apparently several other editors have encountered, and I can't know that the same thing might happen to you, but stranger things have happened. By the way, this isn't actually my name either, although "John" is actually my middle name. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how true that is, Thatcher. Wikipedia:U#Real_names merely says You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. I've always assumed the {{userpage otheruse}} on my userpage, making it clear that Tonywalton is not Tony Walton. suffices. If I'm incorrect there let me know and I'll be on to the Foundation straight away to prove my bona fides! Tonywalton ^Talk 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You also might want to avoid using your real name if it's anything similar to this name in an XKCD comic, or if you've changed your name to GoldenPalace.com. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

T-Rex has some words of wisdom on this. But many Wikipedians use their real names, I used to use my full real name as a signature. Haukur (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Those words of wisdom could equally be taken to mean either "don't use your real name online" or "don't shoot your mouth off online", of course ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

there are so many cranks on wikipedia, I'd suggest you'd be off your rocker to use your real name - I had people contact my place of work and all sorts of shit. Use an alias and don't tempt fate. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hacking

I'm not sure whether this is the right place for this. Someone seems to have added a non-existent page to my watchlist. How much else of the system is open to hacking? Peter jackson (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the right place to go. Nakon 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• You can save your time, though. Check the article histories; what probably happened was that an article on your list was moved to a new name (perhaps by a vandal) and then moved back, and the new name remains on your watchlist. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean I should check the history for every article on my list? Is that saving time? Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have anything to worry about, this is just the result of pagemove vandalism. If you really want to find out, go to the history page and click "view logs for this page" to see if there was a bad move somewhere. east.718 at 17:46, February 19, 2008

This thread made me smile. Even knowing this I still occasionally do a "WTF" when cleaning out my watchlist and see some bizarre title. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What history page? The non-existent article hasn't got one. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The history page of the article that was moved, if you know what it is. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But I don't: this is a circular argument. Peter jackson (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the deletion log? Doesn't that tell you? — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image on Birth certificate

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

---

Content issue. No admin action required. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The article for Birth certificate previously had an image (Image:Russian Birth Certificiate of Michael Lucas.JPG) of a Russian birth certificate. The image was deleted due to its improper licensing and subsequently removed from the birth certificate page, based on the fact that its fair use claims by the uploader David Shankbone, who has a history of adding inappropraite photos to Wikipedia, were invalid and that its use in Birth certificate was unnecessary and added very little valid information to the article's content. The uploader has reverted my removal of the image and added it back into the article. The uploader is adding this image for novelty purposes, as it allegedly depicts the birth certificate of a pornographic actor, although this is unverified, as is the claim that the document is a birth certificate at all. The image is not beneficial to the article at all, as there are very few Russian-readers who visit the Engligh-language article for Birth certificate, and the remaining viewers will not understand the document's content. Furthermore, because the article has no section on Russian birth certificates, the image has no place on the article as there is no text in the article referring to Russian birth certificates. This further invalidates the user's claim that the image's use in the article is fair use. Please review this issue and advise at your earliest convenience. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Russian Birth Certificiate of Michael Lucas.JPG doesn't need any kind of fair use justification. It is freely licensed under the GFDL. Have you tried using the talk page or contacting David Shankbone directly before bringing this here? --Onorem♠Dil 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, your choice of a link to show his "history" of adding inappropriate photos is odd. If I remember correctly, his photos were largely supported in that discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 17:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The uploader was informed. The image was nominated for deletion, but all history of that issue has mysteriously erased itself from my contribution history. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the image was speedied - but only because an identical version of the same image was available from commons, and not because of any fault in licensing or origin. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the original reason for deletion, the main issue here is that the image does not currently contribute to the article at all. If David Shankbone has sufficient knowledge on Russian birth registration to add a section to the article, I welcome his addition. However, there are no sources to indicate that this image is actually that of a birth certificate. In my opinion, it looks more like a passport. Of course, I have no knowledge in this area, but this is simply my opinion. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet era paperwork of this type and age actually would be closer to a passport in design, depending on when and where it was issued. Your request to this noticeboard was for advice on the matter, and I have no evidence to suggest that the photo is anything other than what the uploader claims it to be. In this case, with regard to this image in and of itself, I don't see any issues. The inclusion of the image in a particular article is a content issue, but I note that free images (such as this one) are always preferred to non-free images. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So let's get this right - someone uploads a picture of a Russian birth certificate, and despite having no knowledge whatsoever about the subject, you suggest that it might not even be a birth certificate? Wonderful. As for the photo itself, I'd say it adds to the article, especially as free photos of birth certificates are difficult to find. Black Kite 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rhythmnation2004 and Birth certificate issues

That's an interesting post by Rhythmnation. Not only did Rhythmnation lie about the reason for the removal of the photo, claiming it was a "deleted image", but also now questions whether the photo is a fake. Why is Rhythmnation here? Why are they not at the Talk page to discuss why a "Soviet birth certificate" does not belong on the Birth certificate article? What admin action, exactly, is an editor who removes sourced, cited content on an appropriate article by lying in an edit summary asking for? It seems pretty relevant for a global encyclopedia to mention in a sourced caption that the Soviets used to describe a Jewish person's nationality as "Jewish" and not "Soviet". But it's a content issue, not an admin issue. --David Shankbone 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did they label non-Jewish people as "Soviet"? "nationality" may not be the right translation if not. —Random832 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question, although it might be more relevant to wonder if they named people "Catholic" "Lutheran" "Greek Orthodox" etc. for the nationality. Considering the Soviet state was officially atheist, I would assume that other religions weren't considered "nationalities" but I'm sure a little research will answer. The citation I have makes mention of the history of "Jewish" being seen as a race (when it's not, it's a religion and ethnicity) as a way to single out Jews for discrimination. --David Shankbone 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually speculating that it might have been intended to refer to the ethnicity, and that the field in question would be filled in with other ethnicities. Regardless, it's not clear that a caption describing this issue belongs above the fold in an article about Birth certificates - Anti-semitism might be a more appropriate place —Random832 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that could be, but a lot of photos are used multiple times. my Scorsese photo is on a lot of articles I never placed it on. My issue is with a content question being raised on the admin board - it muddies the water too much between content and policy/guideline enforcement. It's hard to argue that my placement of a birth certificate on the Birth certificate article is superfluous, and how many people today are willing to have their birth certificates photographed and released GFDL? Not many... --David Shankbone 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhythmnation2004 has a long history of taking issues to noticeboard well before an issue needs to be brought there. He also has issues with ownership of articles, with this one in particular being one he feels attached to. Metros (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, my own encounters with this individual suggest he's a) time-waster (in regards to his contributions to those sorts of discussions) and b) forum-shopper - check out his recent waste of bandwidth "efforts" around Harry Potter. Similar waste of times are littered through his history. I see nothing here that requires any admin intervention or any evidence that all efforts to use normal dispute channels have been exhausted. Oh and I've asked him to remove the misleading "wikibreak" notice on his userpage (for full disclosure on my part). --Fredrick day (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Nandesuka and Michael Lucas (porn star)

This admin and I had an issue in Talk:Pubic hair awhile back, and now appears to be trolling pages (ones he never edited before) removing my work.[22], this one they restored vandalism, [23], [24]. Then Nandesuka went on Michael Lucas (porn star) and again renamed the man a name that was never his. Lucas has made it clear on the Talk page that he was never given his father's name. There are sources that only refer to him as "Treivas". Then, to top it all off, I actually photographed his Soviet birth certificate, his Soviet passport, AND his US passport that ALL show his name is "Andrei Treivas". What more does this guy need to do to not have Wikipedia rename him simply because our "reliable" mainstream media wantonly assumed he was given his father's name when his mother never did so? The photos of these documents, at Lucas' request, are on his Talk:Michael Lucas (porn star) page - what more is this guy supposed to do? Force New York Magazine to write a new article with the correct name so Wikipedia will stop calling him a name he never had? I seriously doubt he is running away from his father's name--his father actually works for him at his porn company! Two issues: Please advise the admin User:Nandesuka that his trolling my work and his poor editing that seem to be focused on me (hey, at least that IP troll is congratulating him); and two, can we finally put to rest the stupid 'Bregman' business considering three different forms of identification are photographed and provided on the man's talk page, all showing his birth name was "Andrei Treivas"? --David Shankbone 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Removing photos with an edit summary of "rv vanity" does seem to be assuming bad faith, especially when those photos do seem to be relevant to the subject. Black Kite 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems incontestable to me that WP:BLP mandates that Wikipedia can't be a primary source for biographies of subjects about which Wikipedia is writing. I personally am more than willing to believe that Michael Lucas's birth name is not Bregman, and I'm personally willing to believe that the documents you photographed are authentic. What I'm not willing to do is to substitute original research for a reliable source. Like it or not, New York Magazine published this fellow's name as Bregman. All we need to do is to find one reliable, independently-published source that refers to him without that name, and then we can put the issue to bed by citing that source instead of New York Magazine. Photos taken by Wikipedia editors don't seem to me to meet that (fairly low) bar. Nandesuka (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not establishing the info with a photo, but with a birth certificate. The photo is merely the mechanism to reproduce that info. Are you really suggesting that a journalist is a more reliable source for someone's birth name than their birth certificate? WjBscribe 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't this be a case for a (sometimes referred to as Adrei Treivas Bregman) notation? That would acknowledge the existence of another name in reliable sources while satisfying the BLP concern (the individual's name isn't actually that). Is there an OTRS ticket somewhere that refers to this? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. Nandesuka (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Has he actually been called "Adrei Treivas Bregman" anywhere other than this one piece from New York Magazine? WjBscribe 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it make a difference whether he sends a copy of his birth certificate to OTRS or has it uploaded locally? If anything, the latter is better for verification purposes... WjBscribe 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was more asking if the subject had formally provided notice of the error, or if he had simply posted on the talk page claiming to be himself. Either way, the birth certificate is persuasive. WP:OR would come into play if an editor drew conclusions from that document, but using it as a reference to say "Michael Lucas, born Andrei Treivas, is..." in the lead. The birth certificate documents a birth, and that birth involves the name Andrei Treivas, so it could source a statement that an individual was born and, at birth, had a given name. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that current practice has passed me by, but I will simply say that I don't believe this is a correct interpretation of our policy against original research. Wikipedia is, at its core, a tertiary sourced encyclopedia. Relying on photographs of things that purport to be primary documents, especially when there are reliable sources that claim otherwise, in the absence of OTRS action, goes against our best practices. Nandesuka (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That you so frequently edit war over issues where you don't understand policy (or common sense) really raises grave concerns about your status as an admin. That you are following me around with some kind of bone to pick with me also makes it questionable. At the very least, you are simply hurting your reputation; at the worst, you are hurting Wikipedia and affecting people's lives outside of it who consistently have to tell people that 'Bregman' was never their name (thus, again, hurting Wikipedia since it makes us look silly). I wish you would give more thought to your behavior, since admins are supposed to be examples for the rest of us, and you aren't setting a particularly good one with your behavior. --David Shankbone 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your inability to assume good faith is, in the end, your own problem. I will continue to edit diligently, regardless of your wish that your writing not be edited. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka's a good admin, David. This seems to have boiled up over nothing, and it's a shame to see two good editors fall out over it, because you both have a point. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about themselves, so if the subject puts his name on his blog, for example, we can source our article to it within reason. But Nandesuka's also right that we need to be careful about when we do this, just in case someone's trying it on with us. I'm not saying anyone is in this case, but that's probably Nandesuka's concern -- that, in general, this could be regarded as OR, so caution is required. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked only into the Michael Lucas matter. I find Nandesuka's position there to be absurd. We have a copy of the subject's birth certificate - an official document that establishes his birthname. Nandesuak has instead replaced this information with information sourced from a piece from New York magazine - based on whatever research the journalist conducted. The subject has confirmed the latter is inaccurate and provided us with proof of this? To demand third party publishing of the correct name in this circumstance is absurd, contrary to WP:BLP, against the interests of Wikipedia readers, and has the potential to make Wikipedia look fairly ridiculous. I am stunned that someone trusted by the community to exercise judgment could have done so in so poor a manner in this instance. WjBscribe 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. "Absurd" is putting it mildly. We have WP:BLP for a reason. Black Kite 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When you say "we have a copy of his birth certificate", do you mean "He has provided a copy of his birth certificate to WP:OFFICE" or do you mean "A Wikipedia editor has uploaded a photo of something purporting to be his birth certificate to a talk page?" If we mean the latter, I agree that the situation is absurd, but perhaps not quite in the way you intended. Nandesuka (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you really boiling this down to such a formality? Are you saying that if he sent a copy of his birth certificate to office (either a photocopy or photograph would I believe satisfy the OTRS respondent) that is somehow better than allowing that same copy to be uploaded locally where it can be looked at by anyone? WjBscribe 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you're driving at. Are you suggesting that the birth certificate is fake, the photo is (brilliantly) PhotoShopped, or that the uploader managed to find a Russian birth certificate from someone born on the same day and with the same name? Black Kite 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that the provenance of the document in the photo simply isn't verifiable. But see my response to SV below. Nandesuka (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• We do allow subjects to offer us sources regarding issues like that -- names, birth dates and so on. If the subject has written his name on his website or blog, that would be enough for us normally, even without a birth certificate. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about that source. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd always considered such things to be original research, but I'll take your word that I'm behind the times on this. Thanks for the correction. Nandesuka (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And please stop following me around. Are you open to recall? You still received edit warring messages (the same way you edit warred on Pubic hair), and some of your judgment that I outline above, and some of your edit summaries, are hardly what I would call admin behavior User:Nandesuka. --David Shankbone 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Have a nice day. Nandesuka (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Being familiar with the Michael Lucas (porn star) article and issues, I suggest that if a reliable source has stated that his name is something other than Andrei Treivas (apparently Lucas' birth name) that we simply note it and correctly state that it was mistakenly reported by __ as "Bregman" although he never was given his father's name. Benjiboi 19:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, to articulate that his father is Bregman, but that he was never given that name at birth. Good suggestion Benji. --David Shankbone 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely the point here is that the birth certificate is the source? If it's an official government document, and anyone can walk into the appropriate office and pay for a copy, then it's both reliable and verifiable. Of course any online image or physical copy of it could be faked, but since we already accept offline-only sources that can't be an issue. On another topic, I'm confused about how a scan of a birth certificate can be released under the GFDL. Surely the scan shares its copyright status with the original, which presumably rests with the government in question. Are they releasing birth certificates under the GFDL? Bovlb (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The birth certificate is a primary source, and we're hardly in a position to gauge the meaning and/or authenticity of a photograph of it. Who know what the rules are for the issuing of Russian documents? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The alleged birth certificate in discussion is printed in the Russian language, using a Cyrillic alphabet. Who here is claiming expertise to read Russian, Bregman? The interview with New York Magazine was conducted with Andrei Treivas Bregman present and answering questions, was it not? The notion that one party in a court case used Wikipedia to identify the other side is preposterous. --72.76.88.140 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We can rely upon reliable sources to deal with this and I have little doubt that someone will be able to interpret what the birth certificate says. Is it a false document of some sort? I'd bet we'd find out sooner than later if so. It can certainly be noted in the context as presented as such and I'm quite puzzled as to the Tin Hattish concept that Lucas is somehow engineering a pretty wonky plan to prove identity. Benjiboi 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Cross-posted to article talk) Hi, I read cyrillic, as a matter of fact. I transliterate his name in the documents supplied as "Andrei Lvovich Treivas" (or "Treyvas" would work as well), "Lvovich" being Mr. Treivas' patronymic. Also, did a quick search and found this link to a book that may help: [25]. Once you get there, click the "see inside" button at the bottom of the cover art. His name is mentioned in the first sentence. Hope that meets everyone's needs. IronDuke 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can read the Russian Cyrillic alphabet as well, and can verify IronDuke's reading of it. I'm much more familiar with printed than handwritten, so am unsure of the second character in the patronymic, but can see "Трейвас - Андрей Львович". I'd have interpreted the first word there as Treyvas or Trejvas. Seems the book IronDuke cites has done so as well - "'I feel the blood of generations in me,' says Michael Lucas, born Andrei Treyvas in Communist Russia in 1972." Orderinchaos 10:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

One does not read cyrillic; cyrillic is not a language. The word "cyrillic" is an adjective used to describe the alpahabet invented by Saint Cyril. The Russian language is written in the cyrillic alphabet. Already the veracity of your post is in question. Further, though you use the term "transliterate" correctly, you did not actually transliterate the documents supplied -- you may have correctly transliterated the words in a photo of a document purporting to be a birth certificate, which has not been certified in any reliable way. The book you reference is an unauthorized bio of Lucas of which he has completely disavowed himself. Thus, the only remaining reliable sources say that Lucas was born Andrei Treivas Bregman.--72.76.80.193 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take it to the talk page of the article. And quite frankly I can't help but note that User:David Shankbone had been recently harassed by one or several anons in this manner across multiple forums. At this point I may be reading trolling or stalking behavior into a situation that isn't but I'll go ahead and point out that both are prohibited and will also effectively backfire as almost every case I've seen the articles have greatly improved and POV agendas neutralized. If you don't like Lucas ignore him. Benjiboi 18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it's harassment of DS or an agenda of some kind, latest diff. R. Baley (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

One does not read cyrillic; cyrillic is not a language. The word "cyrillic" is an adjective used to describe the alpahabet invented by Saint Cyril. The Russian language is written in the cyrillic alphabet.

• Thanks very much for the “correction,” though it is at best meaningless, at worst incorrect. One can indeed speak of reading “Cyrillic” and have individuals of even modest intelligence comprehend what is being said, as you ably demonstrate. Want proof? First hit on Google: [26]. I know, I know, it’s only Yale, but still.

Already the veracity of your post is in question.

• It is a troubling thing to me when drive-by anons question my veracity. I suppose I’ll find a way to soldier on, though.

Further, though you use the term "transliterate" correctly, you did not actually transliterate the documents supplied -- you may have correctly transliterated the words in a photo of a document purporting to be a birth certificate, which has not been certified in any reliable way.

• Ah… What? Are you actually serious?

The book you reference is an unauthorized bio of Lucas of which he has completely disavowed himself. Thus, the only remaining reliable sources say that Lucas was born Andrei Treivas Bregman.

• You are essentially using Lucas as a source here to trash the bio. Assuming that is correct (and I have no idea if it is), you are therefore using Lucas as an authority on himself. Lucas maintains that his last name is not Bregman—but we can’t take his word on that? I am now quite concerned at your veracity, oh anonymous one. IronDuke 01:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

Hi all. After the recent kerfuffle over the Sussexman checkuser case, I took a closer look at Giano's ArbCom election to see if any further sock-puppetry could be seen from some of the SPAs which voted there. It has already been proven by checkuser that User:David Lauder has voted no less than four times there. Unfortunately, I found another account which I initially suspected was connected with someone else.

Given that it was obvious that the account was also set up to make the minimum threshold for franchise and little else, I ran a checkuser on the account, per checkuser policy. This was the result;

 Confirmed - the following:

1. Sweetfirsttouch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. La voz de su amo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As checkuser cases go, this was pretty straightforward and was a direct hit. The account User:La voz de su amo was actually used to troll on ETA-related articles, adding information about Sinn Féin. This account created an article that User:R. fiend eventually got into trouble over when he blocked User:Domer48. Trolling and votestacking on ArbCom elections.

The account, User:Sweetfirsttouch was actually used during the ArbCom case when Vintagekits was indefinitely blocked to evade the indef block placed on his account at the time. It was created two days[27] after his indefinite block[28].

User:Vintagekits was blocked indefinitely by myself last year in a turn of events that ultimately led to the Troubles ArbCom case, in which Vintagekits was unblocked and put on probation.

Placing this here for community input as this is bound to be controversial - Alison ^❤ 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not controversial in the slightest, to me. If we're going to be even handed, block evasion is block evasion. It's obvious that VK snookered us all. I am blocking all three accounts per the ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All three accounts now blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, agreed, not controversial at all. How irritating to lose two editors, VK and David Lauder, in a few days; both were very good content editors when they weren't participating in such shenanigans. Black Kite 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversial? Probably among a certain clique, despite their robust support for Lauder et al's block for essentially the same transgression. Personally, I see no other option now. Though I find it rather tragic. After all the problems, all the discussion and all the effort good editors put into rehabilitating Vk, only for it to be thrown away for such a pointless reason. Rockpocket 07:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel particularly hurt over this one. While I was defending his indef block against many of his supporters and under huge pressure (remember all that?), VK just waited the minimum time until his autoblock expired, then he was off again editing away and preparing his backup plan, while everyone agonised over his block. He took us all for a ride. Then he used another account to try to get Ógra Shinn Féin worked into the ETA articles by posing as a Spanish Nationalist. When he was done with that, he used his sock to votestack on ArbCom elections (not just Giano's, but many others) - basically doing what Lauder's socks were doing. Ugh! - Alison ^❤ 08:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. Looking back through that ArbCom, he was denying he had operated sock or meat puppets previously (despite the overwhelming evidence) at the very same time he was operating another sockpuppet. For sheer gall, it is pretty remarkable.

This was a good find, Ali, as I hadn't bothered looking for socks, stupidly thinking no-one would be foolish enough to do it again having been caught before. I guess he felt there was no way back from his indef block and thus had nothing to lose by creating a new account. Of course, that likely means that exactly the same thing will happen this time. Rockpocket 09:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate, but cannot be helped. While I was on Giano's side during the whole Troubles fiasco, there was no denying that VK was problematic, and there is now irrefutable evidence of this. I actually think this should show Lauder's supporters that Alison is, as she always was, a neutral party to this affair, but it's sad that both ringleaders of the antagonism on the Troubles articles - both good contributors - had to be indefinitely blocked in the end rather than them rehabilitating themselves. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 09:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So what's going to be the outcome here? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All the accounts are indef blocked. Vk has the same recourse to appeal as any other blocked editor, should he choose to do so. If he continues to use socks to avoid the block then those will be blocked too. We move on. Rockpocket —Preceding comment was added at 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason they should both be blocked indefinitely is that they have both socked abusively. They probably thought they were faced with no other option. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• and therein lays the problem. Having respect for the rules and regulations that govern edits here is a basic requirement for keeping your editing rights. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I wonder if I might put forward a suggestion: (1) as of right now, no more sockpuppets for anyone involved in 'the Troubles' ArbCom. All existing sockpuppets to be declared by e-mail (so no public humiliation) to (?) Alison; duplicate accounts to be quietly extinguished by her. Vintagekits, David Lauder, and Counter-revolutionary (I'm not sure whether I should include him) all go away and read a book for two weeks. A line in the sand and general amnesty. (2) Thereafter, any participant in 'the Troubles' ArbCom gives authority to (?) Alison to check their account and/ or any other suspicious account; Alison to have free rein to check any account listed as a participant in 'the Troubles' ArbCom.

Only my suggestion; but it'd be nice to be able to move on from this malarkey. We save two useful contributors and stamp out the abuse going forward. Now shout me down! --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In David's case, if we went through with this (and I am holding my opinion on that, for the moment) I think we would need a full apology for any and all legal threats that he made as well. SirFozzie (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

why why why do we want all this drama - just tell him to fuck off, ban the account and be done with it. I dread to think how many more thousands of manhours this user could waste. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you, Fredrick, just I don't want to be accused of trying to stomp on possible ways forward. I have trouble determining what to think in a situation where one side Assumes Bad Faith, and the other side takes advantage of Assuming Good Faith. SirFozzie (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with handing out bans is that, because they are so easy to evade, they are not effective. In their own fields both of these individuals are valued contributors; both of them know that they're not supposed to do this and there is no reason to suppose that, if banned, they won't simply start all over again. So: suggestion - give Alison the list of IP addresses and let her police the participants of 'the Troubles' ArbCom. (Diverting slightly, I'm astonished that ArbCom didn't run a checkuser against all the participants at the time; had they done so, it would have apparently uncovered some of this abuse at that stage.) Personally, I've got no problem with her running a checkuser against me, formally or informally, because I know that I've never edited under a separate account. SirFozzie: thank you for replying. I'm not sure that rubbing DL's nose in it would be helpful. As I understand it, the dispute was of a private nature and didn't involve WP itself; best to let bygones be bygones? PS - I've added a new User box to my User page which you might like to copy.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, so because bans and blocks are easy to evade, let's not bother blocking or banning anyone ever again ok? I couldn't care less how many articles or how much content anyone has written, when any editor trangresses to the extent we've seen recently it's time to say no more. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I write. If you want to block or ban these individuals now, fine. Will it be effective? Almost certainly not. However much we might disapprove, it might be more sensible to (try to) apply a remedy which will work rather than impose the strict letter of the law, which won't. Ultimately, all that you or I can do is make our points - the decision isn't in our hands. I also like to think my proposal is slightly more humane, which is a bit of a bonus as far as I'm concerned!--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I endose your appeal to unblock willyonwheels. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What remedy do you think will be effective with David Lauder? He was banned by ArbCom for legal threats - and evaded the ban and made more legal threats. He was banned by ArbCom from editing articles about a certain politican and his activities for a year - and he evaded the ban using sockpuppets. ArbCom require him to edit using only one account and when logged in - and he evaded that using multiple accounts and IPs. Please, what possible remedy do you actually think will work? He's ignored every single remedy that's ever been used against him hasn't he? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good work Alison. Endorse indef block. --John (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Both these editors will be back, in fact I'm sure they are busy editing from other sock accounts as we speak (Vk admits as much [29]). If they continue to edit in a policy compliant non-controversial manner there is every chance they will be able to return without anyone ever finding them. If they continue to edit in the manner in a problematic way then their accounts will be discovered and blocked immediately. Such is the game we play with many indef blocked users, I don't see why these two should be treated differently. Rockpocket 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite. They will be back. I suggest a pragmatic solution. We insist on a stipulated user name, in these cases User:David Lauder and User:Vintagekits. The users are not allowed any socks, even normally legitimate ones. They also forfeit the normal precautions of checkuser, and may be checkusered at any time. In fact they should expect this to occur randomly and without their knowledge. They accept this as a condition of continued editing. They are placed on a list for this purpose. They may apply to be removed from the list after two years of good conduct, including 3RR, civility etc. They are blocked for one month in the first instance to give everyone else a rest. This period of time also means checkuser will be able to be used in the meantime: too long a block will lose the data. Tyrenius (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• My only problem with that is that it appears to reward unwillingness to abide by policy. If every abusive sockpuppeteer were allowed to stay on the grounds that they would be back anyway, we'd have something of a problem. The problems with these guys' behaviour is not only the sockpuppetry, both have been quite disruptive and have caused a lot of aggravation, even given the parallel history of worthwhile contributions. VK has been on the noticeboards on and off pretty much since he arrived, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Ban the fuckers and block their socks if they come back. People are forgetting that checkuser is not magic pixie wiki dust. They are also forgetting that ALISON IS NOT GOD (yet). Tyrenius's proposal is an open invitation for smart sockpuppetry: one account at work and one at home and who's to know we're being fooled again? Evading checkuser is not that difficult, guys - ban'em and we can revert all their edits + block the socks (which are inevitable, yes) on behaviour pattern. What, just because sockpuppetry is inevitable we stop banning people? Noo, it doesn't work that way, not least because even if we don't ban them they'll still make socks anyway. Heaven's sakes...Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And how do you suggest we deal with users who blatantly violate other policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, attacking other users with profanity and shouting into the bargain? That kind of aggression is something that has at times contributed considerably to the unpleasantness of the Troubles situation, and is part of the problem, not of the solution. An analysis of behaviour patterns and checkuser are not mutually exclusive. Checkuser in this case was obviously not easy to evade, and behaviour patterns were not pinned down. My proposal is no more such an invitation for "smart sockpuppetry" than exists with any other solution. Tyrenius (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are so many attempts to bend over backwards for guys like this. To be sure, their signal-to-noise ratio is higher than that of the typical banned vandal, but if other editors are spending two hours on unproductive administrative work for every hour of "good" encyclopedia editing by David Lauder and Vintagekits, how does that help the project? If people are going to volunteer their time to build this encyclopedia, we should do all we can to help valuable contributors maximize their efficiency. Ban editors who cause significant disruption, no matter how much other "good" they do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, as did a number of admins, but ArbCom did not, when it examined the Troubles editors. Perhaps existing practices need to be made more severe. Editors may be indef blocked and then 6 months or a year later be allowed back. If so, then my solution should be implemented. Although I used the present cases as an example, it was really intended for more general application. Tyrenius (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Moreschi is right. A lot of us have wasted a huge amount of time and effort trying to mediate The Troubles related articles (notably Alison and SirFozzie) and if we can't tell the people who have wasted ours and everyone else's time through operating sockfarms to just fuck off and not come back then we might as well give up now. Yes, VK and Lauder were productive editors when they weren't gaming the system, and it;s unfortunate that we have to lose their editing skills, but frankly patience is limited. Not to mention that I strongly suspect that all the socks in this area haven't been uncovered yet. Black Kite 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He may be right in what he says, but not in the way he says it. That creates more poison. Tyrenius (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

At least wikipedia is being fair and unbiased, ie not taking sides, by indef blocking both. Personally I think this should be at arbcom enforcement with say a 3 month ban on each of them with the date reset for sock evasions, isnt that more how arbcom works and both carrot and stick. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't support yet another last chance. Has anyone else ever been indef blocked three times and still be the subject of a discussion about another chance? What both these editors have demonstrated is that they have no respect for our policies. Last time they were blocked the just went and created another account and used it abusively. They are almost certainly doing exactly the same thing now. We simply can't continue to tolerate that. Lets move on and spend our time on something constructive. Rockpocket 00:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep them indef blocked, at least for about 3 months, then ask them to email asking for unblock, along with promises to behave, after that. Socks are fine for everyone to have for unrelated pages if we want, but they shouldn't really be used to back each other up/edit the same pages- used abusively. Vote stacking on Giano's ArbCom vote, even, took place on both sides. For now at least, these are excellent blocks all round. Oh and... it won't be that hard to enforce as they'll be quite easy to spot if they edit the same pages in the same way. If such people turn up, checkuser at the first sign of disruptive editing etc. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as an IM service

This page, User talk:Ajk5055, appears to be two people chatting to eachother by signing into the same account. I am not sure what should be done about this, or even if this is not allowed, so I posted the incident here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.delanoy (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page should probably be blanked of their comments, and then protected if they ignore warnings. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments blanked. Let's see if they express any interest in editing properly. Tyrenius (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

<<blanked as a human diginty matter>>

They apparently had a lot of problems trying to use this for chat. Ironically this post talks about how they use cell text messaging, e-mail, AND Skype, but are using a Wikipedia talk page for communications... oh man, I gotta save this. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the comments I can't help but feel bad for them. This appears to be the communication between parents and their daughter while she's on her way to or already on another continent. In the instances where the page was used there must have been a reason that was the only option, since email certainly would've been easier. I feel like saying "have a heart, IAR". But that's just me. They haven't edited anything other than their talk page, so I don't see the harm. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:43, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

True. I guess we could leave a note on the talk page recommending a better site or something. Still, funny stuff :D -- Ned Scott 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Tyrennus warn (or better still, politely steer) them before blocking? Since the talk page history was deleted, I have no way of knowing, but it seems unlikely to me that these people would carry on their conversation if they knew an outsider was not only reading but actively disapproving from a position of authority on the site. This whole section seems a bit inappropriate to me. I don't see why we needed to draw any attention to them (and post excerpts here), let alone block, unless we know that gentle, quiet reminders have already failed. Everyking (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that the only other account to edit that user talk page was SineBot. If necessary, I'll undelete the rest of the history, but I don't think we need all of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. No offense Ned but it really seems like a personal conversation that the participants aren't necessarily aware is available publicly. Perhaps you wouldn't mind removing your excerpts here. And I agree that an unblock and warning might be appropriate now. Perhaps we can assess their reasons for using that page the way they are, 'cause call me a softy but if it's their only option for communication I frankly think we should allow it. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:00, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

My own entertainment aside, it doesn't really matter if they're blocked or unblocked since the only page the edited was the user talk page. Like I noted, they have tons of other ways to communicate, and in the discussions even exchanged e-mails and text messages. There's no reason for them to be using the talk page like that, but we should make sure a message explains to them what's going on. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of a ANI report a while back where a similar incident was taking place. I can't remember which account it was, but they were also using the usertalk page as a IM. Maybe it's the same group of people, maybe not, iunno. nat.utoronto 07:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be the season for it. I've come across two pages in the last couple of days (User talk:Kragar and User talk:Sullke. In both cases I gave the relevant users the "it's not mySpace" warning - that worked for the latter, but I had to strengthen the warning a couple of times for the former. I have them watchlisted, but they've either gone and got Skype or have moved to another talk page... _GB^T/C 12:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And a couple more - User talk:Mcd26, User talk:Shp26‎ and User talk:MCD26. _GB^T/C 19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As their whole purpose in being here is to pass messages back and forth, I have no problem with the block. AGF applies to editors attempting to build the encyclopedia. It is part of the buffering between users to help us avoid conflict. Giving second chances is in hope of salvaging editors. We indef block others who have no purpose here but their own amusement. If they want to contribute constructively, then they can let someone know via email. However, i do favor the idea of letting them know that their communications here are available to the whole world. I alos favor removing their comments from this page as a human dignity issue. Will probably boldly do that. Dlohcierekim 00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Question concerning use of AWB

Is there someplace in particular which I can request a review of a user's actions in utilizing AWB? It's my understanding that AWB is not supposed to be used to make controversial edits, and it's possible that this user may be doing that, but it's not at all clear where to go to make that inquiry -- here or on the AWB discussion page, so I've posted on both. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring or making disputed edits using AWB is in violation of the terms for using it. However, you are going to have to provide some diffs and background information before the admins will be able to look into it. If the user is indeed acting inappropriately you are in the right place because the AWB talk page isn't really meant for this sort of thing. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh -- someone on the AWB page said that it was the right place, so I made my case there. I can repeat it here if you think I should, but my purpose is not to forum shop. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but even there you haven't provided specific diffs showing misuse. We don't need talk page discussions, other than as proof that you've remonstrated with the other editor; on a very busy incident board, we need to be able to directly visit the edits you think are wrong in order to assess them. Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand - am I making the case there or here?

The diff that percipitated the conflict between User: Colonies Chris and I was this one, but essentially my complaint is about using AWB to make changes that require individual evaluation and shouldn't be subjected to automated or semi-automated deletion. As such, it's not individual diffs which are pertinent, as much as the user's contribution page, which shows hundred of changes under the same edit summary "sp, date & link fixes". Since this was the edit summary for the specific diff above, it's not a leap to assume that they have done the same thing in all those edits, unlink dates using AWB. Since my complaint is about AWB usage, isn't that the data you need?

Since you've asked for this information here, I'll put a note on the user's talk page informing them of this discussion as well, but I do wish it could be made clearer where the discussion should ideally take place. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In response, I'm simply going to re-post here the comment I made on the article's talk page.

“ I was the editor who made the changes that started this discussion, and I protest at the way my good faith edits have been treated. Ed Fitzgerald simply reverted my changes, adding an offensive edit summary, then when I reinstated them along with a request for discussion, he reverted them again without explanation. When I left a message on his talk page threatening to take action against him him under WP:3RR if he did it again, he then accused me of making changes without consensus - which, as has been pointed out, is not necessary for change of this kind. What monstrous arrogance to write "I think we can close the book on this" without ever having asked me why I made the changes I did. They were made through AWB but they are not 'automated' - I made a personal choice to unlink the years, and my opinion deserves respect, even if not agreement. ”

I will just add that of all the many articles whose bare years I've unlinked (always in the course of making other edits such as spelling corrections or disambiguations), objections to or reversions of those changes can be numbered on the fingers of one hand - see my own talk page for the almost complete lack of any comments on the subject. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have something of a conceptual question associated with this: Since not everyone can have AWB - you have to apply for it, and (if I'm understanding the process correctly) an admin has to approve the application -- and since the use of AWB gives you abilities not available to the run-of-the-mill editor, shouldn't the AWB user have the onus to show that they haven't been abusing it when questions arise? If the implication made above that I should provide diffs for every abuse is an indication, giving people AWB provides them with extra-normal capabilities which it is then difficult to show abuse of? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser does not give users anything they normaly cannot normally do. All it does is allow for easier repetitive editing. Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The capacity to do more repetitve edits than can by done by hand is something that normal (read: non-AWB licensed) users can not do. I think it is undersood that this capacity gives the AWB user greater-than-normal ability, as well as greater-than-normal potential for harm, or else why is there an approval process in place? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

everything done with AWB can be done by hand. Just like vandalproof the issue is speed, not greater-than-normal ability. AWB just makes doing them easier, it does not give extra abilities. β^_command 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly understand that, but my point is that the greater speed enables the user to do significantly more edits, and that means they have a capacity which is significantly greater than a non-AWB user. To me, that means they have a greater-than-normal ability to effect change to Wikipedia, for better or for worse. (This is starting to sound like the discussion about rollback, where the argument was that users with rollback were only doing what they could already do with twinkle (?), so what's the big deal? The big deal, of course, is that the can do it faster so they can do it more, which is the case here as well.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made thousands of edits with AWB in the past without a single complaint. If an editor spots an error they usually just correct it. As a "mortal" editor you can't run AWB in bot mode (not without changing the source code anyway) which means that every edit is reviewed before you commit the change. I really don't see the problem with that. If you have a MoS dispute (which seems to be the actual problem) then there is nothing that neither this board nor the AWB talk page can do to help you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Assume for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that I am correct, and that the user has made thousands of inappropriate edits using AWB in a time period when, manually, at most he or she would be able to do hundreds of the same edits. Are you 'seriously telling me that there's nothing' that an administrator can do about that? That once a user is given the right to use AWB there is absolutely no way to review their use of it? That once you've provided a user with this enhanced capacity, that's it, the system washes its hands of the matter? Does that really seem wise? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why more info was needed. How are they inappropriate? What consensus is he ignoring? If he is changing articles according to the manual of style then he is free to do so with AWB. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

←AWB usage can be revoked quite easily. Get an admin to remove their name from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved users. Then AWB would block them from using it. The fastest I have ever used AWB was at about 13 edits/minute. An admin can rollback edits from a contributions list faster than that. Also, if you accuse someone of misusing AWB then you should provide evidence of misuse. It's hard to provide evidence that you aren't abusing something but much easier to find the abuse. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, after looking through User:Colonies Chris's edits trying to gather the data you need, it appears to me that I have overreacted. I was lead to assume, from the specific edits made on The Godfather Part 2 and the large number of edits which carried the same general edit summary containing "sp, date & link fixes", that these edits were of the same nature, but in looking through them it seems as if the vast majority were not. It also seems that the date unlinking being done were not wholesale, but were limited in some way, suggesting that they were specifically targeted by some evaluative criteria. I do wish that the user had chosen to explain this to me instead of threatening me with 3RR, but the fault here remains mine.

I'd like to withdraw my complaint, with apologies. I'll post an apology on the user's talk page.

(I do, however, think that lack of oversight of AWB use is a valid concern, even though I turned out to be wrong about this specific instance.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology posted here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the editor is removing links to individual years. WP:MOSDATE doesn't require such links. While there is some debate over whether context should be evaluated and whether an automatic bot should do this sort of task, this editor is removing these links very slowly. It's likely the editor is verifying everything in preview. Under current bot policy, that's an assisted script, with the editor is taking full responsibility for each edit, and it doesn't need any other approval beyond the approval to use AWB. Gimmetrow 09:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Secure log in

Would someone please add a link to the secure login site to the mediawiki text displayed on the main log-in screen? It is a good option for extra security and should be listed there, I think. I don't know which page to edit. Thatcher 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. east.718 at 19:17, February 20, 2008

Note that last time a link to the secure login site was added to the interface, it was reverted; see MediaWiki talk:Loginsuccess for what happened. --ais523 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to relate to a problem with staying logged-in and advice given on the login-success message, and not to the pre-login screen. We give so many other tips on security on MediaWiki:Loginend that I don;t see why adding the secure sever there would be a problem. Thatcher 14:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well on MediaWiki talk:Loginend there is some discussion that the secure sever is not designed for heavy use. Is this still true a year later? I'm normally a mac person but when I log in from a library PC I get a warning that the login is not secure and my password is being sent in the clear...that's probably not good for a checkuser, so I appreciate a link to the secure server being at the most logical place, where other security advice is given. Thatcher 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The other problem with the secure server is if you log in through the secure server, you have to use the secure server. Which is awkward; there are any number of links that aren't translated (even the upload link in the sidebar is only translated via javascript) so if you click on them you're back on the regular server and not logged in. Lots of other sites have a "secure login, normal http usage" system, why not wikipedia? —Random832 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a script to fix the links problem, if it helps – linked from my user page. • Anakin ^(talk) 14:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lee Roache article help

Resolved

 – Woody fixed move vandalism. Alexf indefblocked the move-vandal. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody alerted the football project about a vandal doing double redirects. The guy moved Lee Roache to Matthew Barrett (English Footballer) then to Matthew G Barrett. After discussion with the alert editor (User:Kevin McE), I tried to clean up. Matthew G. Barrett seems to have never existed (hoax name). Lee Roache is the correct footy player. I restored this article's text but due to my inexperience (as a new admin) with page moves/redirects/reversals, the article disconnected from the original history (Admins: see here). I'd like a more experienced admin to do it so it is properly cleaned-up/restored and I do not fumble it further. Any help appreciated. Alexf⁴² 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Woody! Alexf⁴² 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Phantomia on Oink's Pink Palace

(contribs) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)}} This one it looks like it falls just outside of 3RR, and there's more to it. Phantomia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and very likely IP(s) used by him have been trying to keep a link on the page to what someone else called a 'scam site' -- and this site was also noted as one in the Blog by a former admin of Oink (Paine's blog) -- in adition, the link to said blog keeps getting removed by Phantomia. The history of this whole thing is a bit convoluted, but suffice it to say, it's been consented that the link to the blog should stay, as it's been confirmed that it's indeed run by Paine. Furthurmore, Phantomia seems to be a single-purpose account, and his whole "confirmed by Alan" schitck has no reference whatsoever. I don't want to be accused of 3RR myself, so I'm letting it stand the way it is for the moment, but I hope someone can look into it? As you can see, Phantomia has been quite dilligent in trying to keep it to his version. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided; third-party web-sites linking to spam/illegal web-sites under 4.1.1, 4.1.4, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 4.1.12, specifically. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And he did it again, though I already reverted it. Yeesh. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AN3#User:Phantomia reported by User:Seicer (Result: ). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have a new contender: 217.226.148.165 (talk · contribs). I'm applying for the sites for blacklist inclusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported for blacklist inclusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And blacklisted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this'll be read with the resolved (I took it off because apparently it's not), but 77.90.4.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be Phantomia...I reverted the page all the way back to the 16th -- as it stood now, all the news stuff was taken out and the blocked site still there, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Firefly

User:Netkinetic has been edit-warring over the hatnote at Firefly, asserting that the show is not notable[30], that it was a failure[31], and that he has no obligation to establish a consensus to modify that longstanding hatnote directing readers to Firefly (television series). I asked him repeatedly [32] [33] to take it to the talk page and follow WP:BRD - so much as starting the discussion myself. I was met with assertions about my apparently non-neutral POV because this show is allegedly my favorite (it's not, and that doesn't matter), and he insisted that I'm not allowed to leave him warnings because I'm not an administrator[34]. Could someone please step in and ask him to stop edit warring, replace the deleted part of the hatnote, and leave a note on Talk:Firefly asking contributors to discuss these changes and wait for consensus before changing the hatnote (or edit-warring over it)? He's dancing around the 3RR, but hasn't technically violated it (a point he asserts quite strongly [35] in his defense), but he's clearly violating the spirit of both WP:3RR and WP:BRD. Thanks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Cheeser1 has misrepesented facts. Never was he notified that he was "not allowed to leave" warnings on my talk page. His message there and here of 3RR is trying to retrofit a warning where it isn't merited. Additionally, there has been a message left on Firefly disputing this additional link listed without any rationale provided. There are several articles on fireflies, what precisely is the justification for a link on the main Firefly page and the disambiguation page? He's never offered any rationale. What are we left to conclude, given his adherence to leaving a reference when WP:N objectively shows that this is undeserved and not a single poster aside from Cheeser1 has issued a protest? Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:N does not govern hatnotes. Furthermore, WP:BRD is the issue at hand, not whether or not the hatnote should be there. You've been edit warring, and only after I started the discussion and dropped you a 3RR warning that you dismissed out of hand did you start replying. I'm more than happy to discuss the content issue at Talk:Firefly, as I requested from the start, but restoring the status quo version of the article (per WP:BRD) and stemming your edit-warring/revert-spree should be the only things up for discussion here. Do you have any reason to explain why you were not adhering to consensus policy? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why hatnotes are not governed by WP:N, in your expert opinion? That is the issue that seems to be skirted in this discussion. The argument of 3RR is a hallow one without merit. Please reference the "consensus" that agreed to have a hatnote directing attention to a non-notable article from the main Firefly rather than from the disambiguation page, which is standard Wikipedia policy? I'd be curious why this deserves special exemption?Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Because no mention of hatnote use in regards to notability can be found at either hatnote or Disambiguation. If such a valid claim was asserted, it would have been backed up with valid discussions where consensus was achieved that hatnote use must fall under notability standards, but there has been none as of yet.

A talk page on an article is not an appropriate venue to hold those discussions, either. The burden to provide this proof falls under the initiator, Netkinetic, and he has so far failed to provide adequate citations. While there has been no 3RR vios., I find it disturbing that Netkinetic finds that warnings from non-administrators are worthless, per his comment; no such assertion can be found at WP:VANDAL. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that Netkinetic's user of {{otheruses}} is the most appropriate hatnote use. From WP:Disambiguation:

"When there are several articles associated with the same ambiguous term, include a link to a separate disambiguation page. If there is a disambiguation page for the topic and its name consists of the generic topic name with " (disambiguation)" added to it, use the {{Otheruses}} template."

— ERcheck (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is not the issue at hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Few ¢...

Reading through WP:HAT and DAB, it seems that there is a bit of gray, especially with multiple hats. It is pretty clear though that a hat for an existing "(disambiguous)" page is, or should be, preferable to adding hats for presumed 2nd or 3rd (or more) choices. The hat is supposed to simplify things at the top of the page, not create clutter.

As far as notability... common sense would be that if there isn't a dab page and there are other articles with the same or a similar title, hat dabs need to be present. That really isn't the case here though.

Digging through the edit history and the talk a few things become clear:

1. There was a proposal to demote the bug in favor of the show. Consensus out of those debates was that the bug is the common usage.
2. The 2nd hat has been brought up and not really hashed out.
3. The 2nd hat has a history of being added and removed with the article being stable (in respect to the hat) fair spans of time in both states.

The back and forth in the edit summaries is brisk, and does strain civility in points. And it does have the hallmarks of edit warring, 3RR or no.

And as Seicer points out, the brush off Netkinetic gave a warning from another editor on his talk page is troubling. More so since Net places like warnings through VandalProof on both IP talks and editor talks.

Net's got a valid point re Firefly, but this has spun beyond that. - J Greb (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that I have repeatedly asserted my willingness to discuss the issue and any points Netkinetic might have. My concern is his conduct, not the changes he wishes to make to the article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah J Greb. You had no interest in this subject previously. Curious that at this point you interject a note that this is "troubling". The issue at hand is clear cut wherein this page is concerned, that is the bottom line.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Netkinetic, this is an ANI report regarding your inappropriate behavior. The troubling nature of that behavior is exactly where uninvolved people are supposed to interject. Feel free to scroll up and read about this noticeboard. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate? Such as ignoring standard polices and guidelines, for instance WP:NPOV, WP:N, etc. If there is an "edit warring", check the history that shows your repeated reverts over the past three days. Does that not violate the spirit of "3RR". My response on my talk page notwithstanding (and that is in large part non-negotiable as long as it is not inflammatory, my response was not) wherein is there anything directed towards you aside from your curious adherence to inclusion of a trivial entry as being noteworthy, when this flies in the face of Wikipedia protocol? It was my inpression that since November 2007, when you were blocked for 3RR, you would have the decorum to consider other points of view. Conversation was handled in the subject lines in the preliminary stage, followed by on the talk page. That is standard, look around, you'll see that common throughout Wikipedia. Now that we have had "consensus" of the appropriate kind solidifying procedure on these pages, the matter has concluded. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Netkinetic, please keep in mind that the ANI is a noticeboard for uninvolved, third-parties (administrators mostly) to evaluate a situation and figure out what's going on regarding users' conduct. It is not the place to settle the content/style dispute at hand, nor is it a place for you, an involved non-administrator, to evaluate the situation and users' conduct. I would ask that you step aside and let people respond to this, instead of using the ANI as another place to duplicate this dispute or declare yourself victor. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I also find Netkinetic's attitude troubling. That I also find him right per the solution to the issue at hand is of no consequence to his actions, being right rarely justifies being a jerk about being right, or about doing the right thing. The matter is not urgent, and could've been discussed peaceably on the article talk. Netkinetic asserts that Cheeser's all wrong, but a look at cheeser's links shows Netkinetic couldv'e handled this better. Since Netkinetic won't accept Cheeser's warnings on his page, and blanks them while disregarding them, I'd say the given warning doesn't fall under the standard 'if they blanked it they saw it', as he stated that he disregards its' validity. I'd suggest an Admin warning, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a lack of tact, I was simply struck with the utter hypocrosy of Cheeser1 posting that bogus "3RR" warning (when 3RR never occured) on my talk page, while casting a blind eye on his own persistent reverts. I find troubling that an editor would exercise his preference for a particular subject (Firefly the USA TV show) by inserting a link that flies in the face of Wikipedia guidelines already renumerated above. If there is a question as to a lack of POV on Cheeser1's part influencing his edits on Firefly, please review the talk page above his and my discussion, and you'll see his active interest in the subject. That said, an admin warning seems to be overkill for this low level of conflict. We have a myraid of WP:IAR and WP:B editors out there with far less tact. The content is what we need to be concerned with here. Regards. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an ANI report regarding your conduct. The content dispute is not in question. I will also state as a matter of fact that I was not the one who inserted the original hatnote link to Firefly (TV series) that Netkinetic removed, and that there is a substantial number of opinions on this matter that consider it a grey area, since this case is not explicitly covered by any hatnote guideline. As another matter of fact, I will point out (as the admins her ought to know) that a 3RR warning comes before the 3RR is violated. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, the more you speak, the worse you can make yourself look. Netkinetic, no, I think in light of your skirting the 'irritating wikilawyering' line, the warning's just about right. ThuranX (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, considering your experience with (according to some admins) "Repeated incivility after warning", "deceptive edit summaries", and "Deliberate admitted continuation of uncivil behaviour having been warned"...maybe you have some experience in this area after all. Well we all learn as we go I guess. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(dedent ←)

Yes, it is very cut and dried, and the Net's comments here keep adding to it: he's got a valid content edit that is getting buried by his conduct, to which he's adding blatant incivility for baiting and berating others not involved in the article in question for commenting on his actions (the reason ANI and like pages exist) and posting what reads as a veiled personal attack on one of those comments (ThuranX above).

- J Greb (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• A hatnote linking to the dab page is fine. The dab page lists the TV show, which is fine. Why pick the TV show out of the dozens of things in the dab page? That is completely arbitrary. I have reverted to the dab link, on the grounds that this is what dab pages are for. If there are one or two uses, list them in a hatnote, if there are many, as there are here, then the dab page is the right place. That said, it's a content dispute and does not need to be here. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  If you'd read the complaint, the issue is with edit-warring and incivility (see J Greb's comment right above yours). --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, your edit warring is indeed problematic, and your argumentation has tended towards the ad-hominem. I take it that the above is an acknowledgement of this and a commitment to do better, so this thread can probably be closed. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jamesonr

has issues. Jamesonr (talk · contribs). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? —Travis^talk 04:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be because of the following: @ Sandbox, @ AFD for Chanyut Chokjanphen, and @ userpage. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

{Yes, edit conflict) Appears to be very unhappy about the deletion of a soapboxy article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanyut Chokjanphen). He then put up "articles" with the same attacks as at This version of his user page, since blanked. Seems to have stopped for now. Don't know if anyone things "reason" is a reasonable course of action at this point. Didn't want to go to bed and put leave an unwatched pot simmering. Cheers and goodnight. Dlohcierekim 04:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a little petulant over the proposed deletion. I'm going to watch this while you sleep Dlohcierekim. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I see. I guess I was too tired to even look at his edits last night. Never mind. —Travis^talk 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Herget‎ and my talk page

I marked Paul Herget‎ for CSD, but a number of different - and new - users have been both removing the CSD tag and adding comments on my talk page. Adds to my talk page: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. I've been removing them, but I could use a hand in dealing with that page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Two more additions: [42] [43]. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Article's in the bit bucket, editors are in the bing. east.718 at 05:05, February 21, 2008

Thanks muchly. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This page and its creation is pure trolling and vandalism, just look at the sources quoted as being used for its creation: " Every piece of evidence in this page is either true or has been prophesied by Nostradamus. We feel that this is a worthy page, as Nostradamus' writings are generally taken seriously." no more is needed to justify its deletion, that is without mentioning that the guy isn't real. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do think the person is real, considering that some of the posts were by an account titled pherget. Just thought I should add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMG007007 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also indef blocked a few more involved users, including the original creator of the page (the only one with unrelated edits, mainly vandal fighting), User:Dnvrfantj. Fram (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sbkbg‎ COI

User talk:Sbkbg‎ Has now been given two final warnings about removing tags from articles. He keeps removing the notability tag and other tags from WFAL[44],[45], [46]. It has pointed out to him over and over again that he has not established notability and since he is DJ working for the station he should not be removing tags himself [47], [48] [49]. I've really reached the end of my patience with this issue. Ridernyc (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

he has now taken the very mature action of issuing me a vandalism warning. Ridernyc (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already contacted an admin about this user User talk:Ridernyc and am awaiting a reply from the admin. I have had numerous talks to try and get him to stop. he continues to vandalize a page a wrote a few sentences for, by abusing tags. --Sbkbg (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ridernyc is not abusing. He is working in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Because of your WP:COI with an article that is currently a candidate for WP:AFD, your removal of the tags are in bad faith. Bear in mind that issuing ill-conceived or vindicative vandal warnings is also terrible wikietiquette. My recommendation to you would be to allow for the AfD to run its course and concentrate on proving your article is worthy of being noticed. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 09:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you may want to familiarize yourself with what what vandalism is and is not. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 09:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruption across some articles

Please have a look at LTTE and Maoist Relations, Indian Maoism, Indian Maoists and their related AfDs. User:LankanTiger, User:Thileepanmathivanan and User:99.238.6.68 blankets afds ([50], [51], [52]), AfD tags have been removed ([53], [54], [55]) and removes of afd closing tag ([56]) and deletes AfD comments ([57]). Also, anecdotically see this comment [58], claiming that there is discrimination by 'sikh extremists'. --Soman (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User seems to just be contributing and statements were clear that user provided refferences on a new article. --ThambeEeE (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. Indra10 (talk · contribs) just blanked this section and is solicitating votes per the above diff[59]. The AfD tags are also still being removed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sonam is not allowing others to Contribute. User:Soman is disrupting important information that was requested by Politicians and others to create. All refferences with pages have been provided. User:Sonam seems to be incooperative by nominating important articles and related articles which must be made. User fails to understand recent activties and Joint Operations which have been taken place recently. --99.238.6.68 (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sonam is disrupting important information that was requested by Politicians and others to create. Excuse me? Are openly admitting that these were created in response to solicitiation by politicians? Can we say WP:NPOV and WP:COI. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, i would also like to contribute to this resolution. User:Soman is not providing Recent Information which has taken place recently. Those pages created were cerated on recent activities that have been taken place i can also provide many Refferences as well. User shuld also allow others to create pages and contribute. --TigersRus (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a pattern of similar edits by several user accounts across several article (not just LTTE/Maoism related), which would suggest that there might be sock-puppeting in the afd process. --Soman (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I would like to know what politicians are solicitating the creation of POV forks on enwiki. That seems rather disturbing to me. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Parallel process now underway on AfD on Sabitha Kumari. --Soman (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Could there be a sock-puppet check-up on Indra10 (talk · contribs), ThambeEeE (talk · contribs), Maobad (talk · contribs), 99.238.6.68 (talk · contribs), LankanTiger (talk · contribs), TigersRus (talk · contribs), Thileepanmathivanan (talk · contribs) and Kumarans10 (talk · contribs)? --Soman (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The way they type "Refferences" is a clear giveaway. See this debate and the deletion debates. That is too distinct to be a coincidence. Add the disruption and disturbing creation of solicitated POV material and there should be enough evidence here for a block. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Except not all of these people appear to be the same person, or at least not obviously. Indra, ThambeEeE, LankanTiger, and TigersRus may be the same person, but a checkuser or some other smoking gun would be nice. For all we know this misspelling of "references" is common in India. Additionally, none of the above four have persisted in removing the AfD tags, so they are no longer disruptive, at least so far. Maobad seems to be editing on a completely different tack, and is the only person I see who has erased anything from a deletion discussion. And Kumarans may have created the Indian Maoists article, but he/she hasn't participated in the deletion discussions and doesn't appear to be at all disruptive. Soman, if you want a RFCU, I would suggest you file that request on the noticeboard. Natalie (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the anon IP claims to be the creator ([60]) of the article that User:Kumarans10 created. The behaviour of blanketting AfD discussion is not unique for User:Maobad, see ([61], [62], [63]). --Soman (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request filed here. Soman, feel free to edit it if I missed anything. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right Soman - LankanTiger is editing similarly to Maobad. So there are essentially three groups here: Indra, THambeEeE, Thileepanmathivanan, and TigersRus, who stopped removing the AfD tags, who were removing AfD tags but have since stopped; Maobad and LankanTiger, who were blanking AfD discussions, and Kumarans and the anonymous user. Whether or not Kumarans and the anon are the same person, I didn't see any blanking by them, so I guess I'm not sure why they're being thrown together with these other folks. Natalie (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalie look at the AfD here. The IP edits the same way as Thileepanmathivanan. If you look deeper and notice the timestamps you'll see that the accounts are editing in succession. He logs out, then back in only he sometimes forgets and thus the IP turns up. Since the IP appears to be static or at least the same for a significant amount of time I hope checkuser will be fairly conclusive, regardless of whether we are right or wrong. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, I and I won't claim I'm not suspicious, but RFCU will hopefully sort this out. Natalie (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser case is now completed. There's a rather large farm to be dealt with if anyone is so inclined - Alison ^❤ 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All blocked indef; did not tag them as sockpuppets as I do not know who the master account is. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly User:HairyMan101 too. He created an account [64] and six minutes later went to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabitha Kumari, and he moves/edits User:Thileepanmathivanan's and User:ThambeEeE's comments as if he owned them [65]. cab (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And probably Raninder (talk · contribs) too; creates an account and immediately heads to the same old places [66]. cab (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Raninder (talk · contribs) does look suspicious but other than that it seems to have been dealt with swiftly and efficiently. I don't think checkuser would have any problems identifying any additional accounts. Good work. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tamilagam (talk · contribs) is another sock, clarifying that the sockfarming has not ceased. Also not personal attacks by this account in the LTTE-Maoist AfD. --Soman (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Akhamenehpour

Resolved

unsourced POV dispute / disruptive edit warring since 2008-02-01 on Piedmont, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Piedmont High School (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User interprets all content warnings as a personal attack and has so far ignored/deleted all warnings or call for discussion. Likely ipsock [67] has threatened to puppet disrupt these articles. Article RFP has been denied, user has received multiple 3rr warnings, and one block. – Zedla (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In unrelated developments, he has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, his talk page has been protected, the articles in question have been semi-protected, and all is well in the world. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPN anyone?

If anyone is interested, an objective opinion would be useful at WP:BLPN#Mike Lupica. Summary: my two edits removed a criticism section that was larger than the entire rest of the article combined (check the article sizes before and after). A POV-pushing IP disagrees. Input is much appreciated. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment. The criticism section did seem too long. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If anyone would care to add Mike Lupica to their watchlists, that would be great too. The over-the-top Lupica hating seems to slowly creep back in over time. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Block Check

I gave User:Smsarmad and User:Aursani each 24 hour 3RR blocks for edit warring on the Benazir Bhutto article. They had both been warned appropriately but still continued. Were these blocks appropriate? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 14:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good blocks - both were in violation of the rule, and Smsarmad is going to get detwinkled for complete misuse of the tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And rollback removed because he used that as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kenny Sia

Kennysia (talk · contribs), who claims to be Kenny Sia, has been removing assertions critical to him in the article. He claims that there is no conflict of interest as the assertions were not supported (which is true), but I still believe that there is a conflict of interest. I'd like opinions on this, however. --Nlu (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with Sia; I would have removed that sentence - (with reference to BLP and original research if challenged.) Yes, he may have a conflict of interest in editing the article, but that shouldn't prevent him removing obvious crap. CIreland (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of a potential WP:COI, any unsourced material maybe removed on sight, especially in WP:BLP and if the info is potentially controversial. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback#User:AusRef

Resolved

 – rollback rights granted to user

Without involving a huge debate one way or the other on the particular case, could a fourth admin review the above request that has been oustanding most of today, and either grant or not grant so it can be archived. Whatever the merits, it seems silly to have the request hanging around for hours with no action, and unfair to the requestor. Thanks. Pedro :  Chat  15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Took a look, was going to grant it, but John Reaves had already done it hours ago. I don't see what the big deal was. Neıl ☎ 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

In the past I have always trusted that user, however after todays events I see no way other than to report this. I spend the whole day writing the Danubian Sich, the article is still not finished, and one of the points correctly pointed out was to refrence the text. However just because the pilot version still has none Is that a reason for a full revert by an administrator. Essentially a whole days of work down the toilet.

Yet after my following of the WP:1RR I am being told to read the fucking edit summary. I am sorry but this guy is an administrator! How!? is this behaivour allowed? If a non-admin goes like that destroying pages of work by an editor he will be frowned if not banned. And after such an edit summary... but an administrator telling me, an experienced wikipedian to essentially fuck off is something that I can't just let it pass. --Kuban Cossack 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Mikkalai just self reverted back to Kuban kazak's version and is clearly interested in awaiting your references. You might want to use {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} in the future to communicate clearer that the article is in an in-between state, and still under work. Mikkalai's edit summaries were incivil, but since he has fixed his own problem, I say we call this a "no-harm-no-foul" situation, and move on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be noted that Mikkalai's incivility and tone on Talk:Danubian_Sich#Full_revert and the summaries are not acceptable. I don't know whats up his wikibutt, but he needs to tone it down immediately. Lawrence § t/e 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack's edit summary is no better and probably worse. If they're working it out there's no need to point fingers. WilyD 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? History. "rvt plain vandalism" in response to "respectfully reverted. Kazak, you have been quite long here to know CITE YUR SOURCES!!!!!" is somehow worse how? The admin Mikkalai is patently in the wrong here, when combined with his high-handed and inappropriate tone on the talk page. Let's not defend a fuck up. Lawrence § t/e 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Content-wise, it's far closer to name-calling, and it's the departure from civility. WilyD 17:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And taken in whole, if an admin swoops in, reverts your work, swears at you in the summary, and then takes an obnoxious and inappropriate tone on the talk page with an implication you can be "blocked", which is worse? People will certainly lash out if attacked randomly, and a one-off calling an edit "vandalism" is certainly not that bad. The admin was in the wrong here. There's no other way to shake it. Lawrence § t/e 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, Mikkalai didn't swear "at" him and only responded to rudeness with rudeness. No denying that Mikkalai was wrong - but Kuban Kazak was too, which is what I said in the first place. WilyD 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The point as I keep saying is that none of this excuses or gives Mikkalai license to use his admin tools, nor to threaten or imply their use. Lawrence § t/e 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Next thing and you are going to demand to stop beating my wife. Learn to read and comprenend what other people write then come and teach others. `'Míkka>t 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame he can't self revert his attitude. --Kbdank71 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, the edit summary isn't telling you to fuck off. It's emphasizing in a crude way the importance of the edit summary. So far as I'm aware, although maybe frowned upon, such a statement doesn't violate community standards - certainly it came up in my RfA that "fuck" shows up in my edit summaries on occasion (usually in the context of "fuck up") and people didn't object much. I will say that your work isn't lost - it's still in the history. Consider using User:Kuban kazak/sandbox to work on the page until it's ready for the show. I'm not sure how helpful it is, but there it is. WilyD 16:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This kind of deletionism is becoming a running annoyance. I've had several article starts WP:PROD-ed and other obnoxious tags applied by people who were too impatient to wait a few hours for me to finish getting the article in. the {{inuse}} tag is helpful but people do forget to put it in, for instance because they are interrupted and have to save material before they are ready to do so. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC) The problem isn't that, it's Mikkalai's attitude and tone. Did you see him on Talk:Danubian_Sich#Full_revert? Totally unacceptable, and he needs to agree to tone it down. I think everyone is sick of high-handed editors getting free passes. Lawrence § t/e 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC also) I would respectfully disagree - "Oops I fucked up" is alot different than "read the fucking edit summary," which is direct profanity specifically at someone that he's twice-reverted. I came here only to post this, for the record (since I happened to recall it coming up), but I have to say, it's not just the use of the word "fuck" but the way he directed it, in hostility, at another user. Perhaps not his intent, but that's a fairly obvious and reasonable way to take it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict X 8). IMO, both of you jumped to conflict and incivility, and neither excuses the other. He shouldn't have cursed, but nor should you have said he went mad, etc. This is a very simple incident that could be handled with a little tact, communication, and assumption of good faith. A better way for you is to politely explain in the article talk page or his page that you are in process of editing it and will add sources. If someone prods or speedies a new article I'm creating I'll just revert them, add an "inuse" tag, and leave a note that I hear them and will make sure it's a proper article by the time I finish. I see no indication that Mikkalai's being an administrator has anything to do with this issue. He did not use his administrative privileges or threaten you with administrative action. If nothing happens in the next few minutes, this matter is probably resolved. Wikidemo (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I take that back, in part. this comment by Mikkalai could be seen as a threat to block Kuban kazak for not using sources. A block would be incorrect in any event, and an abuse of administrative privileges if done by an administrator who is a party to the underlying content dispute, so the threat too seems abusive. And in a later comment he continues cursing. So yes, the attitude is wrong. But you goaded him into it, so I don't really think you have much cause to complain. Wikidemo (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly did Kazak "goad" Mikkalai into flipping out in a disrespectful attack, disallowed threat to block, and nasty tone? By writing an article? Lawrence § t/e 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By restoring all of the material with the edit summary calling Mikkalai "pure vandalism" Wikidemo (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is what is considered goading, then Mikkalai has far too short of a fuse to be an administrator. The point is that Mikkalai's actions and threat of admin action has zero basis in policy, zero justification in policy, and are not acceptable. Combined with his bad attitude and high-handed tone, he needs to tone it down for his own good. Lawrence § t/e 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

?????? What's wrong with you people? Cool down and read the "RTFM" article. Of course I am not a smooth piece of cake, but I suggest you to think a little bit of this sequence of events.

• (cur) (last) 20:23, February 21, 2008 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) (3,753 bytes) (read the fucking edit summary.) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 20:21, February 21, 2008 Kuban kazak (Talk | contribs | block) (13,177 bytes) (Undid revision 193057863 by Mikkalai (talk)rvt plain vandalism) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 20:20, February 21, 2008 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) (3,753 bytes) (respectfully reverted. Kazak, you have been quite long here to know CITE YUR SOURCES!!!!!) (undo)

If Cuban Cossack and you all think that my calling my own edit summary "fucking" is an itnolerable offense towards Cuban Cossack that it must be discussed in AN/I, then y'all need a larger pill than me. `'Míkka>t 17:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that you have here, and in the past, taken a dismissive and high-handed tone to your peers. You need to turn that down yesterday, for the sake of your career here and longevity on this site. Rudeness is not acceptable. Lawrence § t/e 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai also implied that Kazak could be blocked for this on the article talk page, FYI. Lawrence § t/e 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, warning someone that edit warring can result in blocks is not inappropriate. WilyD 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you take the small pill then, Mikkalai. You're right about it needing sources but calm will get people to do what you want a lot surer than cursing. Plus, when you flash the administrator's broom, a user who is already testy can get worse. I know people don't like it when I compare admins to cops, but the cop who wins the most conflicts is the one who knows how to use his voice, not his gun. Kazak is an easy one; there are users who are a lot more trouble than that. Wikidemo (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. When Mikkalai as an involved editor initiates the edit warring then clearly it is inappropriate. Mikkalai has no right to use or threaten the use of his tools here in this circumstance. Why is Mikkalai as the initiator of this problem entirely being backed up? Lawrence § t/e 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Other than making everyone just feel bad, what is the point of this. Someone cursed. Boo hoo. Now let it go. The involved parties have moved on, why can't we?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary of "fuck" or whatever is trivial. I'm concerned that Mikkalai is threatened admin action (blocking) when he is not allowed, and when he is involved to boot. His ongoing admitted nasty tone is just another factor that is a problem, but I am asking for the community to properly to tell him to mind himself. His disregard for the way of things is upsetting. Mikkalai should acknowledge he made an error, and concede he is not to use tools here. Lawrence § t/e 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, I have now added some references, and will add further more. I usually draft my articles off-wiki due to my satellite connection sometimes breaking up. In any case my real shock, was that before todays event, I always considered Mikkalai to be a close ally. That's where the real damage is. --Kuban Cossack 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, Mikkalai never said she would block Kuban Kazak, only that they could be blocked for edit warring - any admin can fill out a 3RR report on someone they're in a conflict with, and policy says its just as appropriate as the greenest IP doing it. WilyD 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, myself: there was no edit warring mentioned in the warning; references were. This is clearly inappropriate admin conduct. We do not block people because they are two hours late providing a reference. As for fuck, I have no problem with it's use. I use it all the fucking time: for emphasis, interjection, or a joke. But don't use it toward someone. Obviously. Marskell (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is subject to interpretation. If an admin came in and initiated an edit war with me on an article, and then started talking about the possibility of my getting blocked, I would be very concerned--especially combined with the unneeded vulgarity and very hostile language and tone. Admins ARE held to a higher standard, and Mikkalai needs to be aware that his choice of words will cause disruption if he does things like this. I've been seeing people roll about Wikipedia using high-handed tones like his, and some of them admins: this needs to stop. It is completely disruptive and aggravating to users, and causes pointless ill-will, just so that someone can get the satisfaction of typing out a message in a gloating or superior tone. Mikkalai was wrong, full stop, for 1) initiating a short edit war; 2) implying blockings are possibly forthcoming for the other party's response; 3) not acting civil; 4) carrying about in a haughty tone that is only going to incite people to "flip out" in response. Mikkalai is not entitled to defense here, and should simply apologize and say he'll tone down his tone. Lawrence § t/e 17:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that, you know, you don't threaten to block people you are in a dispute with. That seems to have forgotten. Grandmasterka 17:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the situation makes your remedies seem more reasonable, but the facts remain that Mikkalai did not initiate an edit war, and yes, Mikkalai is entitled to be defended from this mudslinging. Two experienced editors were incivil to each other, but seemed to have moved past it (and neither were really all that incivil). The rest of your accusations are just false, and dragging Mikkalai's name through the mud for shits & giggles is simply not appropriate. WilyD 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"dragging Mikkalai's name through the mud" — Mikkalai is well-known (not say infamous) to be perfectly capable of getting that job done all on his own. User:Dorftroffel 17:59, February 21, 2008

It's a quiet open joke that on any borderline matter on ANI that an admin gets the benefit of the doubt over a non-admin. However, in this case, the matter wasn't exactly borderline, and the fact that the admin has their name draged through the mud but the other party hasn't is a comical farce. Mikka messed up today; Kazak did not. How is this even up for debate? We need to get over ourselves and begin to weed out haughty nonsense. Lawrence § t/e 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have been on wikipedia for quite a long time myself, and I have had all sorts of filth thrown at me. Anyone can slip up, and fair enough I can accept that. Personally its not offense that I feel after what has happened, but instead my disappointment from someone who in past I had very high trust in. Of all the people to dish out something like that to have Mikka, someone who has always had my respect for, and even a role model... to pull such a stunt off, out of the blue... It goes without saying. Warnings and incivility is something that I have had to put with long enough, and if comes to I can easily forgive...Trust is something that is damaged beyond repair. --Kuban Cossack 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not editing wikipedia to gain someone's trust, respect, love, or barnstars. I have been seeing quite a few people having huge fun in wikilawyering instead of writing articles. It feels so good, banging other people on their heads, isn't it? Especially when they give you a minimal reason. Since people are not robots, wikiHeadBangers will always have an opportunity. And I am not ever going to talk to them. `'Míkka>t 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand when an admin slips up, the line forms up to punch him, but you also have to bear in mind, that they are human and human patience is limited. That is quite understandable in the case of Kuban Kazak. He already posted it at Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements even before Mikki came along[68]. Who would post an unfinished article,as he claims, on the notice board? In my view, Mikki was right, because the indications were such, that he was never coming to finish it. The choice of words could have been different, but it is time some users take responsibility for their actions and don't put blame on others. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So someone who has long been able to register any minor comment as a Personal attack now condones the use of profanity. Incidentally people put stubs on new-article announcement boards. What, does that mean that a new article created from scratch can now be deleted? --Kuban Cossack 18:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's what this is all about, right? The choice of words. In my opinion the underlying issue is just plain trivial. But I do think that everyone should try not to use bad language (except for occasional, obvious humor), and administrators all the more so when they would reasonably be perceived as acting in an administrative role. We can't really codify that because we don't want censorship, but as a community norm I think it's fair to ask people to be polite.Wikidemo (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is fair. And a proper solution would be to say: "hey, I felt offended by your remark", rather than throwing a whole tantrum. In this particular case IFAIU Cossack was offended by my revert. I restored the text myself after an exchange in the article talk page. I was even going to apologize. But once a wikilawyer aggressively jumped in the whole idea of apology just went with a smoke. `'Míkka>t 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Politeness is not just fair, it's policy. Note: [69] --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mikka is a grumpy old bastard. In other news, bears shit in the woods and the Vatican confirms that the pope is Catholic. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• So? --Kbdank71 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, that's funny, and tongue and cheek. People being bastards is not acceptable. You. Me. Mikka. I can be cross, but I go out of my way to not let it bleed through in my writing here as much as possible. It's time to weed out people who act like asses to their peers, or their behavior. Lawrence § t/e 18:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And I say it's time to weed asses censors who run around policing other people for every single word. Cossack has a right to demand an apology, you do not. By the way, since you say you "go out of my way to not let it bleed through", I demand you to strike the word "asses" from your post, then I will strike out it from mine. `'Míkka>t 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Done. The point Mikka is that sounding calm and non-inflammatory, ESPECIALLY if you're an admin, is very important. Contrary to Guy's tone above, acting like a bastard or sounding like one really isn't acceptable, especially if coming from any position of perceived authority. Would you be willing to try to moderate your tone going forward? Lawrence § t/e 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Next time you start policing, please be advised than in some cultures calling someone "ass" will have your throat cut. And no I will not stop beating my wife. `'Míkka>t 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is just a wildly inappropriate response. Lawrence § t/e 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Harrass Mikkalai long enough and he makes rude comments - I'm not sure you should find that surprising. WilyD 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Retract or refactor this at once. I have done no harassing of any sort. You are out of line. Lawrence § t/e 19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, no. My comments accurate reflect reality, whereas yours simply don't. WilyD 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Then I consider a false accusation of harassment to be a personal attack, and consider yourself warned. Provide evidence or this is a violation against me. Lawrence § t/e 20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fortunately, I haven't made any such false claim - but feel free to make baseless accusations about my behaviour. I shan't object. WilyD 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• You accused me of harassing Mikkalai. Where is the evidence of my harassing him? I asked him to tone down the language on the article talk page after seeing this thread, and that's my entire involvement here beyond this section of ANI. How is that harassment? Are admins not to be challenged by non-admins for their behavior? I have made no false assertations, while you may be trying to poison the well here. I want to AGF that this is not the case. Lawrence § t/e 20:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you guys cut this out? This isn't helping anything. John Reaves 20:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Okie dokie, would Lawrence and WilyD both kindly leave the room please? Both clearly off topic as none of your last several posts have mentioned the subject at hand. Both leaving now would be best for both good editors. Please go. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Let's not make Wikipedia into the kind of culture where saying the wrong thing will get your throat cut. This is a collaborative project. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Would Mikkalai agree that we do not block people for not immediately adding references? That his or her block suggestion was unwarranted? The use of fuck should be apologized for, sure, but as for what's pertinent to AN/I, I think we could just wind this down if Mikkalai agrees there was no need to suggest blocking in this situation. Marskell (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Writing an article without providing good references may be bad editing style, and it may result in substandard or incorrect content, but it's hardly a blockable offense. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured I may as well comment since I was recently involved in a civility issue with Mikkalai (my WQA here; ANI filed about the same incident here). It's become clear to me in the few days since that incident that I'm just one of a great many people who has had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of Mikkalai's uncivil behavior. As anyone can see from the links above, I was doing nothing more than giving my opinion. I didn't threaten anyone. I wasn't rude to anyone. I didn't do anything that contravenes any policy or convention. I just gave my opinion and for that I was told, in so many words, that I was a) wrong, b) ignorant, and c) to just leave and stop "getting in the way" of his work. I did absolutely nothing to deserve such a belligerent and patronizing response and I honestly don't understand how anyone is able to continually get away with behaving like that without any real action being taken. I made attempts to resolve the situation and without exception those attempts were met with either more rudeness, or reversion without comment. If he'd just taken five seconds to say, "Yeah, I was a little rude there. Sorry about that", then I wouldn't have had the slightest problem; everyone has shitty days, me included. But it's very clear to me, from his dealing with me and with others, that Mikkalai simply doesn't believe that he's done anything wrong and that everyone else is at fault. Nothing else can explain all the attacking comments he's leaving on his talk page right now.
Understand this: I am simply not going to be involved in any work in which Mikkalai is involved solely due to his shitty attitude. It's just not worth it. Why would anyone want to devote their time to making an article better only to have him storm in and delete text wholesale for spurious reasons? Or threaten to block you for, of all things, not immediately referencing the text you added? Or tell you you're ignorant and should go away because you're not editing in the manner that he thinks is correct and proper? Or call you a "wikilawyer" if you dare to mention that, you know, being rude to people and acting like you own an article is not allowed around here?
If his attitude continues to carry on as it currently is you can guarantee that more editors will be discouraged from working. At some point, surely a line has to be drawn, doesn't it? -- Hux (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai block review

• Mikkalai (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Mikka just posted to Lawrence: "Next time you start policing, please be advised than in some cultures calling someone "ass" will have your throat cut."

My stomach turned. I have blocked for twelve hours. If someone knows this editor, I'd suggest contacting to see if there isn't some personal matter that is upsetting them. I have absolutely no ill-intent and am completely uninvolved. But this is absolutely not acceptable commentary. Marskell (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree based on that comment. I've never had any kind of innuendo or threat like that leveraged at me before. On User_talk:Mikkalai he's now demanding an unblock and that Marskell be deadminned. Lawrence § t/e 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, he needs a break. I have had nothing to do with this but perhaps 12 hours will cool him down. That was wildly inappropriate. RxS (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not endorsing the block (or unblock) but blocking historically has proven to do exactly the opposite of "cooling someone down", so much so, that it even says not to do it in the blocking policy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. He'd been responding extremely negatively to any commentary here, including saying I'd get my throat cut (!). Is this block to stop him from saying something even worse that will get him a longer block or desysopped? Lawrence § t/e 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this the block should not be for a cool down period. It should be clear that the block is prevent language, that when used, tends to create a hostile environment and makes it more difficult for the community to function. Ronnotel (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know this guy, that can say something to him?[70]

"Solemn pledge of muteness

Since wikipedia is full of sickos happy to jump at conclusions, and since the adminship is infested with trigger-happy cowboys, I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever."

This isn't helping. Lawrence § t/e 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a sound block, I doubt he'll come storming out of it with more comments like that. John Reaves 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm concerned for him. I posted a message to his talk page [71]. Moments later, he erased it leaving a comment "P.S. And no I will never stop beating my wife." [72] Everybody has bad days, but this level of anger isn't like Mikka. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a good block, in my opinion - what part of blocking policy justifies this block? It wasn't a physical threat, in my reading, and I think that while his edit summary wasn't sooper-civil (it contained a swear!!) it also isn't necessarily justification for an AN/I thread. Avruch ^T 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand mute on the overarching issues of this thread, but I do note that threats of violence do qualify as personal attacks per WP:NPA, and violations of WP:NPA are blockable. I concur that the block probably won't be a net positive, but the alternatives of a warning or ignoring the comment altogther are, in my mind, even less palatable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it was an ill-advised comment, among other ill advised comments, and he's clearly a bit worked up at the moment... But I don't think the "throat cut" comment qualifies as personal attack or physical threat, more like a tit for tat about language and what people get offended by. Avruch ^T 19:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The block is for preventative reasons I believe, as he seems to be having a go at anyone who tries to have a go at him, and his comment "Since wikipedia is full of sickos happy to jump at conclusions, and since the adminship is infested with trigger-happy cowboys, I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever." seems to be a classic case of projection at the moment. Admins are not immune to being blocked I hope, or there'd be a clear caste system on wiki. Everyone says this is out of character. As I said of myself once in the one instance I was warned for disparaging another editor, and I believe is the case for Mikkalai if what you say bout this being surprising from him is true, he will soon be saying that "normal service has been resumed." :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The block is appropriate to prevent Mikka further poisoning the atmosphere and throwing any further toys out of his pram. Playful characterisations of "oh, he's a grumpy old bastard so it's okay" are ludicrous and unhelpful. Neıl ☎ 20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Hammersoft’s point, I’m a little concerned for Mikkalai too. As I tried to suggest above and on his talk, this person may need to someone to talk to right now. That was my immediate impression. It’s just a twelve hour block, precisely because it’s preventative. If he or she was willing to post a sentence as reprehensible as the one I repeated above, what would the next comment have looked like? For Mikka’s own sake, it’s better that Mikka isn’t posting right now.

So no Avruch, I cannot agree with you. That the editor is an administrator has nothing to do with whether the post is acceptable. One doesn’t have to say “I will kill you” to be making physical threats; this was obviously an unacceptable reference to physical assault. The block may not be a net positive (that will depend on Mikka’s overall state of mind) but as UltraExactZZ says, simply letting something like this go is even worse. Marskell (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I didn't really mean to imply that he should be immune from a block as an administrator - I just don't see a reference to a physical assault as the same thing as a physical threat or personal attack. It was just a dumb comment, and it by itself isn't enough to warrant a block in my opinion (which is the minority here, it seems!). Avruch ^T 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As an administrator he should be held to the same standards as general editors. If he makes a personal attack. He gets warned. If it continues, he gets warned again. This page is wholly appropriate for discussing the behavior of another administrator, especially in this case from what I have observed. However, the block was a relatively poor idea for the reasons already stated. Cool down blocks are a no no. An admin should know that. Finally, I do believe after the release it will continue or escalate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And so you just keep warning him ad infinitum, and that solves the problem? Of course a cool-down period is warranted, maybe even longer than 12 hours. A new editor would be blocked indef in a heartbeat for a comment like that. Seriously. Grandmasterka 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty cynical. I've never seen a new user blocked immediately for making such a comment - It would be construed as a personal attack and taken from there. And who said anything about incessantly warning. I'm saying the admin should have been warned as normal and THEN blocked under policy. I also disagree that this form of block was "preventive" I think we're splitting hairs here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all condoning this behavior. I believe such vitriol coming from an admin is sickening to say the least, but there are channels. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this again several hours later I'd say you're probably right. :-| Grandmasterka 23:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the received wisdom on "cool down blocks," and broadly agree—but this wasn't, precisely, a cool down block. It was preventative, as stated above, and also done because some comments are egregious enough that you simply have to block, fellow administrator or no. My comment before this one should serve as a sufficient reasoning. Marskell (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And yes, "A new editor would be blocked indef in a heartbeat for a comment like that." Marskell (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is disgusting behavior, for an administrator no less. Per his solemn pledge of muteness to the community, which is completely unhelpful to those who wish to get a response for an administrators actions (and yes, has been deemed so by ArbCom), and his comment that was cited above "Next time you start policing, please be advised than in some cultures calling someone "ass" will have your throat cut." Mikka knows to tone down his incivility; there almost isn't a week that goes by here recently that a thread about his rampent incivility doesn't show up. I would advise the next step be to arbitration if anyone would like to take the bold step of reviewing the many cases brought here. — Save_Us † 20:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks more like a 'Solemn pledge of soapboxing' to me... HalfShadow (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone should probably go ahead and pull his bit. It reflects very poorly on the project to have admins running around, acting like this. Friday (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a "cool down" block. A cool down block is usually in the range 1 to 3 hours, applied to regular editors and pass mostly without comment. One may protest them, but usually by the time anything can be done (wikitime can be glacial), well. . . the block is over, so see, no reason to be upset anymore. Why this would be ineffective is anyone's guess. R. Baley (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling Mikkalai mad was certainly as bad as anything Mikkalai did if not worse (its been refactored out of the header by some calmer individual), and I think Wily is right on this one. How come we tolerate the behaviour of some people (ie the original complainer) and not of others especially when it is an experienced contributor like Mikkalai, if this thread is bringing wikipedia into disrepute we shouldn't be blaming Mikkalai. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kazak has been around since 2005, Mikkalai since 2003. Both have been blocked before[73][74] but this entire situation was caused by Mikkalai's arrogant tone, initiated edit warring, implication that Kazak would be blocked on the article talk page for writing an article without immediately sourcing, and for implying I could get my throat cut. Lawrence § t/e 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

None of those things should amount to a blockable offense, IMHO. If you were to attack a knife wielding person in a country with no laws or police, you could get your throat cut. Is that a personal attack? Avruch ^T 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think that Lawrence Cohen needs to move on. Anybody agree? This was a content dispute between two users (neither of which was LC), and everything has now been completely derailed and blown out of proportion. I looked at your contribs list LC. Just today, you've made posts regarding pictures of Muhammad, Mantanamoreland, Cumulous Clouds, waterboarding, and now Mikkalai. I didn't look at your posts, just the list. It seems you have things to say wherever controversial and wikidrama rears its face. At some point, a common denominator shows up. You seem to be drawn like a fly to a bugzapper to controversy, always seeming to have this urgency about your posts which, frankly, are filled with OMGs and "I'm so offended." In this case, nobody said they cutting your throat. Mikkalai should not be blocked. Move on, LC. For the wikilove, take the wikibreak that your userpage says you are in the middle of right now. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it speaks volumes that a thread titled "Mikkalai gone mad" can generate so much response when other threads are left virtually unanswered for long periods of time (relatively speaking of course). To be entirely honest, how many of you came here for the drama rather than a quick resolution to what was initially a minor issue? EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you going out of your way to make such comments about a contributor instead of the content of his contributions, and to assume that he's some sort of wikidramaqueen? He's not the only one who thinks the "cut your throat" comment was out of line, and there is obviously more to this issue than LC filling Wikipedia with "OMGs." I'm astonished that people insisit that Mikalai's behavior is being overscrutinized when he's constantly having conflicts (perhaps often small) with users regarding his bad attitude (which seems to go oft dismissed because he's an otherwise productive contributor). If anything, the shoe is totally on the other foot here. I'm astonished that one could claim "How come we tolerate the behaviour of some people (ie the original complainer) and not of others especially when it is an experienced contributor like Mikkalai." The "original complainer" was confronted with an admin reverting a revert and swearing at him in edit summaries. Mikkalai's conduct (regardless of anyone else's conduct) is subject to just as much scrutiny as anyone else, and given that it's being dismissed with "[he's] an experienced contributor" (unlike the other guy), your "it's so unfair to Mikkalai" seems totally backwards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re EconomicsGuy above, I came here completely accidentally (looking for another thread I'd posted on AN/I.) The block was disinterested, in the broad sense that I had no dog in the initial fight or awareness of the initial details. I've unpacked my block rationale above, and stand by it.

But guys, I'm a little confused. I've hung around this discussion because I did block another admin, realized it might be important, and wanted to respond before going to sleep. But there's a lot of comments above that are defending the indefensible. ("He didn't actually threaten to cut your throat, he merely talked about throat cutting.") As I type this, Mikka has the following post as a "PS" on his talk page: "And no I will never stop beating my wife."

I mean, what the hell is going on with this editor? (There's possibly some ironic sensibility in the comments on wife beating that I'm not getting.) Really, is anyone talking to him? Obviously, he doesn't like me right now because I blocked him, but there was no punitive desire on my part. But it seems like Mikka is a little mad right now (not insane, just very angry) and we should find out why. This doesn't make me think blocking for twelve hours was wrong—we need a block, until we have a calm channel to talk to him. Marskell (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

His reference to "beating his wife", to me, is a clear reference to the Fallacy of many questions argument posted above, and has nothing to do with actually "beating your wife". In fact, type this: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and see where it redirects for an explanation. He was making a logical conclusion basically that no matter what he answered, he wouldbe be condemned by the answer. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The "I won't stop beating my wife" thing is a reference to the loaded "When did you stop beating your wife?" question, frequently used hereabouts to demonstrate when someone is making an argument that begs the question. Obviously he's perturbed, I just don't know that blocking him was the right step. It doesn't look like he's lost his mind or anything. (In other news, I think Mikka might be female. Sorry on the pronounage). Avruch ^T 22:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, I've seen "When did you stop beating your wife?" used as a rhetorical device. The larger question remains, though: is anyone talking to Mikka? Marskell (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So Mikka has a temper. What's new? Yes, I support warning him; all users need to be civil. I am not sure the block was warranted, and I am sure Mikka is not the only party who is at fault. He does not loose his temper unless provoked, and quite obviously some users have handled this with a sledgehammer and bad faith assumptions. Cool down, and learn from it. I am certainly not suggesting that even prolific editors like Mikka should be treated differently; but I am certainly suggesting some people should be more careful and good-faithed when dealing with others.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly. The solution to Mikka being provoked to anger is not to block Mikka, it's to investigate the background, which is probably (as usual) Mikka fighting for NPOV against a horde of POV-pushers. It's a question of whether one should treat the symptom or the cause. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Absoloutely a good block. We do not tolerate that kind of incivility threats or aggression on wikipedia. Viridae^Talk 10:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy by scheming cult (the Ameri-centric Libertarian Unitarian Universalists Front (ALUUF)) to turn us all insane

I don’t know how they’re doing it; possibly high frequency mind control waves sent thru the intertubes, or something in the water, or maybe ADM's proprietary genetically modified brain-chemical-altering nanobots (my own personal suspicion); but there’s a scheme afoot to turn all normal, law-abiding Wikipedians stark raving insane. As proof, I offer this entire thread. Please, until further notice, keep all your children indoors, do not stand near the windows, and do not post anything more to this thread. --barneca (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I'm not sure what that whole cult thing is supposed to mean. What the hell do Unitarians have to do with anything? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, J-stan just said "hell" to me! I demand immediate de-sysoping (for him, I mean, not for me)! oh no, they got to me too... --barneca (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Front will never succeed. After all, their own motto is 'ALUUF and Alone', right? HalfShadow (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I closed this thread about 4 hours ago, as I saw this coming, it was being used to poke and prod an editor when the situation that had brought about the thread was resolved. And yet, the principals thought it best to unclose it, if only to continue to poke the bear with the stick. And this is what we get. Does it excuse Mikklai for his incivility? No, but this did NOT have to go this way. If the thread were left closed, there would have been no blocks, and none of this pointless backbiting and bullshit. I am ashamed of this entire thread, and next time, let people work their own shit out. There is no need to antagonize others in this way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm a "principal" but I've moved the block review section outside of your close tags. I don't think the block review part of the discussion is necessarily resolved, although I would agree that the initial section was not constructive and should've been closed before it got inflamed to the point where someone handed out a block. Avruch ^T 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing saga of Michael Willis

I laid the following on requests for a third opinion: MCVerstappen (talk · contribs) and others have been making disruptive edits to Michael Willis. Please see for the discussion Talk:Michael Willis. They are unhappy that the article about a political scientist by the same name was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Willis, where the outcome was "delete and salt". (the current version about the American was created after the title was unsalted to make room for the current article.)_ Michael Willis (Political Scientist) I deleted because it was recreated as the same as the deleted article and because my pleas for verifiable sources and notability have gone unheeded and and unanswered. I and others have attempted to engage in constructive dialogue. Most recently, MCVerstappen has moved the talk page and continues to make unconstructive edits to the article and accuse others of vandalism for reverting his edits. I'm at a loss has to how to resolve the matter. If someone could shed the light of reason, I would appreciate it. HelloAnnyong felt is vandalism. and vandal warned MCVerstappen. Ernienotsowise (talk · contribs) then appeared, made this remark, which I reverted as vandalism. He made this edit. And I blocked him till I got this posted, but will unblock. Would appreciate y'all's help and insight. Dlohcierekim 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no diplomatic solution, but I commend Mike for his great patience in this matter. Given the lack of constructive input from either user cited, on any topic, plus the lengthy list of deletes applied to the alleged political scientist, then blocking seems appropriate. We might also semi-protect the article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking seems appropriate to me as well, since they seem to be refusing to read the points you've made, dlohcierekim. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if these two new accounts are the same person, but that's probably irrelevant at this point. Natalie (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected Michael Willis, and salted the alternate article names. That should do for the time being , hopefully. Black Kite 19:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

MCVerstappen (talk · contribs) actually move both the article and talk page to a nonsense title (I reverted the move, and CSDed the resulting redirect). That move (not the first move that this user has done to this page) was itself pretty blatant vandalism, and not far short (IMHO) of warranting summary blocking without further warning to prevent further vandalism 87.80.55.193 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a test4 final warning, and not sure if a block is warranted at this moment. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Did not want to come across as an elitist admin bastard. Frankly, it was time for me to take a walk and let others deal with it. My hope was that MCVerstappen et al would see reason and contribute constructively. So far, as per norm, no response to our concerns. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex-wife or random troll editor --you decide

Resolved

 – Editor blocked per WP:USERNAME by Sarcasticidealist (talk)

I arrived at the Andrea Bocelli article as a result of some previous vandalism/disruption. Now there is an editor, Enrica Bocelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who claims to be his ex-wife and insists on adding info about the singer's underwear. A little help please. 2 diffs [75] [76] [77]. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this user in accordance with WP:USERNAME; odds are that this is a random troll and that this is the last we'll hear of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think you pasted the wrong link into your first diff. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SI, and oops that first one was from earlier. . .I've added the correct one. R. Baley (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Related account creation

User:GHOST-G56 has just created a number of similar accounts, immediately after creating their own account; innocent experimentation, or a prelude for mischief? -- The Anome (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask them on their talk page? John Reaves 20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Second that. Just be mindful about politeness and civility - don't be accusatory. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a returning vandal - look at User:B0t-myth, one of the accounts created. This anti-Scientology vandal struck earlier under a number of sockpuppet accounts, including User:B0t-Zer0, User:B0t-seph3roth, User:B0t-eXtreme, User:Jarda1221 and a few others. I've blocked them all before they start vandalising again. Hut 8.5 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also User:B0t-Anonymous, User:B0t-Ghost, User:B0t-M4ster and User:B0t-phant0m. Hut 8.5 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You might also want to look at this quacking here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been transcluded onto the RfA page yet, but everybody ought to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EPIC MASTER. Corvus cornix_talk 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:EPIC MASTER. Please feel free to unblock if I am wrong. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block. I believe old untranscluded RfAs can be deleted under CSD G6 (though there's no way in hell someone with a history of abusive sockpuppetry is going to pass RfA). Hut 8.5 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce (talk · contribs) Longterm civility issues & ownership issues

having encountered redspruce on the 2nd or 3rd article now, and a quick glance at some of his previous talk comments on previous articles he's showing a willing disregard to debate civilly and this is creating a hostile editing environment on these articles. Examples from Talk:Joseph_McCarthy include:

• Since your contributions to discussion inevitably consist of uninformed wingnut drivel, I object.[78]
• Speaking of senseless waste, was there some point to those 200 words?[79]
• And makes a rather disparaging remark in the McCarthy archives On second thought, I guess I won't be back later today. Trying keep this article neutral in the face of two McCarthy apologists is becoming too much of a time and energy sink for me. Barring the arrival of reinforcements on the side of truth and rationality, I'm going to have to drop out for the time being. So whadeva; it was a decent article for a while. Bye[80]

From Talk:McCarthyism:

• Jtpaladin, even if that infantile fantasy was true, it wouldn't matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned[81]
• not for you to indulge in incoherent ramblings[82]

Most recently on the Film noir talk page he's made the following comment:

• You may wish to read anyone can edit, or better still, WP:Don't be a tiresome, priggish, tendentious little snot.[83]
• P O I N T L E S S. There is no consensus here. Period. You can either: 1) Wait for a consensus to develop, 2) Go ahead and make your pro-priggishness edit and see how the resultant edit-conflict goes, 3) Try to take this to some higher level of conflict resolution, 4) Go find some article to be priggish at.[84]

After I commented that threatening resistance without any kind of consensus (or even majority, or even guidelines on your side) reaked of WP:OWN issues (he's twice indicated there will be resistance or edit conflicts if the changes he doesn't agree with are made), especially since he has reverted these changes in the past and claimed a majority and consensus which clearly isn't there.. Numerous editors have reminded him about civility during this time, and here he demonstrates a clear understanding of it Talk:McCarthyism#Personal_attacks but it appears it just doesn't apply to him. We all end up in disputes on wikipedia. Its rare to find an article with heavy traffic that doesn't have at least one or two on its talk page, but if you can't conduct yourself appropriately during disputes this is a problem, regardless of what else you've done for the project. Nothing excuses insulting other editors.--Crossmr (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, you're using diffs stretching back to 2006 to build your case? Please tell us where the current problems lie. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. Here are some recent incivil comments:

• 17:36, 21 February 2008
• 12:10, 21 February 2008

But I'm not going to do the legwork here. I went through several days worth of posts and can't find anything that is going to jump out and cause me to lose sleep at night. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the Joe McCarthy talk page and nothing stands out as being particulalry bad. David D. (Talk) 23:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So referring to someone's contributions as uninformed wingnut drivel is okay with you?--Crossmr (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that depend on whether the actual contributions were uninformed wingnut drivel or not? Please note I am neither disagreeing with the description nor agreeing with it merely pointing out that civility is subjective and depends on whether the statement is a statement of fact or whether it is rhetoric designed to insult. --WebHamster 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. WP:CIVIL requires that we also try to avoid appearing uncivil as well as actually trying not to be uncivil. So regardless of whether or not this users contributions were uninformed wingnut drivel, calling attention to that in that manner is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. falling back on insults when you have nothing further to contribute to move the debate along is very clearly that. As well the policy contains the text Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute. Whether or not he truly feels the editors contributions are that, describing them in such a disparaging manner is uncivil.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Appearing" to be civil, in my view, is actually worse than being uncivil as it is basically lying about what you really feel and is actually indulging in passive-aggressiveness. Lying to a person is not a civil act. It also prevents honest discourse. Editors here frequently confuse 'civility' with 'political correctness'. A true act of civility is to be honest with the person you are conversing with. Obviously you don't call them a name purely to insult, but if the person is being a twat/pillock/idiot/stupid, then it's perfectly civil to let them know that. The trick is to remain on the right side of the line that separates honesty from rubbing their nose in it. It is my humble view that the mantra "you're being uncivil" is used too frequently and incorrectly and is used as a shield to ward off disagreement. It's become a perfect weapon against true honesty. Being nicey-nicey has its limits and sometimes the situation occurs when it is no longer appropriate. --WebHamster 01:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No its not perfectly civil. No one is forcing you to engage in that debate. You can walk away anytime if you can't continue the debate without resorting to insults. There is no reason to be discussing the other editor in any debate. As WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA both are quite clear on, keep your comments to the content in the article, not to the other editors. The community has been quite clear on that point on wikipedia for a long time. Its always appropriate on wikipedia to avoid insulting other editors. If you want to discuss the merits of CIVIL you might want to do so on its talk page, but last I checked its still binding policy on wikipedia and this editors continued behaviour is at odds with it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it's subjective, and you did see where I wrote "Obviously you don't call them a name purely to insult" didn't you? When is an insult an insult? Anything can be perceived to be an insult so the recipient's opinion shouldn't be taken as absolute. If the 'utterer' is not intending to be insulting and is just being factual then it is indeed civil. Intention is what makes an insult an insult. In this instance "uninformed wingnut drivel" is quite obviously intended to be an insult and is therefore uncivil. Whereas if someone does something plainly stupid and the response to it is "don't be stupid", then that is a factual statement. Its intention is to inform, not to insult therefore it remains civil. It's simply a case of WP:SPADE. Now if the alternate response had been something like "don't be fucking stupid" or "don't be a retard" then that is obviously uncivil because it is meant to be insulting. Although WP:CIVIL is policy it also relies heavily on interpretation. It's this interpretation that is being abused by editors to get their own way. It's quite possible to be civil whilst telling someone an unpleasant truth. This project could be improved by occasional candour. Sometimes it takes the shocking truth to bring someone to their senses, something that many editors are overdue for. Nicey-nicey is just another way of putting a lid on a pressure cooker. When it comes to humans it's the equivalent of making a left-handed person write with their right hand. It's alien, it's unnatural and eventually it's the cause of the problem, not the answer. --WebHamster 02:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well in the examples I've provided I don't see anything other than these statements being used to insult, especially in the last case where he knew I found it offensive as I immediately pointed him to NPA.--Crossmr (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the threshold of 'being offended' becomes increasingly lower every day. Why anyone would take offence when a stranger passes comment is beyond me. Are skins so thin round here that a further portion of wikidrama has to be dolled out? Perhaps "sticks and stones may break my bones..." should be in WP:CIVIL too? Nothing you've said has persuaded me that civility isn't just another popular way of gaming the system. Are editors so insecure that they have to 'run to mummy' at the slightest little insult? Personally I think you should save the drama for when someone calls you a cunt, all this seems rather OTT for "wingnut". Priorities and perspective should be used in large portions I reckon. --WebHamster 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Neıl ☎ 13:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And Neil scores a bull's eye :) --WebHamster 14:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not your job to decide when someone else is offended. The very reason CIVIL and NPA exists is to prevent the creation of a hostile editing environment which is what this user is creating. If users are offended by disparaging remarks which are unnecessary to the debate at hand, that's all the requirement that needs to exist for there to be a violation of civil. This user creates a hostile environment to try and drive out some editors who disagree with him, especially when he can't seem to carry the debate further. In this case the hostility and disparaging remarks were coupled with thinly veiled threats of edit warring if anyone carried out an edit he disagreed with. This is plain and simple disruptive editing. As I said though, if you want to discuss the merits of civil and npa, you may wish to do so on their respective talk pages to seek consensus for your interpretation. Personally I don't think anyone who can't keep the discussion to the content and needs to include disparaging remarks to make their point doesn't belong here. You don't build a community and foster communication and growth by digging at each other.--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Who said it was a job? Anyway, to put things in a nutshell. Stop being a wuss, it's hardly the worst insult I've ever heard. --WebHamster 13:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I provided the two comments from Film Noir already, including links to them.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I provided those examples because they're still sitting on current talk pages from the few articles I've been exposed to him in. I haven't dug through his contrib history to nitpick every edit he has made. I provided them going back to 2006 as well to demonstrate that is a long term issue, not something recent or isolated. I also provided links to demonstrate he's well aware of the policy and if he's not going to change after this long, he's probably not going to change given any further time. The current problem lies directly in Most recently on the Film noir talk page he's made the following comment but this is a far reaching and long-term problem which requires more attention than a simple "behave" as he's been told that multiple times in the past.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

← My only interaction with RedSpruce has been on Joseph McCarthy. That page happens to be prone to what might civilly be called violations of WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP and WP:FRINGE. Or what might, uncivilly, be called "uninformed wingnut drivel". On the one hand, RedSpruce really needs to be more civil. On the other hand, if not for RedSpruce, our article on McCarthy would probably suggest that Joseph McCarthy is now considered a Great American who was right all along about Harry Truman (NKVD code name MAXIM) and his cadre of Soviet operatives. I dunno. What do you propose we do about him? MastCell ^Talk 06:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• /me goes off to create {{uninformed wingnut drivel}}, a maintenance tag which would be perfect for a number of articles on my watchlist, especially cold fusion, Morgellons Research Foundation, What The Bleep and anything to do with Remote Viewing. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia driving us insane

Squirrel listening intently as Dlohcierekim rants and raves.

Glad I'm not the only one to notice that sometimes some of us seem to snap for no apparent reason. Fortunately, I live in Florida next to a lovely park. When all else fails, I can always go and talk to the squirrels. Dlohcierekim 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So do I; the difference is they talk back to me, I give them the 4 warning templates, then block 'em indef. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, insanity is there beforehand, WP just gives us an outlet. Perhaps squirrels (vis-a-vis nuts!) wasn't the best choice of animal <g> --WebHamster 23:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah, but the ducks just run away. Dlohcierekim 23:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamsters are cousins of the squirrel. Must block indef... —Animum (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So that's why my nuts are so important to me! ;) --WebHamster 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a policy of not feeding the squirrels. Oops, too late. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't feed Florida's squirrels since one of them betrayed me after giving her a Dorito piece, that bastard... What are we talking about again? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I like to read WP:NAM and then take a wikibreak for three days to pet my white cat. :-) Bearian (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah crap in a shoebox. I wanna be where you guys are. As clearly seen above, I've been carried away by the crazy train. Someone rescue me, maybe an {{editor rescue}} tag needs to be developed similar to the inclusionsists' favorite "article rescue" tag? I don't know WTF is wrong with me, maybe its because I'm insanely jealous of your weather Dloh. The high temp where I live? Today, it was 8. Fahrenheit. Tomorrow? 12. I haven't seen an "above freezing" day for 3 months. Crap in a shoebox, I need to get outdoors soon. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

8? Ha! Try below zero for several days in a row. Natalie (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:TStolper1W

This user has edited only hydrino theory. Stolper has a conflict-of-interest with respect to the article and has been blocked before for disruptive editing. He has been warned many times that he should no longer edit the page (see User talk:TStolper1W). I recommend a long-term block, since Stolper is unrepentant and continues his disruptive editing. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A better venue for this would be WP:AN/COI. Ronnotel (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a case to look into this. Ronnotel (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:India101

"Newbie" India101 (talk · contribs) is creating tons of User pages labeling the users as socks of User:Hkelkar, and changing existing User pages to say that they're socks of Hkelkar. Corvus cornix_talk 00:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you left them a note yet? That might be the first step in correcting this new users mislead actions. Tiptoety ^talk 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is bizarre, the account hasn't edited in about 14 months and just starts up again with this. Regardless of WP:AGF, which I find hard to accept, it may be a compromised account and needs blocking as a preventive measure until this gets sorted out, although the tagging seems to have stopped for now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See also User talk:Lostanos for a similar and possibly related pattern. Risker (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What I noticed is that the original sock Eagerbeaver434 (talk · contribs) redirects to Hkelkar (talk · contribs), so they are related. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

His edits are correct at least. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In view of this, and I trust GeorgeWilliamHerbert's judgement on this, I'll block this indef and let it fall out later. For now, the issue is prevention of damage to WP. We can't have accounts like this running amok. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked as a preventive measure, I will unblock (or shorten the block) if nessesary as soon as we can sort this out. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From my CU, and the edits of other things on this IP address and the edits of this account in 2006, it is certainly Hkelkar's banned adversary BhaiSaab (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Block log. Daniel (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Zsero repeated deletion of talk page content

Seems Zsero stalking my contribs and upset about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu. He's aparently gone on a rampage deleting warnings and comments on associated user and IP talk pages involved in the case. [85][86][87][88][89], including blanking project talk page data[90]. The vandalism was reverted in each instance, however he did it again [91][92][93][94][95]. If Twice wasnt enough, he went for three times [96][97][98][99]--Hu12 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Accounts under attack
Ashleylmack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Stephena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
134.68.173.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis "Information Technology Services " department
134.68.172.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis "Information Technology Services " department
Klpalmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone was on a rampage today, but it wasn't I. Hu12 seems to have got the idea that five perfectly innocent editors were guilty of spamming, and not only blanket reverted all of their contributions without reviewing them for appropriateness, but posted a long accusation of spamming to their talk pages. I have personally reviewed the contribution histories of all five editors (three accounts and two IPs), and found every single edit to have been well-thought out and appropriate, the very opposite of spam. I have checked every link, and without exception they are to valid pages that are appropriate to the articles from which they were linked.

I considered Hu12's posts on their talk pages to be defamation and bordering on a Personal Attack, and so replaced them with an explanation of why the editor was falsely accused. At least one of these accounts has been recently active, and I wouldn't want that user to visit her talk page and see herself accused like that. I believe Hu12 ought to visit each of those talk pages and post an apology. Instead, s/he has reposted the attack. I've already asked Hu12 on their talk page to stop this, and now I find that they've escalated it to here. Please stop, now.

I should add that I have no connection whatsoever to IUPUI, which I had never heard of before today. I've only been to Indiana once. I don't know anybody called Ashley L Mack or K L Palmer, and while I do have a good friend called Steve A (don't know whether he's a Steven or a Stephen), I'm not aware of any connection he might have to Indiana either. And I certainly don't know those IP addresses! -- Zsero (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Several accounts and IP's from Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis were making all link contributions to Wikipedia to a specific sub domain link, indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu. There are in all likely hood thousands of IP's all over any university campusus, and is not a big deal. This was not a horrible link, however the WP:COI became aparrent when looking into it further, that these IP's and accounts were infact from the Universities "Information Technology Services " department. A clear case of WP:COI, and the conflicted accounts/IP additions were reverted.

Spamming Wikipedia (commercial or otherwise) is prohibited on wikipedia (unless I'm wrong about that). In this case, It was not that the additions were just comming from a university WP:SPA account, it was the fact that these particular additions were origionating from the Universities "Information Technology Services " department.

• Note the time on each corresponding IP/account.

Template:MultiCol

Accounts/IP

→134.68.172.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "University Information Technology Services "

12:11, 19 September 2006 (?External links)

12:08, 19 September 2006 (?External links)

12:05, 19 September 2006 (?External links)

→Stephena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

11:55, 19 September 2006 (?External links)

11:51, 19 September 2006 (?External links)

| class="col-break " |

Accounts/IP

→Ashleylmack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

16:30, 21 February 2008 (?Geography)

16:17, 21 February 2008 (?External links)

16:14, 21 February 2008

→134.68.173.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "University Information Technology Services "

16:09, 21 February 2008 (?External links)

16:08, 21 February 2008 (?External links)

Clearly connected as illustrated above. In all likely hood this was an overzelous webmaster, and was reported to project spam.--Hu12 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of those edits are 18 months old! In any case, there is nothing inappropriate about someone who works in a university library adding links to its archives where appropriate. Hu12 seems to have a very idiosyncratic definition of spam. In any case, I'm over an hour late for an appointment and I can't stick around for this discussion so it'll have to go on without me. I'll be back, but don't expect any further response from me for the next few hours. -- Zsero (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The age is particularly concerning. There are over 850 links to this university linking various subdomains, how many more were added in this manner..and for how long. While I assume the overwhelming majority were added good faith, incidents like this does raise some questions. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. In all likely its an overzelous webmaster and clearly connected. --Hu12 (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a university library archive, with lots of interesting stuff – there should be lots of links to various sites within it. It would be surprising if there weren't. How many links are there to the Library of Congress, or the National Archives? The point is that every single link added by the five accounts you've accused was appropriate, and therefore the very opposite of spam.

You are wrong about the definition of spam. Spam is not defined by anyone's intentions, but by its content. Spam is by definition inappropriate content; anything that is a genuine improvement to the encyclopaedia can by definition not be spam, no matter who added it or why. Not that you have any right to assume bad motives, or overzealousness, whatever that might mean. -- Zsero (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So by your definition, these organizations ( All very reputable adding "quality' content ), did not spam, or engaged in the spamming of Wikipedia?

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Public_broadcasting_Spam_.28KQED.29 public broadcasting company
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/Long term COI spamming by Carnegie Council Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs (ethics for heavens sake)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Dennis_Publishing_Spam-2 Dennis Publishing Ltd, publishes 19 magazines (used 52 accounts/IP's to spam)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Mercy_Corps_COI_spam Mercy Corps (International humanitarian aid )

Spamming is a behavior, regardless of your acceptance of that fact. Spamming does not improve the encyclopaedia, it hurts Wikipedia's ability to be NPOV and relevant for its readers. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit this project. The goal of all legitamate wikipedians is to build a better encyclopedia and prevent abusive exploitation as illustrated above.--Hu12 (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's take Stephena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made two edits in September 2006. This link (and I'll thank you not to refactor that link as you did on your talk page Hu12) was added to Oliver Hazard Perry Morton. Does anyone really want to hold their hand up and say that's spam and an inappropriate link? The addition to Turners isn't as appopriate, but it's hardly spam. Do those two edits made almost eighteen months ago merit a talk page that looks like this? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Its a throw away Single-purpose account, IP and Whois data shows the connection to todays accounts and they all got the same warning. How does that relate to Zsero deleting others comments to a pages that are not his?--Hu12 (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's part of the university's computer network that consists of hundreds of computers that are available for use by staff and students, so how does that prove it's the same person? You are drawing the totally ridiculous conclusion that any edit from the university in the last 18 months is the same person, or some organised spamming campaign. It's detective work worthy of Inspector Clouseau, it really is! You haven't even addressed the relevant points about that account. Do the two edits merits the totally over zealous warning you've placed on the talk page? Are they even spam to begin with, or appropriate links? Are you going to answer these questions, or are you going to ignore them and/or lie like you did on your talk page? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on 134.68.172.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 1st revert: 22:18, 21 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:42, 22 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
• 4th revert: 08:03, 22 February 2008
• 5th revert: 09:23, 22 February 2008

• User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on Klpalmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1st revert: 22:00, 21 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:42, 22 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 01:06, 22 February 2008
• 4th revert: 08:04, 22 February 2008
• 5th revert: 09:23, 22 February 2008

• User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on 134.68.173.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 1st revert: 22:33, 21 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:41, 22 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
• 4th revert: 08:03, 22 February 2008
• 5th revert: 09:24, 22 February 2008

• User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on 134.68.172.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 1st revert: 21:51, 21 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:40, 22 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
• 4th revert: 08:02, 22 February 2008
• 5th revert: 09:22, 22 February 2008

Zsero was warned by User:Snowfire51^[100] but chose to repeatedly edit war. --Hu12 (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find that the first of each of these sets is not a revert at all, but a fresh edit. So even if 3RR applied, I'd still be within it. But it doesn't apply. Calling someone a spammer is a personal attack, and it is defamation, and it doesn't belong anywhere, let alone on the target's talk page. And so now, I am about to commit my fourth revert (note, not fifth but fourth), because the attacks on these innocent editors cannot be allowed to remain, in case they should come back and read them while we're arguing about it. And after that I'm going to sleep, so don't expect to hear anything further from me for a while. -- Zsero (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. Please realize that by refusing to discuss these issues and abide by wikipedia rules, you are willfully violating WP:3RR and engaging in edit war. Discuss the matters here, please. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I will discuss matters here as long as you like (after I've got some sleep) but in the meantime the accusations must be removed from the users' pages. That can't wait for the outcome of the discussion. Even if I'm wrong, what harm would be done by leaving the accusations off for a few days while we discuss it? But if I'm right, which I am, leaving them up would do great harm. Therefore until it's resolved they should go, and I'm about to do that. And then I'm finally off to bed. -- Zsero (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of another discussion with User:Zsero on my talk page about removing an admin's comments from other people's talk pages, which I don't feel is ever warranted. However, I'd like to see this wrapped up, since this matter is degenerating into a full-on personal edit war between normally productive editors, which none of us want to see. Can we get some further opinions from other editors and admins on this matter? Snowfire51 (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, Hu12 should do some research into "the Universities "Information Technology Services " department" (his exact words). Apparently UITS had "hundreds of Internet-connected, fully equipped workstations available to students, faculty, and staff", so to claim this "spamming" is some university employee orchestrated campaign is an accusation without evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if there were something wrong with that, which there isn't. -- Zsero (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This header change was certainly a WP:POINT violation Hu12 making false accusations of spamming --Hu12 (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but you did. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's totallyirrelevant, and certainly shows incivility. This is a place for disucssion, not to WP:IAR. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's wholly relevant. There was no spamming in the first place. You want incivility? Last time I checked lying was classed as incivil. "I've explained why I didn't see your reverts" claims Hu12, which is remarkable seeing as he used admin rollback to revert one. So, how is it remotely possible that he didn't see my revert if he rolled it back? Let's cut to the chase here. This was an over-zealous removal of links without even evaluating the links in the first place, including false accusations of spamming, and lying to defend his actions when challenged on it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. --Hu12 (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying" (emphasis added), do you still want to maintain you didn't see my revert? You know the one I mean, the one you used admin rollback on? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Spicy... are you making good on you threat to harass me. From what I can tell you practice harassment regularly, suprised you've only got one notch on your block log. --Hu12 (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No threat of harassment there, if (or maybe that should be when) I choose to take action it'll be through proper channels, and your continued actions really aren't helping your case. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked out 2 of the additions by Ashleylmack; they were to the pages War of 1812 and James Whitcomb Riley‎ . The addition of the external links to an educational institution or "digital library" were in both cases appropriate -desirable even. If all "spam" were like this, we should be so lucky. The warning I saw on Ashleylmack's user page diff was overkill. There has got to be better/more useful things to argue about with respect to editing this wiki. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is here not if the individual additions were appropriate. All on their own seem to be on topic and right. But all these accounts are role accounts, they seem to have added a massive number of external links, without adding too much content. There are several policies and guidelines here which are breached, what wikipedia is not, 'not a linkfarm': we don't live from external links, content is what it is at. And mostly, referenced content, and these links would make good references. spam guideline, quoting: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." .. now, the question here is if the accounts were promoting or not, they were not improving the wikipedia, but adding external links only. I'll assume good faith here, but want to note that it is questionable if external links improve the wikipedia. The accounts have a conflict of interest, quoting "Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: ... Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);" (note that it states 'organization'). Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, though the information they add is not necesserily pushing one point-of-view, for some organisations the content of their database has a certain point-of-view, which by adding links to that database only would/can have an effect on the POV of all the articles that link is added to (until the other POV also gets links added). In some cases WP:COPYRIGHT may also be of interest, as we are not supposed to add links to copyrighted information.

I believe that Hu12 is certainly right here in at least questioning the motive of the editors, which, seen by the way these IPs contribute, only seem to be a few actual editors, which would make this a long-term campaign. I know that a general response is that these external links guide others to improvements to the article, but all involved guidelines and policies suggest then to add the link to the talkpage, which has exactly the same effect. All-in-all I do believe that this should get attention, and that the involved editors should be encouraged to first discuss before further link additions are performed. The point that these editors do not log-in to perform their edits does not strenghten their case, though they may not be too aware of that.

These type of organisations (librarians, musea, universities, &c.) can add a lot to wikipedia, they have a lot of information, and as has been suggested often before, they should use that to add referenced content to wikipedia, and no-one will complain (see e.g. user:VAwebteam, who started like this, but now know the concerns of writing in this wikipedia and are now very valuable editors). If their only aim is to add external links only, then their motives may very well be good, but still are questionable until they do engage in conversations on wiki or e.g. join wikiprojects to help to really improve wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The claim of COI is meaningless, as proved above the IPs are part of a system of hundreds of computers available to students as well as university employees. What part of WP:EL do you think the links actually violate? I asked this question yesterday in relation to two specific articles, and got no answer. It's also dubious to claim a university archive is violating copyright, for example the editions of Saoirse they host copies of are linked to from the copyright holder's site. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

COI is certainly not meaningless. Ashley Mack does work for the library, and has been adding external links, she has shown to use IPs as well (the timing is very coincidental). And the IPs all have the same modus operandi, which does at least suggest that it the same editor. OK, there is no proof that it is still the same editor. I did not mention WP:EL, and also said that Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT was of concern in some cases, though not necesserily here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:boomgaylove

A new editor, boomgaylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been engaging in sockpuppetry, incivility, edit warring, and personal attacks across a small range of articles.

Background Boomgaylove came to my attention when he/she nominated a clearly notable article, Your Black Muslim Bakery, for deletion[101] with a somewhat bizarre sounding reason.[102]. The article was speedily kept the next day as a snowball case via nonadministrative closure.[103]

Sensing something odd going on I looked into the user's recent edits and saw he/she had nominated J Stalin, an article about an Oakland rapper for speedy deletion[104], claiming incorrectly that it was unsourced (in fact, it had two sources but they were unlinked and mentioned inline rather than citations). For good measure he/she deleted a mention of the rapper from Cypress Village, Oakland, California, claiming the rapper was not notable.[105]. He/she had also re-started an old edit war on the Point Isabel Regional Shoreline article by restoring a mention (that seems to have been deleted by consensus back in October) that it wast the place where Laci Peterson's body washed ashore.[106].

History of sock, incivility, vandalism, edit wars. A quick look at boomgaylove's talk page[107] revealed a series of warnings, plus one block, for vandalism, personal attacks, and disruptive editing. His/her edits had caused at least one article to be protected for edit warring. The editor had also used an anonymous IP address to get around WP:3RR to revert a disambiguation page, The hizzle (disambiguation) eight times[108] to insert a bizarre, dubious negative reference to Hillary Clinton[109]. On the IP talk page[110] the editor admitted to sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, saying that he/she "didn't do it all myself. other people use this computer and i aked them to edit for me." (sic).

When I examined this, an editor had given the user a third-level warning for vandalism. I wasn't convinced (the supposed "vandalism" was adding a pronunciation key to an article), so I left a note on the user's talk page that I thought they were just engaging in "enthusiastic but occasionally odd editing"[111], a conclusion that I now think greatly underestimated the problem with this editor. However, to reverse what I believed was a series of bizarre and unconstructive edits I did add a "keep" vote for the Black Muslim bakery[112], restored the sourced information to the Cypress Village article[113] and removed the mention of the body to the Point Isabel article[114] per [[ per WP:BRD, and after another user removed the speedy tag[115], I pitched in by adding a source citation to that article.[116]

My involvement. Things went from bizarre to worse after I tried to help, as boomgaylove began to edit war on all of the articles.

To support his proposed deletion of J Stalin for being unsourced, he blanked the article, or parts of it (including removing citations) at least eleven times so far while the article has been up for AfD: [117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127] He is also nominating the article about one of the magazines used as a reference for the article.[128].

He has removed the J Stalin mention and source from the Cypress village at least four more times, for a total of five in 2+ days: [129][130][131][132]

He has been adding a bunch of bogus tags to the J Stalin article and possibly others:

• added an "unreferenced" tag to support the AfD claim, even though the article had five references at the time[133]
• added a "notability" tag even though the article was at AfD, [134]
• added a "protect" tag to the article even though it was not protected.[135]
• In a new tactic, he is adding "fact"-type citation tags to material that is already sourced, occasionally after deleting the sources,[136][137][138] [139][140][141][142][143][144][145] [146] either in bad faith to wikigame or because he does not understand WP:V (here and elsewhere, he repeatedly argues that newspapers are not good sources, "small time news" (e.g. the Jerusalem Post, Marketwatch, etc) should not be used as sources,[147] etc.).

Personal attacks. In addition to his pattern of attacks on other people, he's attacked me a number of times in the process of edit warring: "poor critical thinking and logic skills"[148], accusing me of "harassment" and "vandalism" [149], "vandalism" and "libelous"[150].

In once instance he decided to edit war with me on the AfD page for J Stalin, insisting on interjecting an "objection" into the middle of my comment so to split it in two, claiming that by moving his comment to after mine I was engaging in "vandalism."[151] [152] [153].

Also, he is accusing me of "harassing" or having a "vendetta" about him. I will state here for the record that as a 1+ year editor with many thousands of mainspace edits and a lot of participation on policy pages, I've had my disagreements with people but I am not keeping any grudges. My only involvement and concern here is to deal with a pattern of disruptive editing. If he stops I have no issue with him.

Recommendation. I believe we need to begin ratcheting up an escalating series of blocks until he stops. He was already blocked for a day, only a few days ago, for this kind of behavior. Out of the block he started up again immediately and has continued all of the things he got blocked for. He has been completely resistant to warnings - I gave him four, and several other editors have recently given him at least seven in the past week or so. If this is long it's because this editor has been doing a lot of disruptive editing. These are only the articles I've been watching him on. He seems to be engaged in edit wars and other misbehavior in other articles such as Matt Sanchez. He is wasting a lot of productive time of a lot of people. If nobody stops him, he shows every sign that he will continue indefinitely. His last disruptive edits have been within the first few minutes. I think we ought to do a block of intermediate length for now to stop and prevent ongoing disruption, and watch him closely from there. Wikidemo (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Shows no sign of taking policy, consensus or constructive encyclopedia-building on board, despite all the warnings. All in all, just too much disruption to be tolerable, and arguably blockable on username alone, and that's without the sockpuppetry. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the assessment of this user but disagree with the assessment of the username. What's blockable about it? Certainly know of worse on WP right now. The user may be gay. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He may well be, but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion, that's why I said "arguably". For all I know, the name could imply that he's anti-gay but in any event, that's the least of the issues here. Apologies if I seemed to make too much of it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was a celebration of gayness, which is just fine. The "indefinite" part of the block surprised me but I respect that. As his main nemesis for the past few days I didn't want to be too ambitious in my request. Anyway, he's now asking to be unblocked but the request ducks all these issues. I hope that nobody considers unblocking him summarily but that if he really shows someday that he will behave and become a productive editor, he's as entitled as anyone else. He is showing no sign at all of acknowledging any behavior problem or changing his ways, just denying he did anything wrong. Note that in this edit[154] he reacts to the ostensible "advice" to "choose his battles" by saying that he is "Machiavellian" in that way. I don't think "indefinite" has to mean forever, but before he's unblocked he really has to show a sign that he won't edit war, behave uncivilly, or attempt to subvert the rules and game the system. I'm concerned that he's quickly glommed on to facile arguments in his very short time here, at first just warring, but soon adopting the language and policy citations of the people trying to reign him in...within a few days he was citing BLP, verifiability, notability, etc., for his edits. He seems to be slapdash, but with more practice gaming the system he might get better at it and become a much bigger nuisance. The admitted sockpuppetry isn't a good sign either. We should be on the lookout. Wikidemo (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, as was pointed out in his unblock request decline on his talk page, he should be community banned and I'll go further to say it should be for the admitted sockpuppetry alone - especially in light of the recent User:Archtransit fiasco. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

While my interactions with this user have been interesting to say the least, I'm not sure a full-on ban is a good idea just yet. This is the first time he's had the book thrown at him--is there any harm in waiting for a little while to see what effect this has? I'm not exactly holding my breath, but if he's going to come back and start contributing productively, it seems to me that now would be the time.

That being said, the violations are serious enough that I'll gladly jump on the banwagon at the first signs of continued abuse or block evasion. --jonny-mt 07:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the "first time he's had the book thrown at him". He was blocked on the 14th as well. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 07:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Club le Shark

Resolved

The article was created with a semi-protect by a non-admin. How did that happen?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I see, anyone can add the template. Sorry for the bother. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So who's right here?

Britney Spears

User talk:HalfShadow#Spears' / Spears's

Now I literally do not care which it is; I just reverted something in the article in question and thought to myself 'Spears' seems to be right, or at least tidier', so I changed all instances of Spears's to Spears'. Oidia changed it back and gave me a couple of examples of this having come up before. Fine. As I said here and in my reply: I don't really care one way or the other, I was just gnoming. Thing is, after Oidia changed it back, someone else reverted it to my version, which means I might be responsible for creating a bit of an edit war. HalfShadow (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A look at the two article talk apges shows that both are correct. i suggest that the entire article be edited one way, OR the other, holistically after consensus is adopted for one, or the other manner. I further suggest that after that, the regular editors can simply refer to that section on the talk as evidence of consensus either way. (personally, I usually hear it on radio and TV as spears', with no hold or emphasis on a second s, as in Spears's, but either way is apparently acceptable). ThuranX (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say Spears', intuitively. Spears's just looks wrong on the page to me. Although I know that both are right, and probably Spears's is more right to some people lol. We should ask User:MrMarmite as he has the opposite view and he alters the article to reflect it frequently, along with other articles which mention her. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User Relata refero & User Dance With The Devil

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

---

It appears that Relata refero and Dance With The Devil are the same people. The user is using two accounts to force his views (which seems to be against NPOV), not engaging in constructive discussion, and when that doesn't work, he attempts to force 3RR block on relatively new users like myself using two accounts.

I left a message regarding duplicate accounts on user Dance With The Devil talk page (which already has a message stating that the account might be a Phish account), but the user deleted that message without responding. Desione (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you can't just show up here and say two editors are the same person and expect anyone to do anything about it. I looked at DWTD's talk page and only saw the claim that he revert warred on two of the same articles as RR....therefore they're the same person? My, I must have a few dozen sock puppets at this point then...If you suspect two editors are the same person, take your concerns and your evidence to suspected sock puppets. ANI is only for where sockpuppetry has already been proven and requires action, or where is just blindingly obvious, which you would have to demonstrate. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And before you go there, know that checkuser is not for phishing. This means you'll some solid evidence against a user in good standing (such as Relata) before an admin performs the checkuser.Bless sins (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well everytime I am engaged in a "hot" conversation with Relata, Dance_With_Devil shows up and starts reverting my changes along with Relata. Either Dance_With_Devil is a big time fan or Relata or they are the same person (most likely the same person). Somebody has already left a message on Dance_With_Devil talk page, saying the account is a Phish account well before I showed up, so that probably makes me the second person to make the same observation. Thank you for your help. Desione (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is big. Coincidences happen all the time. You should drop this accusation, at least until you have some evidence. I compared the edit histories of the users, and do not think they are the same. They have edited different articles at the same time. This does not look like sock puppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have no idea who Immortal Technique was, and if I was going to use the name "Dance with the Devil" it would be a Jack Nicholson-Batman reference. Relata refero (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

KERPOW!!!! Jehochman ^Talk 05:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

elaborate scam

The following "users" all started editing around February 15. A close look at all their contribution history will reveal an elaborate scam to create an ancient noble family whose descendants are currently in Shaw, Missouri. The tricky part is that some of it based on some sort of truth. All the articles that "they" created are up for deletion or prodded. I have reversed all of their edits, and I leave further action for admins. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Users

• 4.244.105.229 (talk · contribs)
• 4.244.195.95 (talk · contribs)
• 4.244.196.254 (talk · contribs)
• 4.245.3.23 (talk · contribs)
• 4.255.1.237 (talk · contribs)
• 4.255.2.124 (talk · contribs)
• 4.255.6.250 (talk · contribs)
• 4.88.160.203 (talk · contribs)
• 4.88.161.195 (talk · contribs)
• 4.88.162.231 (talk · contribs)
• 4.88.164.40 (talk · contribs)
• Tadwilliamsxray (talk · contribs)
• Loveofhistorynut (talk · contribs)
• Shaw1860 (talk · contribs)
• Topdog40 (talk · contribs)

Articles created

• Heinrich I Heimo
• Shaw Preservation Society
• Konrad VII von Tegerfelden
• House of Wetter-Tegerfelden
• The History of Shaw
• Wettershaw Manor
• Hans Albrecht III
• Udo I

I'm adding to the list:

• Richbold, Count of Breisgau, from which the speedy tag has been deleted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP Adress 99.248.22.88

I'm not an admin, and I don't know if I am doing this right, but I noticed, along with User:Edgarde and User:Aitias that Anonymous user User:99.248.22.88 has vandalized two articles, Eazy-E and Laws of thermodynamics. The vandalisms on Laws of Thermodynamics, [155] and [156] were done on January 28 and hence have been undone, but today he vandalized Eazy-E with three obviously racist edits: [157], [158] and [159]. He was warned by Edgarde about the Eazy-E article, User_talk:99.248.22.88, but I am concerned that he might make more disruptive edits. And they were extremely racist as well. If I am doing this wrong, please let me know. I hope the admins can do something to prevent more vandalism. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You've done everything right. His contribution history, 99.248.22.88 (talk · contribs), shows that he has made several non-constructive edits. Upon the next instance of vandalism, apply a warning template to his talk page. When four have been applied, you can apply for a block. There are exceptions to this, for instance, if the article is being constantly being vandalised, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user vandalising Wikipedia

We suspect that these IP addresses 69.255.40.38 (talk · contribs),59.92.114.255 (talk · contribs) and 59.92.104.31 (talk · contribs) are used by one and the same user to edit particular articles in Wikipedia. The user had been previously blocked from editing Wikipedia due to sockpuppetry. On observing the contributions of these IPs, you might find that most of the edits are concerned with articles related to Gounder or places and dynasties related to Gounders and their history. -Ravichandar 05:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Those 59.92.* are PONDHEEPANKAR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 05:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to open a case methinks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:MOD-Genisis

Was awoken to a message on my talk page today. Found it strange since i was "allowed" to download something. Took a look at the history of the user and finding comments like: "I'm MOD-Genisis. I am an official moderator for Wikipedia, and am joyed to help keep Wikipedia a SAFE and CLEAN enviroment!" which he is not, combined with "script end". I suspect the user was trying to insert malicious JavaScript into Wikipedia pages (and failed luckily). Someone might want to take a look? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what he's doing, but I've warned them that they have to immediately stop suggesting they're Wikipedia staff of any sort, and I'll indef if they keep this up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been indef-blocked by Kurt Shaped Box (talk · contribs) --Calton | Talk 14:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming

Resolved

Indef blocked User talk:Mitrebox has spammed at large number of editors Special:Contributions/70.11.244.78 from an IP address asking to be unblocked for a rather long and convoluted reason at User talk:Mitrebox. I read the argument and am unconvinced of it or that this block was so unusual as to permit the user to evade our normal process of email blocking admin, email arbcom, email foundation, etc. So I'm proposing the IP be blocked and the 2 talk pages be blanked and semi-protected. Since the user considered me involved, I'd ask an uninvolved admin to do it. MBisanz ^talk 08:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Georgewilliamherbert blocked him [160] at I was typing the above. Semiprotect and we'll be all done. MBisanz ^talk 08:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Got 'em. This was completely inappropriate as the way to handle the unblock request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

After some more nonconstructive comments on the talk page, I protected it, and directed them to Arbcom via email for next appeal. Sigh. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Maxim's undiscussed unblock of User:Mikkalai

Last night, I blocked User:Mikkalai for 12 hours for this attack, calling it an "egregious and unnecessary" reference to physical assault in my edit summary. (Block log.) The resulting discussion is above, in the midst of a wider thread on Mikkalai being tempermental yesterday. There was some endorsement of the block and some disagreement. User:Maxim unblocked him four hours later. He did not discuss on AN/I and he made no post to me. (Mikka had made no apology in asking to be unblocked, complaining about wikilawyering instead.[161])

I'm starting a new thread because I don't want to rehash the details of Mikkalai's initial posts. Rather, I'd like comment on unblocking without discussion with the blocking administrator. The relevant bit from Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Administrators should not unblock users blocked in good faith by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." Pretty clear language. I went to great pains to stress I blocked as an uninvolved editor, and to unpack my reasoning that it was preventative. You might disagree with the block, but it was obviously not done in bad faith. More troubling, when I suggested Maxim ought to have discussed with me, he said he could "care less" about the blocking (invoking IAR, naturally).[162] Well, sorry, if an admin doesn't care about the blocking policy, he or she shouldn't be enacting blocks and unblocks. Aside from being personally annoyed, I find the attitude a very poor one. If Maxim had looked, he'd have found I was immediately active and willing to discuss. At a minimum, going to the AN/I thread was necessary.

Finally, do note from the block log that the last time Mikka was blocked, Maxim also unblocked. I don't know what I've walked into here. Perhaps, as I sensed yesterday, Mikka has people willing to let him off when he breaches policy because he's a copious contributor. But Jimbo has made clear recently that you can't be a jerk just because you do good work. I think my block was perfectly defensible, and even if you disagree with it, discussion with me ought to have transpired before undoing it. Marskell (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oh for heaven's sake. If you want to remonstrate with Mikka, send email and at least try to find out what the underlying basis of his state of anger is. A pound says he lost his rag with yet another bunch of POV-pushers on one of the ethnic feud infested articles he works so hard to keep sane. You won't help Mikka to get less stressed by blocking him, that's simply not going to help anyone other than the hordes of warriors that infest that corner of Wikipedia which is forever Eastern Europe. Better still, find more Russian speakers worthy of the mop and bucket, to share the burden. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I was trying to make clear that I specifically wanted comment on whether Maxim should have discussed the unblock. I very rarely block; maybe I'm missing something. Marskell (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above shows that blocking was controversial, and the discussion also shows that this was not an unblock without discussion. Honestly? I think blocking Mikka was understandable but a mistake. You may have failed to take into account that English is not his first language, and I think that reasoned discussion would have had the desired effect. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Marskell makes a good point that Maxim should have discussed the unblock - even if it's just a note on ANI "I agree with the above and unblocked due to it". He defended what he did on his user talk page with (referring to Wikipedia:Blocking policy "I couldn't care less for that page, I do what I believe helps the project. Your block certainly didn't."

Regardless of the appropriateness or not of the underlying block - That statement is a borderline declaration of wheel war, and is a real problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment on the English as a second language thing: I wouldn't consider someone able to use the wife beating example from Fallacy of many questions to have any problems with English. John Reaves 10:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GWH. Unblocks, especially of blocks resulting from community discussion, should not be performed unilaterally. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seemed to say a 12 hour block was entirely appropriate. Guy, I'm aware you disagreed, as Mikka is a "surly bastard" just like you so rank incivility and talking of throats getting cut is entirely appropriate, but put that aside - a block was placed, the consensus was broadly that a 12 hour block was suitable, and Maxim's response was effectively "I don't care about the blocking policy" ([163]) and to unblock. That's very, very poor. And Mikka's control of the English language is fine - certainly better than a lot of our purpotedly native-English-speaking admins. It would be just as irrelevant to point out that Maxim is also Russian. Reimposing the block at this point would only cause more drama, but hopefully Mikka will finally get the point that crude langauge, hysterical abuse and threatening to block those who disagree with you is not acceptable conduct on Wikipedia, particularly for an administrator. Neıl ☎ 10:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikka's use of English rhetoric suggests he understands the impact of his words just fine.

No, of course, we don't need to reimpose the block. I didn't reimpose it last night because I've never wheel warred and don't intend to start. What I'd like to see is just some acknowledgement that the actions were in fact wrong. Mikka made no admittance that his post was unacceptable, Maxim unblocked him anyway, and now Maxim's justification is "I'll do what I like."

We do make allowances in practice for good mainspace editors. We do not hand out free passes. Marskell (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The unblock was questionable. Failing to discuss was inappropriate. The hostile response shows a lack of policy knowledge. I urge Maxim to rectify this situation with an apology. Ronnotel (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This initially was not a case of "administrators can get away with anything", and I admonished the person who originally complained about Mikka to not jump to that conclusion. However, whatever the merits of the block, the fact that an administrator acting alone broke ranks and reversed a block that was widely if not universally supported would tend to encourage that thinking. That in turn causes wariness, resentment, and discontent with the process overall. I don't know what good an apology would do but if this is part of a pattern of mis-use of administrative tools, and it recurs, I suppose the recourse is arbcom. If the system is to have any integrity you can't let anybody practice incivility towards non-admins with impugnity simply because they have a support base among the admins that makes them untouchable. Wikidemo (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"you can't let anybody practice incivility towards non-admins with impugnity simply because they have a support base among the admins that makes them untouchable" - exactly right. (And for Wikidemo and I to agree on something, the situation must be desperate!) Neıl ☎ 13:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If (neil != rehash past) then (wikidemo = not rehash past) Wikidemo (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, are you suggesting that unblocking an established contributor needs to be "widely if not universally supported", but the original block need not be? — CharlotteWebb 14:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the other way around. In this case the original block was w.i.n.u.s., and the unblock was unilateral. I'm not an admin and it's not my place to prove the dangers of wheel-warring or say what the standards should be for blocks or unblocks, I'm just commenting on the message it sends out to people when an administrator gets an executive pass. I've come to respect that everyone has their own way of doing things and one cannot condemn everyone just because of one person's actions, but to the mass of non-administrative editors out there administrative incivility and an attitude of impunity, even from a few, taints the experience and encourages cynicism.Wikidemo (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And Charlotte, a difference too is that I was willing to talk about the block but Maxim doesn't appear willing to explain the unblock. Although we should probably wait til he logs back in again before commenting further. Marskell (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to address the block itself, but I think that the unblock certainly should have been discussed prior to execution - or at least when Maxim was queried on it. Refusal to discuss it is unacceptable in my book. - Philippe | Talk 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not automatically wrong to reverse an admin action without approval from that admin, regardless of what any project-space page says at the moment. However, in this case, it was a bad move. The next time this happens, let's block longer, and leave it in place. We do not have to "take the bad with the good", and that way of thinking should be discouraged. Friday (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bong Daza wikipedia

Resolved

 – No admin intervention needed

Hi. My name is Gabriel "Bong" Daza. and I would like to write my own Wikipedia as all I read about in the Google search is that I am the husband of Gloria Diaz, the 1st Miss Universe of The Philippines. and also that I am the son of Nora Daza, the restaurateur.

I also put up our Philippines Resaturant in Paris after I graduate college in Cornell U in 1973. and helped my mom with our Maharlika resataurant, in New York.At the Philippine center on 5th avenue.

I was also elected twice as number 1 councilor of Makati City, having the most number of votes.

I was also head of Makai Pollution Control Office which I created via an ordinance I authored as councilro of Mkati., etc.. drtc..

if you think i shouldd have my own Bong Daza wikipedia, please reply to this notice or email me at email removed

thank you for your attention and re[ly to this matter.

hoping to hear from you soon.

Bong Daza Makati City Philipppines email: email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.194.40 (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This noticeboard is about incidents that might require the intervention of Wikipedia administrators. This is not such an incident, and no intervention from admins is needed. You might be better served on the new contributors' help page‎. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this the wiki equivalent of a 419 <g>?--WebHamster 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of comments on discussion board.

User:Malamockq has been deleting comments from myself and other users on the the talk page for XM8. Please note the following: [164], [165], [166]. He has also been adding inappropriate content in the form of original research: [167], [168], [169], and this one where he deletes somebody elses comment (maybe his own sock puppet) and adds his comment: [170]. He is warned here: [171], and here: [172], [173], and [174], but refused to heed the warnings. I'd like him to stop removing others comments and I'd like the Talk page reverted so his original research and forum-style discussions are gone IAW WP:forum. --Asams10 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)