Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive373

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)

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)

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)

User Relata refero & User Dance With The Devil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image on Birth certificate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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.[1], this one they restored vandalism, [2], [3]. 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: [4]. 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: [5]. 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)

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)

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[6]. 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: [7] --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?[8]

"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 [9]. Moments later, he erased it leaving a comment "P.S. And no I will never stop beating my wife." [10] 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[11][12] 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)

• How many warnings is Mikka going to get? I'm disgusted at the amount of leeway he gets every time he loses his temper. People continue to suggest warning him, even though that has proven not to work. If he is so easily provoked, perhaps he should consider doing something else less stressful. --Kbdank71 16:06, 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)

Both forms are correct according to reliable sources (e.g., the Merriam-Webster Style Manual), with the terminal apostrophe being more common in practice. Note "intuitively" doesn't always work with that strange cobbled-together language we call English. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it makes no difference to me, I just didn't want to be responsible for maybe sparking an edit war, especially over something so small. HalfShadow (talk) 18:17, 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, [13] and [14] were done on January 28 and hence have been undone, but today he vandalized Eazy-E with three obviously racist edits: [15], [16] and [17]. 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)

Small correction: you don't have to wait until a user has received four warnings before reporting them to the vandalism noticeboard. What's important is that they have received a level three or four warning, which mentions that they might be blocked, and vandalize again. Then they can be reported and blocked. Natalie (talk) 17:27, 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)

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)

Request for revision to Blocking protocols & nominate to unblock User:Douglasfgrego

Resolved

 – No. Will ^(talk) 16:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Douglasfgrego was blocked February 16 indefinately for disruptive conduct. He submitted 3 unblock requests over the weekend, and another one today, for which his user page was locked for abuse of the unblock template, with the following explanation:

Decline reason: "Nope. Now your talk page is protected for continued misuse of the unblock template."

A thorough review of the exchange resulting in the block of this user would show a permanent ban to be excessive, at the least.

• incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations;

• accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely;

Perhaps disruptive, but a quick review of the account history clearly shows this account was not used primarily for the purpose of disruption

He obviously disagreed with this decision, and when he tried to get his account reactivated, his account discussion page was locked.

This incidents surrounding the block and lock on this account highlight a strong need for revision, or imposition of formal, indefinate block, unblock protocols.

For example, a user facing an indefinate block should receive warnings, and a direct communication from the admin considering imposing the ban. This communication should be addressed TO the individual, rather then a stern ultimatum AT the individual. Many people do not respond well to ultimatums. Perhaps a checklist of the steps leading up to the block, and all indefinate blocks should be subject to formal review and approval. This being the most severe consequence of misconduct, it should not be treated lightly. A simple one line explanation is inappropriate. Without the checklist, review and approval - or second, an account block should have an expiration, 24, 48, 72, hours, etc.

Additionally, the structure of the unblock review procedure is far to casual. All unblock requests, but particularly of an indefinate block, should receive a formal review which includes correspondence with the original parties to the block. Approval or denial of an unblock request should at the minimum cite legitimate grounds for the decision. Everyone is entitled to a basic level of respect, including blocked users. Any administrator unwilling, or unable to treat users, and their concerns with the proper respect, should not engage in this process. The follwing Decline reason: "Nope. Now your talk page is protected for continued misuse of the unblock template" does not show the proper respect for the individual, the process, or the project.

It is my most sincere hope that the critical protocols receive the attention and improvement clearly needed.

I nominate User:DouglasFGrego for unblock, or a time limit to the block.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Douglasfgrego --57.69.22.246 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Does this, this, this, this, this, or this strike anyone as an editor that Wikipedia really needs? Thought not. Black Kite 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• One also wonders why Mr. .246/Grego refers to himself in the third person.[18] Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Because, Ray, the hope was to obtain the slightest semblance of objectivity.

And Kite, you seem to take for granted that it's a rhetorical question, when in fact there have been a few understanding participants that disagree your position. Additionally, one of the examples cited was self-censored after consideration. --57.69.22.246 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Two letters. What a thorough, and erudite review and explanation. --57.69.22.246 (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it just? Will ^(talk) 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire. Wikipedia is not a beaurocracy...Users don't get to be a pain repeatedly while receiving successively higher blocks. Blocks aren't punishments designed to correct behavior, and as such, aren't metted out like prison sentances. This account was an unremittent problem, and has been blocked. I see no reason to unblock it based on some perceived lack of "process", since I see no evidence that the account is likely to stop the behavior. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

About change the (url removed)

One picture has been chenged that smoke other people now showing. Therefore, no problem anymore and that picture is my(Yoichi J. Takahashi)original Picture and my friend had taken me at Los Angeles California at 1998. Otherwise I couldn't understand about what kind of Violence so forth. However if you have an any problem, please let me know about this picture. Lawer of the website. <law@ytphd.com>

I think I speak for all of the administrators here at Wikipedia when I say: What?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean: whaddaheck? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is why ANI was vandalised. Seicer (t | c) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Related to [19] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving his forthcoming CV url as a heading is ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No (I removed it) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out of Control Raging Fire

Resolved

Debate is closed Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I listed Out of Control Raging Fire and a couple other Patty Loveless songs at AfD because they just plain aren't notable songs (i.e., they didn't chart, they're not the subject of any third party sources, etc.). I had tried twice to redirect the songs to their respective albums, only for the author to undo my redirects. After a lengthy dispute at AfD, my talk page, and his talk page, I have come to the conclusion that he does NOT wish for the pages to be deleted even though the songs aren't notable in any way. He has repeatedly called me names (diff, diff, etc.) and has just been plain uncivil. I have explained why I wish for the pages to be deleted or redirected, but he still doesn't want me messing with them. I am considering asking for the pages to be deleted (and maybe protected), or at least turned into protected redirects to the albums in question. Any suggestions? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He being Bwmoll3 (talk · contribs). Seicer (t | c) 17:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Left a note, with a list of incivility, personal attacks (bordering) and general bad-faith assumptions. Seicer (t | c) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He's apologized for the incivility on my talk page. Let me know if there are lingering issues. Seicer (t | c) 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Debate is closed as delete and redirect all titles to their respective albums, per consensus and per WP:MUSIC guideline. Redirects are not protected at this time. Let me or any other administrator know if the problem persists, otherwise, marking this resolved. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

74.163.223.240

This user is repeatedly deleting CFD templates despite a warning and possibly is the same user blocked earlier today for similar behavior and belligerent, abusive comments. Whoville (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would report the IP to WP:AIV if they are still active and after sufficient warnings. If it continues under another anon with a similar IP string, I would warn, tag them as suspected sockpuppets and file a case including same user blocked earlier today as the sockpuppeteer. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:20, 22 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 ([20], [21], [22]), AfD tags have been removed ([23], [24], [25]) and removes of afd closing tag ([26]) and deletes AfD comments ([27]). Also, anecdotically see this comment [28], 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[29]. 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 ([30]) of the article that User:Kumarans10 created. The behaviour of blanketting AfD discussion is not unique for User:Maobad, see ([31], [32], [33]). --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 [34] 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 [35]. 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 [36]. 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)

And the checkuser result is in. Confirmed by Alison. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:52, 22 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)

Detwinkled... first time I've heard that use of the word :) Orderinchaos 17:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Briss much? the_undertow ^talk 01:47, 23 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. [37][38][39][40][41], including blanking project talk page data[42]. The vandalism was reverted in each instance, however he did it again [43][44][45][46][47]. If Twice wasnt enough, he went for three times [48][49][50][51]--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.

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)

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^[52] 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'm striking my above comment, it was uncalled for unrelated to productive discussion. I obviously took the low road, and apologise for that.--Hu12 (talk) 21:15, 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)

But we are here to build an encyclopedia. If the library there adds appropriate relevant material they own to appropriate relevant articles, they are helping us. Almost all the material added from there is in fact appropriate. They should have said more directly what they were doing, but they may have thought it obvious, and may also have thought it obvious we would regard it as beneficial. Spam fighting here s essential, but it should not operate to the detriment of getting good links and references. I've seen libraries and other parts of universities add inappropriate material, and t hen it is a real problem. But if its good stuff, and they are just doing it wrong, the thing to do is to be friendly about it and explain, not leave warnings. One could almost say that Hu12 is spamming spam notices. I think he does spectacularly good work identifying problems, but perhaps should use a different approach for many of the ones that he finds, or to leave the warning contributor instruction to others. It's been shown many times that a few good contributors are responsible for the bulk of the good content here, and most people actually do have COI of one sort or another in the areas they are concerned with. Not that this excuses removing the notices he did leave, but i can understand the frustration. I think Dirk for example has the right balance here. DGG (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably be accused of WP:POINT but I've experienced first hand Hu12's aggressive stance to edits that he/she considers to be spam and/or COI in the recent past and have decided to give up adding content to wikipedia as what I though was being helpful just got me and others treated like criminals. MopyNZ (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too (although I haven't given up on Wikipedia because I'm too stubborn - and actually MopyNZ hasn't really either, but he really was sad). Vegetationlife (talk) 22:27, 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[53] with a somewhat bizarre sounding reason.[54]. The article was speedily kept the next day as a snowball case via nonadministrative closure.[55]

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[56], 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.[57]. 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.[58].

History of sock, incivility, vandalism, edit wars. A quick look at boomgaylove's talk page[59] 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[60] to insert a bizarre, dubious negative reference to Hillary Clinton[61]. On the IP talk page[62] 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"[63], 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[64], restored the sourced information to the Cypress Village article[65] and removed the mention of the body to the Point Isabel article[66] per [[per WP:BRD, and after another user removed the speedy tag[67], I pitched in by adding a source citation to that article.[68]

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: [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] He is also nominating the article about one of the magazines used as a reference for the article.[80].

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: [81][82][83][84]

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[85]
• added a "notability" tag even though the article was at AfD, [86]
• added a "protect" tag to the article even though it was not protected.[87]
• In a new tactic, he is adding "fact"-type citation tags to material that is already sourced, occasionally after deleting the sources,[88][89][90] [91][92][93][94][95][96][97] [98] 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,[99] 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"[100], accusing me of "harassment" and "vandalism" [101], "vandalism" and "libelous"[102].

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."[103] [104] [105].

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[106] 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)

<-- Just a small point before this discussion goes much further; "he" is a she. She said so herself here, on some "talk" page or other. I don't have the energy to find it just now, but it's somewhere here. And "Boomgaylove" used to edit as Cholga, and may have had other sockpuppet-y identities as well. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
• 4.245.7.70 (talk · contribs)
• 4.88.160.203 (talk · contribs)
• 4.88.161.195 (talk · contribs)
• 4.88.162.231 (talk · contribs)
• 4.88.163.134 (talk · contribs)
• 4.88.164.40 (talk · contribs)
• Tadwilliamsxray (talk · contribs)
• Loveofhistorynut (talk · contribs)
• Shaw1860 (talk · contribs)
• Shaw1873 (talk · contribs)
• Topdog40 (talk · contribs)
• Janetw2008 (talk · contribs)
• Azsteve (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)

I'm also adding:

• Two-Mile Prairie, Missouri - though an actual place I cannot substantiate the bulk of the content that I have removed. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's why this vandal is so tricky, he has mixed truth and hoax. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Add Janetw2008 (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Heinrich I Heimo at least has been found in some good sources. Two Mile Prairie, if an actual place, would just need to be edited. It seems counterproductive to throw out the truthful part of these edits, but that's what the AfDs seem to be trying to do. Richbold was speedy deleted as a hoax in direct violation of Deletion policy--it may or may not be, but it needs a discussion. DGG (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You removed a speedy deletion tag from an article which said nothing but Richbold was born around 686 and died in 760. There was no claim of notability and speedy deletion was perfectly appropriate. Do you really expect an article on some person with nothing to go by but that? Do we have to go through an AfD for every single article that has nothing more on it than that? If you had a feeling that it might be notable, it was incumbent on you to add to the article, not just remove the speedy tag and move on. Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of this was speedy deletable as blatant advertising. This is more than enough evidence that we need a hoax category under CSD. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming

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 [107] 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)

I was one of those spammed. I'm not entirely clear what went on, but I do think that an indefinite block of someone with a moderately long contribution history (going back to 2005) and a fair number of edits (over 1000) should be discussed somewhere on-wiki, especially when the block log summary "until assurances are made that malicious bots will not be used" is used. What happened here? Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He used a bot to autorevert a section of an article to his preferred version. One user decided to change something in that section, only to be reverted within seconds every time. Something like 50RR ensued. Look at the history of United States presidential election, 2008 from 07:00 to 12:00 UTC on 1 February. He was then blocked with the block log summary quoted above. Since then he has been tendentiously putting together an OMG-all-admins-are-evil-especially-the-one-that-blocked-me-who-might-have-done-something wrong-sometime screed on his talkpage. Oh, and then he avoided the block via the IP and spammed everyone in the known universe, as you might've noticed.Black Kite 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the message, too. Given what went on, I think the block log summary is entirely appropriate. He should remain blocked, until assurances have been made, that no more malicious/unapproved bots will be run by this user. If he hasn't been alerted to this already, he should be, given that he did make a fair amount of good edits, before he made the mistake of running an 'editwar bot'. SQL^{Query me!} 16:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I counted 89 :) Seicer (t | c) 16:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, nevermind then. SQL^{Query me!} 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carcharoth. Also, I think the arguments on his talkpage seem to make sense. Could somebody here please address them? Or, if they have been addressed, could you cite diffs of actual conversation that went on? Simply calling his arguments "long and convoluted" then wiping it, locking it, and telling him to email ArbCom isn't enough to satisfy me, sorry. If you're unconvinced, please specify why. I checked his contribs and didn't see anything to suggest bot-abuse, sockpuppetry, or spam, and indef-blocks of long-standing, constructive editors need to be well justified. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, what was the name of the bot and has this been confirmed by RFCU? If so, by whom? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He ran it under his own account. Look at the history of his talkpage here where he admits it. Black Kite 16:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just saw the page history of United States presidential election, 2008. Wowwwwww. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I see it now as well. The point is that blocking should be done dispassionately. Not as a reaction. It is unhelpful to go "ZOMG! Terrible stuff! Indef block!!" It is more helpful to look at the contribution history, to look at the block log, the talk page history, and see if this is a first major offence. And then block for a week or a month or something. People always reply to this with "but an indefinite block can always be appealed later", to which my reply is that indefinite blocking can be a lazy way to avoid working out a suitable block length, and you would be surprised how hard it is for people to get even an obviously unjust indefinite block overturned. There seems to be a confirmation bias operating here along the lines of "if this person has been indefinitely blocked, there must have been a good reason for it and I'm not going to grant an unblock request without a good reason". The right attitude is that any block may be too long, and those reviewing blocks should remember that. Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest though, if he'd turned round and said "Yeah, that was wrong, I won't do it again" I'm guessing he'd have been unblocked straight away. Instead he threw his toys out of the pram and started attacking all and sundry who he thought were involved with his block, and he still hasn't said he won't do it again. Thus, indef until this happens. Shame really, because some of the bots he had in development (see his user page) looked quite useful. Black Kite 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that indefinite blocking is the right thing to do until Mitrebox clearly states he won't edit war at bot-like speeds (though the other guy in that edit war did a good job keeping up with him, and is now unblocked). But I fear that even if Mitrebox apologises, he may struggle to get unblocked. Let's suppose he does stop the IP block-evading, and the "convoluted" arguments, and apologises, and says he won't do this again, what then? If no-one unblocks, that doesn't make us very consistent. Carcharoth (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If he did, I don't see any overriding reason not to unblock, with the caveat that that any future bot-related silliness would be met with an instant permablock. Black Kite 16:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The same way other people being silly with bots get instant permablocks? That would just confirm the ranting he did about the Main Page deletion by the admin who blocked him. Seriously. If he has the potential to be a good bot programmer, nuture him, don't antagonise him. I note that the user page is a redirect and would have been deleted if the talk page had been deleted, and that the talk page had the "temporary wikipedian" tag that all indefinite blocked users get, so I did the "category=" trick to remove it from that category. The temporary wikipedian tag should only be applied to throwaway accounts, not to those that had a substantial editing history before they got indefinitely blocked. Is there a way to tweak {{indefblock}} so that people placing the tag are forced to stop and think about things like that? ie. make the "temporary wikipedians" page thing something that has to be consciously added, rather than the default? Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye, but my point being that, as I said, being silly with a bot once can possibly be overlooked, but repeated disruption is a no-no. The ranting on the talkpage didn't exactly help either. Black Kite 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit war with the bot counts as one incident, IMO. I'm also inclined to take subsequent events as a "reaction", and think we should let people calm down, and indeed we ourselves should always calm down, before confirming an indefinite block. Hey, that's an idea. Make it a feature of the software that all indefinite blocks of people with more than x number of contributions over y amount of time have to be reviewed (by someone else, obviously) after three months and confirmed or shortened. There were some stats somewhere about number of indefinite blocks. Yes, see User:Hut 8.5/indef blocks 2 - about 5000-8000 indef blocks a month. I still don't know how many of those are of throwaway accounts and how many are of established (though not necessarily good) contributors who fail to get unblocked for whatever reason. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's something interesting. A Piano has 88 Keys. The presidential campaign article had exactly 88RR, (if I counted right by hand) adding and removing Alan Keyes as a nominiee. Coincidence? I think not. But definitely a candidate for WP:LAME. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you counted. Seicer (t | c) 16:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! So did you. ;-). I saw your previous claim that it was 89. Absolutely false, it's 88. Lets go edit war over it on my talkpage, follow me! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't necessarily assume it was a bot. A while back, I thought [[User:Markussep] might be a bot. People told me no, and he's been editing at the same speed -- over 12 hours a day, 7 days a week -- generating geographic entries for several years now.

Also, the other thing to consider is that Savvyconsumer7 (talk · contribs) (who he edit-war'd with) is a SPA. They apologized and were immediately unblocked. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, he admitted it was a bot, on his talkpage, IIRC. SQL^{Query me!} 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here. Seicer (t | c) 16:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Savvyconsumer7 should get some sort of barnstar. His/her edit summaries are priceless. "Hey stop it", "Please explain yourself, Mitrebox". You know, things I say to my robot when it doesn't do what's asked of me. Or my toaster. Anyway, the Persistency and Dedication to the Correctness of the Wikipedia Award, ^TM ,subcategory, How to Fight a Bot and Win^TM goes to.....Savvyconsumer7!!!!!Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads up, looks like he's back as Special:Contributions/70.11.142.4. It's a sprintPCS IP, just like the last one. Seems to be spreading either automated, or, templated messages, to users involved with X, on a similarly themed page. SQL^{Query me!} 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

HAH! Read the dates, SQL. :) Mea culpa... SQL^{Query me!} 16:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Turns out there is an "historical" parameter at Template:Indefblockeduser, but no documentation about it. I've put a quick note on the template if anyone wants to have a look and adjust accordingly. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I originally blocked indefinitely just because the bot could have been running after the block expired, with the expectation that Mitrebox would post an {{unblock}} request the next day, but a month-long tariff for such a silly offense? I think Mitrebox has learned their lesson, can we just unblock and get this over with? east.718 at 17:26, February 22, 2008

Month-long? Are you referring to the IP block? What happens if you overturn the block you imposed on his account? Will the IP block have to be overturned separately? Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the block on their main account (well, three weeks is more accurate) -- and no, the IP block doesn't have to be overturned. I would prefer that my block get reversed here, since Mitrebox is a constructive editor and I doubt they'll be making the same mistake. east.718 at 02:42, February 23, 2008

Actually, the IP block may need re-examined. SprintPCS IP's don't usually last very long (or, at least, didn't seem to last more than maybe 8 hours when I had it). As far as the main account goes, as I said above, I'd still rather get assurances from the user in question, that no further unapproved bot tasks be run. SQL^{Query me!} 06:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon Reverting Edits After Warnings Not to Do So

A number of anons have been engaged in an off-and-on edit war on the section order in and structure of the article on St. John's University (New York City). This article has been semi-protected in the past, but that doesn't seem to have stopped these individuals from trying to get their way without reaching consensus. Recently, a warning has been issued more than once informing everyone editing this article that further blind reversions (that often remove even non-controversial edits) will not be tolerated. This anon - 71.240.28.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - chose to disregard this warning, and made another blind reversion to the article. Disciplinary action may be necessary to emphasize the need for collaboration when editing an article, and to remind editors that blindly undoing the contributions of others and refusing to seek consensus are not the way the Wikipedia community functions. ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade is an admin who has been following this article, and has issued at least one block of an IP for vandalism on this article. Try to contact him about your concerns. He previously left a comment on the article's Talk page about edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have forwarded this report to the admin mentioned above. Thanks for the suggestion. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Snowfire51

Resolved

Snowfire51 is harassing me. Can someone tell him to stop. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blotto adrift4 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Blotto adrift4 has been blocked indef for impersonating User:Blotto adrift. 2nd and 3rd opinions welcome, see Special:Contributions/Blotto adrift4Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User is a returning sockpuppet of various IPs used to place his name on the Trenton, Ontario page. He is using the name Blotto Adrift4 to appear to be respected user Blotto Adrift, and was indef banned. His first few edits, he was attempting to pass himself off as an admin [108] and other users [109]. Snowfire51 (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This account (Blotto adrift 4) is indef blocked. Let someone know if you see the user returning in new form, Snowfire51. The irony is that he was blocked because he reported you. You should be reporting him. Sorry for the trouble, keep up the good editing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with this vandal. Using accounts is something new, but the pattern is obvious. Ask me if you want details, but Snowfire51 pretty much has it covered. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not have details. Just make quick posts when you see it again, and reference the old posts and history for quicker action. As for getting more involved than that, nah. I like my userpage, and we don't need any Keeper77s or Keeper78s running around. Keeper76 is more than enough hassle for me. :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Admit it: It's nice when they just walk into your open mouth like that, isn't it? HalfShadow (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Easiest decision I've had all day. Or second easiest. The easiest was "Should I wear clothes to work today or not?". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What DID you decide, in that case?? ;) Gladys J Cortez 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence

Resolved

 – being handled by arbs

Really quick; I've (reluctantly) fully protected the above page for an hour due to a high-speed edit-war over a BADSITES link. As this is an ArbCom evidence page, I'm just placing this before the community for transparency and review. Feel free to undo my admin action here if there's agreement to do so - Alison ^❤ 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

While I (strongly) disagree with the actions of one side in this, there was better ways then forcing that side to 7 reverts in little less then an hour. I had a request in to an ArbCom clerk about the BLP possibilities. I request to other editors that when the protection is over NOT to editwar that link in while the request is being made. SirFozzie (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reported this to the arbs, who will decide what to do, and extended the protection. No one but arbs and arb clerks should edit the page for the time being. Talk page is still open. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, wow, that's really helpful. We learn from this that Bagley hates Weiss (new information not previously suspected by anybody), and that Bagley thinks Weiss is Mantanmoreland (another stunning revelation to all parties). How can the case conceivable continue without these links? Oh, wait, maybe the world will not stop turning if we don't actually bend over backwards to help Bagley in his vendetta, and instead rely on people who are at least notionally here for the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, I'm not overly interested in the Arb case, to be honest. My protection of the article was to prevent the ridiculous edit-war between the 'links' parties. I couldn't care less for the substance of the debate. Thanks - Alison ^❤ 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Guy, Alison's right, you're missing the point of this. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Clerk on the case asked me for guidance on how this should be handled and I have forwarded his request to the full committee to see if there is any consensus on the issue. In the meantime, I think it is fair to say that the material contained in these links consists of allegations that we are well aware of and it is not necessary to fight to keep them on the page. Note also that evidence whose appropriateness on-wiki is disputed, can be sent via e-mail to the committee or to any member for forwarding (see WP:AC). We would prefer not to see the level of tension surrounding this case escalate beyond the already unnecessarily high level. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Collective punishment

I noticed some pretty serious NPOV problems on Collective punishment, which I don't particularly want to get involved in. However, I just thought I would let everyone know, in case someone wants to deal with it. Prodego ^talk 19:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific regarding the policy violations, WP:NPOV problems aren't always immediately obvious. I can check it out, bring the issue to the talk page, and put a NPOV template on the page - although user's typically take exception to that practice. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestine v Israel. Edits like this. Prodego ^talk 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As the other user I need to say a couple things. First that I was not informed Prodego had put this here. I understand this as a requirement from the top of this page. I only noticed when I mis-clicked the talk page link to Prodego and saw his contributions listing the creation of this section. Second, my edits are trying to bring the page in line with the NPOV standard. As I found it, it did not mention the collective punishment used by totalitarian governments (such as China against Tibet). The section on Israel/Middle East was very tilted to a pro-Palestinian point of view, with one claim that had been listed as needing a source since June 2007 and that I could still not find a good source for. I have tried my best to make the content of the section as neutral as possible given that there is controversy over whether some or all of Israel's actions, in context of the Geneva Conventions, actually constitute prohibited collective punishment or not. Third that Prodego did not give me good reason to believe he was acting honestly as he accused me, for trying to clean up and make the article conform to NPOV, of "vandalism." Fourth, that I have started a thread on the talk page regarding the Israel area as well as the lack of coverage of other modern-day instances of collective punishment, but Prodego has not responded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs) for 12 hours for edit-warring; they've made 6 reverts to the article in about 3-4 hours, despite several warnings about 3RR and explanations of why the links to YouTube were being removed by a bot. I've also notified them of the recent Arbitration case regarding Israeli-Palestinian articles; if edit-warring continues after the block expires, then a discretionary remedy under the terms of that decision (such as 1RR) might be appropriate. The block is open for review. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to his unblock request, I've listed some criteria at User Talk:ForeverFreeSpeech for unblocking. I'm also open to allowing another uninvolved admin to unblock this user if they feel it is appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

MMMMM... Noob Sandwich... NOM NOM NOM NOM!

Seriously dude, WEAK block:

1. 20:28, 22 February 2008 MastCell (Talk | contribs) (22,951 bytes) (→Notice of Arbitration Committee decision and discretionary sanctions: new section) (undo)
2. 20:28, 22 February 2008 ForeverFreeSpeech (Talk | contribs) (12,851 bytes) (Undid revision 193339999 by XLinkBot (talk) xlinkbot is clearly malfunctioning.) (undo)
3. 20:35, 22 February 2008 MastCell (Talk | contribs) (24,338 bytes) (→Notice of Arbitration Committee decision and discretionary sanctions: blocked) (undo)

The warning is clearly made either after, or the same minute as, the edit you blocked for.

Then you get two admins - and looking at his log the last time Yamla sustained an unblock request is what, 2005? How is this guy even allowed near unblock requests any more? He pops up the denial within 3 minutes of the unblock request's posting, that CAN'T be enough time to actually analyze the issue properly. Especially when the user's still asking for help merely to format the unblock request in the first place.

Whether the content dispute is valid or not I can't say. What I can say is that nobody is engaging ForeverFreeSpeech in dialogue', instead you're just piling on and giving them more reason to worry and more reasons to be angry and feel piled upon.

1. Nobody would actually help them format the unblock request - instead they just keep removing the helpme template.
2. Nobody will explain what they think is wrong with the youtube link, despite the user asking that question over and over again and trying to supply auxiliary information to keep within policy.
3. "Edit-warring with a bot" - according to the bot design guidelines, the mere fact that the bot is edit-warring indicates that THE BOT IS DEFECTIVE. Seriously uncool to attack the user and leave the bot running, dude.

Master of Puppets does a bit better engaging (though why he plastered a "denied" along with writing a response I have no clue), but I think both Mastcell and Yamla are really guilty of WP:BITE violation. Hell, I haven't seen a trigger finger that fast since last march. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1rth (talk • contribs)

I don't agree - I think this user's talk page is plastered with attempts to engage him in dialog, both before and after the block, and none seem to have gotten any of his attention. I do try to be sensitive to WP:BITE issues, but the flipside of WP:BITE is that users have to be at least somewhat willing to consider friendly feedback or guidance. That was one reason why I offered to unblock immediately if this user was willing to agree to some very basic behavioral guidelines to which we're all subject. Thank you for the feedback. MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mastcell, I disagree with you for the following reasons:

1. - I don't consider multiple bot warnings (especially by a bot that reverts an entire edit) added based on a single youtube link, repeatedly) to be "engagement." In fact, I think the user probably got annoyed by them. ClueBot has a feature to not revert a page more than once in a single day, for very good reason. XLinkBot, on the other hand, is deliberately programmed to attack noobs since it ignores edits by "established users."
2. - The repeated removal of a helpme request, without providing the requested help, is just going to make it worse in appearance for a new user.
3. - You personally demanded a "reasonable time for a response" from them, yet you had an itchy enough trigger finger to block for a "violation" of a warning that occurred at the precise minute you left your warning. I think that was unfair of you.
4. - I stand by my earlier analysis of the denial of unblock requests: Yamla was incredibly quick on the denial trigger (from posting to denial in under 3 minutes) and Yamla's history indicates he doesn't do any research into unblock requests before denying them. Master of Puppets was QUITE a bit better in that regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1rth (talk • contribs) 23:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lilkunta unblock request

Unresolved

 – This got archived without anyone else looking at it. —Random832 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See past discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Lilkunta requests unblock, promises better behavior.

Lilkunta (talk · contribs) has e-mailed me (directly, not via Wikipedia e-mail) asking for additional assistance. From the past AN/I discussion (a little less than a month ago) it was discussed why Lilkunta was blocked, but little to no discussion regarding a trial unblock. Behavior was the main reason, not the font mess, but even with that I would like to ask that this situation be reviewed and a trail unblock be granted. Given that blocking, let alone indefinite blocking, is a last resort, I believe a trail unblock after almost nine months is a reasonable request. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't give them another try, but if the behavior starts up again it will have the same result. DarthGriz98 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So would anyone have any objections to a trial unblock? -- Ned Scott 03:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather apathetic to the entire Lilkunta situation at this point, and I suppose it's quite easy to reblock if needed. If there are no objects, I'd be willing to carry out the unblock, but I'm certainly not campaigning for it (and have no intentions of being any kind of mentor/adopter). - auburnpilot talk 20:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my opinion would be based on what the conditions of the trial block were. That is, what behavior would Lilkunta have to modify to stay unblocked and what behavior would get them blocked again. And perhaps one of our infinitely patient admins could mentor and monitor Lilkunta. Natalie (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That patient thing lets me out these days. I'd agree that an unblock is probably okay if Lilkunta keeps in mind civility and collegial editing, however. As AuburnPilot mentions above, it's easy enough to push the button again if needed. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Threats against schools?

Resolved

 – Appropriate steps taken

Just like we take legal threats seriously, what do we do about threats against schools? I cleaned up this vandalism of a school article. Veiled though it may be, it could still be viewed as a threat against the school and/or its students. Does it warrant escalation, and if so, to where? —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

99.99% certain it's a load of rubbish written by one of the students. However Jimbo has made himself very clear in the past on this. E-mail User:Mike Godwin (legal counsel) with the URL of the diff would be my advice. Pedro :  Chat  22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I've emailed the school, not that there'll be anyone there while Monday anyway. I don't think there's a huge amount more to be done. Black Kite 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And I emailed Mike Godwin. Like I said in that email, I'm probably overreacting, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worth recording action anyway, but if the poster is still hacked off over seven hours after school has finished for the weekend, it seems an unlikely threat and more like blowing off steam. Still worth reporting though, if only to let the school know there may be a bullying issue they may be unaware of. Probably worth marking as resolved here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Who ever said its rubbish have you been living under a rock or something. The world is not some peaceful place. The past ten years there has been Columbine, VA Tech shootings, and most recently Northen Illions (2/14/08) shooting. We should take these threats very seriously . What happens if we let this slide by , and someone gets shot or something. Even Mr. Jimmy Walles would agree with me on this. We should take all threats posted even if its a joke seriously. Has Mr. Mike Godwin replyed back . We need to contact the vandals local police authorities ASAP.Rio de oro (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I said it's 99.99% certain to be "rubbish". And I advised C.Fred to e-mail Mike Godwin, which he's done, on the .01% chance it isn't. And that's the end of the matter as far as Wikipedia goes. Extending resolved threads at ANI just creates more drama and indeed can just encourage this type of vandalism due to the ensuing conversation. We've done what we need to do. Pedro :  Chat  23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about Southampton, and school is closed for the weekend. If Mike Godwin thinks it's important, he'll contact the Hampshire Police. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And with the greatest respect to Rio de oro the cases he mentions are in America. Mike Godwin has been notified, Black Kite has notifed the school, and frankly if it's any more of a problem (which it isn't) I'll pop down Monday morning and let the headmaster know personally. We've done what's needed here. Pedro :  Chat  23:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• User blocked indef as well for what it's worth. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an entry in the block log. Reported to AIAV. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gerbil fan

This guy User_talk:128.220.181.222 with a preoccupation with gerbils has run through the vandalism warning levels. Thanks. Could somewhat make good our warnings to block him? -Jmh123 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The princess is in another castle. HalfShadow (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to butt in, but isn't it simple enough just to block the rodent? The whole thing is getting to be a pain in the...never mind. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Thanks for the block. -Jmh123 (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Alexbot

Alexbot put an interwiki link to ja:DAVID on the David Archuleta page, but in fact, the Japanese article is for David Archuleta (kickboxer). I went to Alexbot's page, but it says to leave messages on the Chinese Wikipedia. I did that, but I don't know if the owner peruses those messages or not, and I'm concerned that if the bot is making mistakes like that, how many other mistakes is it making when the names are not identical? Does anybody have experience with Alexbot or its owner? Corvus cornix_talk 00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of vandalism/attack

Resolved

 – —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

CydonianKnight (talk · contribs · logs) created an account solely to upload Image:RosaFarrell1.jpg and post it on the talk page of Hexedmagica (talk · contribs · logs), then blank their user page. Given Hexedmagica's limited edits it can't be an on-wiki incident that provoked it – must be a real-life incident that spilled over onto Wikipedia. Reverted the attack but an admin should delete the pornography image as copyrighted/vandalism or whatever. • Anakin ^(talk) 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – thanks! • Anakin ^(talk) 04:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review User:Krimpet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

everyone has kissed and made up, nothing more to see here. Ronnotel (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

---

In the various to and fro arguments on the Mantanmoreland arbcom case, Krimpet made the following comment to Dmcdevitt: [110] "A "silly exercise in declaring to be true what you have already assumed is true"... pretty much what one would expect from the project that booted Poetlister last year, right Dmcdevit? -_- krimpet✽ 03:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)"

In my judgement this was too far over the top, compared to other discussions going on there it seemed particularly uncivil and too much of a personal attack, so I issued a short 6 hr block on Krimpet and asked her to cool down.

However, two other experienced users relatively promptly left me messages that they think I overreacted.

I would like to get uninvolved admin review - if you feel I did pull the trigger too easily here, feel free to unblock her and post a brief explanation here, or discuss here and if I change my mind I'll undo it. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the two users who objected. My thoughts were that the comment preceding that by Dmcdevit, that the ArbCom was A silly exercise in declaring to be true what you have already assumed is true just as inflamatory, and to block only Krimpet is not a good action in this. SirFozzie (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't support this block. No warning preceded it and I don't think Dmcdevit is likely to feel very aggrieved by that statement. We shouldn't be objecting to legitimate dissent, even when bluntly expressed and there is no reason to prohibit questioning the ban of Poetlister. That said the comment from Krimpet wasn't very helpful or likely to stimulate healthy discussion. Nonetheless I think blocks should be a last resort I don't think this one is very necessary - a sternly worded note that such comments were unhelpful might have been just as effective, without aggravating matters in the way short blocks tend to. WjBscribe 04:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Mantanmoreland matter is an extremely divisive arbitration case. In general, editors are free to speak their minds on arbitration pages, and blocking for comments made there should be a last resort. (I say this not just as a current arbitrator, but having spent several months as a Clerk and handled many of last year's most contentious cases.) However, I would like anyone participating in the evidence, workshop, or talkpages of this case to please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop#Urgent announcement before posting anything further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was an overreaction to block. SOmeone already unblocked HER (not a HIM) or I'd do it. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted twice) I'm not one to meddle into Wiki-drama, but I don't support this block. Not even so much a warning was given, and it really seemed more punitive than preventative. bibliomaniac15 04:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecx5)For what it's worth, I'm the other who ojected. I think that this block is unwarranted. Blocking's purpose is preventative, not punitive, and this seems more like a punitive block than a preventative one. One sarcastic comment usually doesn't disrupt enough to warrant a block to prevent further disruption to the project, and those who make comments like this are usually let off with a warning. I do think that George was too quick to pull the trigger on Krimpet, and she should be unblocked. I also appreciate George's willingness to have the block looked at, thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Firstly, yes it was uncivil and somewhat uncalled-for. Secondly, there was no warning whatsoever. Thirdly, we explicitly do not do "cool-off" blocks, so I cannot endorse this. As incivility goes, I can think of far worse examples (indeed, on that very Arb case) from admins that have gone unpunished (and yes, I see this as being somewhat of a punishment blocking. Not good) - Alison ^❤ 04:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Krimpet's talk page, I was also at the time more politely disagreeing with Dmcdevitt, so I didn't think that it might be some form of conflict of interest or punishment for point of view vs behavior. But I appear to have created the impression with some of a conflict of interest or retaliation in doing it, so that was clearly not good. If anyone else has input on this point I'm open to it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(massive e/c)Agree with the unblock. The comment was definitely unnecessary and inflammatory, but not even close to blockable disruption. Mr.Z-man 04:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(e.c. x 6) First, it's a her, not a him. : - ) I'm an uninvolved administrator in this case (as far as I know) and the block seemed unreasonable to me. As I said in my unblock summary, it's importance to "assume the presence of a belly button". Perhaps Krimpet's comment wasn't appropriate, however, I certainly don't think it justified a block of her. We're all human, and we're all prone to make mistakes. Perhaps Krimpet was wrong, perhaps Georgewilliamherbert was wrong. Either way, I don't think a block serves anyone well here. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied from the discussion here that my finger was excessively swift, and I apologized to Krimpet. Thanks everyone for taking prompt looks and good feedback. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, GWH, well conceded. Would that all admins were as graceful in the face of community consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that my comment was unhelpful and over-the-top, and I apologize. My blood pressure was a bit heightened by Dmcdevit's mocking comments of Durova and the case in the #wikipedia-en-admins channel at the time, hence I was reading the discussion and unwisely decided to add my two cents on-wiki. -_- I guess I get to live with the "scars" now. krimpet✽ 04:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel I have been mocking at all (though typically, if you think so, you can just talk to the person about it). My entire comment was a quote of the proposal and the remark "How is that logical in any universe? Preferably ours." which isn't far from my comment there; I dispute the logic. I will admit that if I'd been called on it, as I now would have, I probably would have agreed with you. I don't appreciate this being misdirected towards me. In fact, that would be part of my complaint about the ill-considered block; that now the discussion is about a bad block rather than the incivility that precipitated it. I find it insulting that I made a single comment there in diagreement with Durova, and not even a terrible comment, either, and I've been attacked and explicitly accused of bad faith by Durova. And there's even a cute little box at the top of the page that says "Basic standards of civility will be strictly enforced," for comedic effect, I assume. :-) Dmcdevit·t 04:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment higher in this thread. Sorry for posting a repeat, but I'd prefer that it not get lost. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

118.137.35.91 (talk · contribs)

• I don't have the information on me, but from the contributions it is clear that this IP is a reincarnation of the incessant "TorchLady" vandal that kept creating hoaxes related to the Columbia Pictures symbol. He/she is doing rapid fire damage to a lot of articles and needs to be blocked right away. JuJube (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He/she has also been vandalizing from the 118.137.34.* and 118.137.35.* ranges. JuJube (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Finally tracked down the related AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures). JuJube (talk) 05:34, 23 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)

Perhaps you could tell us what the article is, so that someone who knows better can look at its delete history and see what happened. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's called Tehehehehehe corey is corey. Peter jackson (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This was the product of a vandalistic move at Buddhism, if Buddhism was in your watchlist prior to this I wouldn't worry about it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

... as you may be able to guess from the logs (though not so much the deletion log, as I first thought). — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:46, 23 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.[111]
• Speaking of senseless waste, was there some point to those 200 words?[112]
• 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[113]

From Talk:McCarthyism:

• Jtpaladin, even if that infantile fantasy was true, it wouldn't matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned[114]
• not for you to indulge in incoherent ramblings[115]

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.[116]
• 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.[117]

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)

Crossmr, I don't see a single contribution by you to RedSpruce's usertalk page. It would have been much better if you had brought this up directly with RedSpruce first. Even if you were blown off, or it made no impact, it would have been more appropriate--and potentially successful--than requesting ANI input right away. — Scientizzle 17:28, 22 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)

That's nice, but defending an article doesn't give you license to violate policy. His problems extend beyond McCarthy at least to Film Noir, which is only in danger of being brought in line with Wikipedia guidelines on style. My suggestion is to put him on civility watch and if he can't handle editing here civilly, block him. There is clear evidence that its not an isolated issue or a short-term issue. Its why we have the policy in the first place. There are clear ownership issues on Film Noir, and civility issues on 3 different articles that I know of. We don't need editors to protect articles who are going to do it through intimidation and hostility. As people are often told in disputes, if you can't keep a cool head, walk away. If your view really is appropriate, other editors will fix it, or you can use other steps in dispute resolution.--Crossmr (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, we all appreciate that this user, and many other users who do similar work against POV-pushers, can be uncivil to varying extents. Off the top of my head I can think of at least a dozen editors that are occasionally or regularly abrasive, but their work is an overwhelming positive influence because they provide proper content. This is an encyclopedia, not a social network, so the content rules should always trump the social rules. In fact, you have to get to #4 of WP:5P before you get to civility standards--and that section expects all editors to "act in good faith", which is rarely a descriptor of the hardcore ideologues that try to promote their views. I am in no way excusing anyone for being rude, uncooperative, or uncivil--and I believe the entire Wikipedia could benefit from greater collegiality--but to let personality conflicts and schoolyard-level tattling competitions inhibit the conveyance of reliably sourced, valuable information to the general public (the explicit goal of the project) is mind-bogglingly asinine.

I've not looked at many of RedSpruce's contributions, I've never worked with that editor nor the topic starter, but I've seen too much recently of civility rules actually hindering what we're supposed to be doing (rather than promoting the mission, which is why the rules exist). Everyone could benefit from a slightly thicker skin, and from taking a deep breath and a reasonable re-read before pressing that "Save page" button, but don't forget what the goal is here. Civility rules will only work if everyone is acting in good faith, and many are not. — Scientizzle 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Scientizzle. A few incidents here and there are not a problem, especially when having to deal with "wing nut" revert wars. Productive editors should be given the benefit of the doubt. David D. (Talk) 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And there is a solution, which is to help out. If your skills lie in the area of tact and diplomacy, then you can help by taking on the task of patiently explaining to the soup-spittingpurveyors of The Truth™ that their edits are more of a problem to the project than the testy reaction of people who defend policy against never-ending querulous argument. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)