• August 13 - 14

General

I dunno, he's quite funny, so maybe it will help ease the tension; certainly a lot funnier than other strawman sockpuppets, like User:Alberuni's earlier User:Elitcher, or later User:ProudWHITEIsraeli/User:TelAvivKid, which were just nasty. User:Islamist was actually a serious sockpuppet of User:Alberuni, and not intended as satire. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree he is funny, but I am concerned he may spur some more zealous users, upon whom his humour may be lost, into a blind rage. It's true that Alberuni is very hard to tell from a satire; imagine, if we got more of these pranksters, it would be very difficult to decide which are serious. Maybe we should just take him by his word and treat him as an Islamist extremist anyway.

dab (ᛏ)

18:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Am I the first one, or has anybody else noticed that this user's name backwards is "jihad-la judas"? Har har. --Merovingian (t) (c) *** 05:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you just made the most singular and astute observation within this discussion. Good eye! I'm kind of on the fence about how funny this all is though. Allowing somebody to parody an ultra zealous whatever might get certain people all twisted up. Hamster Sandwich 05:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It really depends on how people take biting satire. I roll my eyes and move on. --Merovingian (t) (c) *** 05:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious, but I think he should be blocked indefinitely as an account used for nothing but trolling. --malathion ^talk 20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow "persiflage", I always love it when I find a new word to look up in the dictionary. I'm thinking we should adopt this as WP jargon for these posers. Almost sounds like a conflation of personal camouflage. I think User:Benjamin Gatti with his "support" of Ed Poor a la Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection, might be considered one of these. Paul August ☎ *** 15:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Continually re-inserting the VfD tag at

It is very likely that this is a strawman sockpuppet. Look at his contribution list and note the similarities with this one but with messages and edits that give the opposite intended effect of the other. This comes after several similar accounts were banned, but were instead used for the purposes of reverting contributions of mine en masse. "Bee Hive", "Lamb Chop", "MaquisMesser", "Jay-Z". Notice that all of these accounts are familiar with the voting process as well as more basic things like the acronym "rv", though in this case there has been a more genuine attempt to appear newbieish, relinking to archived Vfds, leaving messages without headers and at the top of talk pages, etc. --TJive *** 04:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Also, see #Lamb Chop. --TJive *** 04:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

He has now followed my editing to an article on Australian Senator Andrew Bartlett (photographed on my User page); this is deliberate harassment. Shem^(talk) 04:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, and it now appears that "Coqsportif" has been reduced to attempting the same reversions. Take a gander at the edit history of National Endowment for Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is not only among the previous sets of mass reversions of my material but in this case he has also reverted completely unrelated edits by another user. Each incarnation is more disruptive than the last. --TJive *** 04:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

He is also disrupting articles like

Has likewise made the same pattern of insertions and changes to the same pages as this User [3], who has been warned on vandalism. Seems to be trying to deliberately provoke a response. nobs 05:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

My edits stand up to any informed scrutiny. This section is now being used as a dubious basis for reverting every edit I make, without reason. I will not tolerate it. Coqsportif 12:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This user also edited Robin Cook adding negative POV and weasel words and his summary gave the implication of positive POV. Certainly annoying, if nothing else. Secretlondon 14:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The username "Coq Sportif" makes reference to a French sportwear brand. The image on his user page can be seen as taking an old image out of context as to ridiculise French symbolism (the image is ridiculous all right, like for instance propaganda posters of the Second World War). It is very close to the sort of rethorics one can witness on sites like http://www.fuckfrance.com . Also, the image has been edited to read Va te faire foutre ("go fuck yourself"), which I strongly doubt our little friend here is unaware of. Hence my remark at the bottom of this page. I think that this, added to the nature of his contributions, hint at a disturbance-dedicated user account, which we might as well forcibly definitely shut down. Rama 14:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This user, at first glance, seems to share the same interests as User:Reithy (Ron Paul, Placentophagy, etc. [4], who hasn't edited since Novmber 2004. What that means or implies I leave up to those with a longer history here. --Calton | Talk *** 14:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to see if they have the same location etc before jumping to conclusions. We've had loads of US-based anti-French editors. It was quite fashionable at one point. Secretlondon 14:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe Ron Paul may be chocked up to coincidence as the single edit was simply from a crude nationalist POV rather than the general, and extensive, fulminations in which Reithy engaged. Placentophagy, however, provides a point with some contiguity in reverting which may require a further look.

On the other hand, the initial set of edits have great overlap with those of Ruy Lopez, whose mentioned sockpuppets have previously been banned for their mass reversions. Specifically, "Coq" insinuated himself into not only a Vfd initiated by Ruy, but as well into the

But Ruy is a communist, and Coq a US nationalist. Why would Ruy have a sockpuppet with an opposite view point? Secretlondon 15:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Already answered above:

strawman sockpuppet. --cesarb

17:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean User:Adam Carr says I'm a communist (which I have never said I was, Adam Carr on the other hand said he was in a communist group - I prefer for myself the old 60's term "anti-anti-communist"). As far as TJive's elaborate theories about who Coqsportif is - he says Coqsportif is a sock puppet of mine. Furthermore, it is not a typical sock puppet that would be created to get around 3RR, or do blatant vandalism and the like. He says I have created a sock puppet that makes lots of wild edits in "attempts to bury its repeated reversions amid several other disputes which serve as red herrings." I can do him one better. TJive has created this sock puppet to make it look as if it was my sock puppet. Being very clever, he makes it look like I tried to not make it my sock puppet, but in a way where it would look like it actually was my sock puppet. Plus he gets the added bonus of making all of those US nationalist edits on top of casting suspicion on me. Putting past the point that TJive is obviously a sock puppet - look at his first ten edits, it is obvious he is a sock puppet. I have been here for over a year. Ruy Lopez 19:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The only point of response that is necessary at this time is to note that there is significant evidence in favor of Ruy Lopez sockpuppetry (irrespective of the identity of Coqsportif) and not but an insinuation in Lopez's favor. --TJive *** 22:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Attempting to disrupt a good faith dispute settlement [5]. Persistent vandalism to

Secretlondon, this was already addressed. The primary purpose, generally, of a "strawman sockpuppet" is to attempt to show cupidity and ignorance from the opposite POV of what is held by the actual, living breathing person. The edits themselves serve to disrupt the pages in question with crude, POV language and continual reverts of material. The selections in question as I outlined demonstrate the same pattern of topics chosen. However, there is another single purpose which is a continuation of reverts which began under other sockpuppets for which it was the only point and action of the account--most of these have been banned. That is shown by the actions in the NED article, where the same revert was picked up by "Coq". In this manner a real purpose (and POV) is being demonstrated albeit hidden in a swath of others which all suggest the entire opposite. Hence massive disruptions of many articles where there is a prior user concern and where there is not. I expect that he is learning from the mistakes he made in revealing himself and will attempt a different tack of justification in his reverts the next time around. --TJive *** 02:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I find this all a little conspiratorial and I seriously require some evidence. The concept of a "strawman sockpuppet" is a new one to me. I notice that you've all been fighting on the same pages - maybe you are all sockpuppets of each other? For example Coq edited Robin Cook, Ruy (or any other bogeymen) hasn't edited that page. Why would Ruy's bizarre anti-alter ego edit that page if Ruy hadn't edited it? This feels like you are witchunting Ruy by making him responsible for editors with your POV whose modus operandi you find unhelpful. Secretlondon 07:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Secretlondon, I know you are on good terms with Ruy but unless you are prepared to explain what is otherwise a massive, involved, and tiring coincidence with the edit histories of five separate registered users all of which have chronologically contiguous obsessions over the same sets of articles and the evidence for which has been laid out here for you to survey at your leisure, your claim of "witchhunting" falls far short. --TJive *** 08:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

As one of the users who ultimately became rather closely involved in the Reithy/Chuck F foolishness, I'm virtually certain this is a reincarnation of Reithy -- the combination of

Certainly however it must be an elaborate coincidence for this user to initiate edits which follow a chronological path through four prior sockpuppets as well to make an identical revert and vote/disrupt the same sets of articles. If anyone cares to look through the contributions of the accounts in question and follow the dates to confirm or deny this they may, but little explanation is forthcoming. See also SlimVirgin's talk page. --TJive *** 04:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped editing, though I'm minded to block the account if it starts up again. There are too many complaints of disruption, and people are complaining by e-mail too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) *** 05:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

He now claims to have been a previous editor but not to have edited since 2003. See the section here. --TJive *** 08:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

He's back, initially pretended his block hadn't cleared and he could only post on his talk page, so I locked his talk page, and lo and behold, he was in fact able to post elsewhere. He didn't e-mail me during the block, he says, because he didn't know how to. I don't believe him: I think it's because he doesn't want to risk revealing his IP address. There were other silly claims I won't go into. I've told him I'm going to block him if there's any more disruption, so if any of you are keeping a close eye on him, please let me know if the trouble starts up again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) *** 08:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

He says he is going through old articles to figure out what his name was, and that he is none of the above users. --TJive *** 08:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Minutes after posting to my talk page and obviously visiting my user page, the user copied the Category:Wikipedians in Hawaii on my user page and copied it to his own. I removed it twice since I thought it was pretty obvious Coqsportif was engaging in some kind mimickry/mockery troll, but he claims that I'm vandalizing his user page. Today on my talk page, the user has admitted that he does not currently live in Hawaii but claims to have been born there. Out of curiousity, I asked him the name of the island and town just to confirm his knowledge of Hawaii, but I was greeted with silence in response. So, the user adds the category back to his user page, admits he doesn't live in Hawaii, and refuses to talk about the claim that he does. If this isn't trolling I don't know what is. --Viriditas | Talk 12:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with adding a category link as was done. Doing so is not "trolling". His "admission" was that Hawaii was not currently his primary residence, but that he owns a home there, was born there and will be returning to live in said home which his parents currently occupy. I understand that these claims (coming from someone who has made questionable use of Wikipedia) are likely untrue, however, if we went around stripping out anything in anyone's talk page that we felt they had not substantiated properly... well, at least WikiMedia's servers would have some reclaimed disk space ;-) -Harmil 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with removing articles from categories if they are miscategorized. Coqsportif admits that he doesn't live in Hawaii so I'm not clear why he's added the category, in this case minutes after commenting on my talk page. It looks to me like he's deliberately trolling for a reaction, much like the image he originally added to his user page. In response to his claim, I've asked him what island he was born on and he refuses to answer. I don't see why that question is so difficult to answer other than the possibility that he's making it all up. In any case, he got my attention after I told him I was ignoring him, so it was a successful troll. --Viriditas | Talk 13:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope this is the end of the matter now but for the record I am happy to disclose my birthplace, my property ownership, my ancestry all of which demonstrate I am 100% Hawaiian. But I won't be answering to Viriditas who seems to be engaging in a form of trolling new to me, which is that you accuse someone else of being a troll and then puruse their every edit. I have no wish for interaction of any kind with Viriditas, I did not initiate any, I will not be seeking any. That doesn't sound like trolling but his behavior might well be. Either way I make no formal complaint and just wish the matter to conclude peacefully, it is obvious I started off on the wrong foot and I hope I can quickly fix that and get in step. Thank you to all those who addressed the issue of protecting my user page from Viriditas' edits, it is appreciated. Coqsportif 21:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Coqsportif has a total of 360 edits to date, ~277 of which do not contain edit summaries. At 11:53 on August 12, I added the {{subst:summary}} user talk namespace template as a reminder for this user. Approximately one minute later, at 11:54, Coqsportif removed the reminder with the comment, "remove trolling". [7] --Viriditas | Talk 04:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the Wikipedia policy/guidelines that mandate user of edit summaries, I don't dispute what Viriditas claims, I'd just like to see for myself. Am also interested in what the policy says about wikistalking. Might be useful for him to read too. Coqsportif 05:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikistalking? Pot, kettle, black, "Coqsportif." Shem^(talk) 05:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Coqsportif, you have beeen "pointed" to the guideline twice, and twice you have removed it from your talk page with the summary, "thanks troll". [8] [9]. You've also done the same thing by asking users to contact you, yet you refuse to provide an email address. I think it's pretty clear who is the troll, here. --Viriditas | Talk 05:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Although the use of

edit summaries is not an etched-in-stone requirement, it is generally accepted that using them is a Good Thing and it is a heavily encouraged guideline. It is considered poor form not to use them because it greatly inconveniences other editors—patrollers who watch Recent changes

and editors who have an article watchlisted find a brief descriptive summary very useful in their work. Nobody will (or at least should) yell at you if you occasionally forget to add one, but we would all really appreciate it if you made the effort.

It is also worth noting that Wikipedia's policy on civility also applies to edit summaries. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that after two polite reminders on the users talk page, as well as this discussion, the user is continuing to edit without filling out the summary field. --Viriditas | Talk 07:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

User has now blanked his talk page [10], as well as outstanding source requests for images that the user has uploaded, including Image:Lecoqsportif.gif and Image:Remington.jpg. --Viriditas | Talk 07:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

User is now spamming my talk page with nonsensical messages [11][12][13]. --Viriditas | Talk 12:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

User is now trolling

No image was fake, one was a cheese label taken from the web and the other a photograph I took years ago. Coqsportif 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

User has "welcomed" a new sockpuppet, User:Ray Lopez [14]. --Viriditas | Talk 12:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This should not be ignored. Shem^(talk) 21:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain how one recognizes a sockpuppet? I might also add when I saw Ray do the wrong thing, I counselled him not to. Coqsportif 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Here's one scenario: At 03:29, 13 August 2005 User:Coqsportif votes on a poll at Talk:Joe Scarborough [15][16]. In a nearly identical vote to the same poll as Coqsportif, User:Ray Lopez arrives and makes his first edit at 11:18, 13 August on Talk:Joe Scarborough [17]. Twenty minutes later, at 11:38, 13 August, Coqsportif "welcomes" Ray on his talk page [18]. At 03:59, 14 August, Coqsportif edits Talk:Joe Scarborough and removes a link to User:Stirling Newberry's blog, with the summary, "remove spam link" [19]. At 04:09, 14 August, Coqsportif claims to "remove spam" from a comment by Stirling Newberry on User talk:Ray Lopez [20]. At 08:04, 14 August Coqsportif is blocked for a 3RR violation [21]. Almost two hours later, User:Ray Lopez shows up, with the edit summary, "Removed Stirling Newberry's Spam" [22]. --Viriditas | Talk 13:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you realize that in "Ray Lopez"'s "vote" in the Scarborough article that he replaced a previous vote of Ruy Lopez? That makes it rather clear that regardless of the identity of either Coq or "Ray" that the latter is an impersonating sockpuppet which needs indefinitely banned. --TJive *** 15:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

User has violated 3RR on Gropecunt Lane by reverting five times. [23][24][25][26][27]--Viriditas | Talk 07:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Clear exception to 3RR here for two reasons:

• The image has been proposed for deletion, it was deleted from the article by Viriditas which in turn makes it an orphan which means it will be deleted. Rather circular, don't you think? In these circumstances, I believe what is going on is vandalism although I will leave that to others to judge.
• The image was initially deleted because it was said to be fake, I think that misunderstanding has been cleared up and now the image is being examined but not on any grounds that would justify its deletion. Viriditas' actions in deleting the image need to be corrected, which is exactly what I did, reverting vandalism is not in breach of the 3RR which is why I persisted with it. I believe I was right to do so. Coqsportif 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It was a clear 3RR violation. Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) *** 08:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• 12:47, 16 August 2005, First edit by I-2-d2. Uploads Image:Usflag.jpg for use on talk page. Compare this to the last version of Coqsportif's User page which contained Image:Hawaii_state_flag.png [28]
• 13:57, 16 August 2005, I-2-d2 adds Image:50728.gif to his user page [29].
• 14:53, 16 August 2005 I-2-d2 edits The O'Reilly Factor [30] and is promptly reverted for inserting unsourced POV. [31]
• 18:24, 16 August 2005, I-2-d2 reverts to Coqsportif on CNN. [32]
• 18:26, 16 August 2005, I-2-d2 adds "dictator" to
  National_Assembly_of_Iraq[33]
• 18:51, 16 August 2005, I-2-d2 reverts to almost full previous version by Coqsportif on George Galloway [34][35]
• 18:54, 16 August 2005, Coqsportif removes Image:Hawaii_state_flag.png and adds Image:50728.gif to his user page. [36] At this point, I-2-d2 and Coqsportif have virtually identical user pages.
• 19:18, 16 August 2005, Coqsportif edits
  Bill O'Reilly (commentator) [37] and is promptly reverted for inserting unsourced POV [38]
• 22:06, 16 August 2005, Coqsportif adds "dictator" to Saddam Hussein[39]

--Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This can be a serious matter. If it's a question of inserting advertising links into article space, the recourse would either be an RfC on the article or a VfD on it (for advertising). If it's in user space.... Well, that gets complicated, but no one may use his or her user page for advertising. When vanity crosses over into advertising is a tough call. Geogre 04:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have left a warning on Aesculapius75's Talk page that he should stop adding these links about himself to the article, and have suggested he put them on his User page. If he continues, I have indicated that I will block him. Is this appropriate? Zoe *** 23:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk · contribs) has returned and begun editing actively again. The arbitration case which concerns him has been reactivated. He remains subject to a temporary ban editing ban pending resolution of his case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed_decision#Limited_ban_on_ArmchairVexillologistDon

"ArmchairVexillologistDon is banned from the editing of any Wikipedia page related to vexillology, fascism, or Canada pending a decision in this matter. What constitutes "Vexillogy," "fascism," or "Canada" shall be interpreted broadly."

Fred Bauder *** 19:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon has been warned but has persisted in breaking the tempban by posting at Talk:French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag, an article relating to both Canada and vexillogy. Homey 00:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

AVD also made those same edits by placing the link to the recently VFD's article into Flag of Canada and also edited Canada. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for disruption and harassment because he published an editor's name again today after being asked many times not to. Here's where he admits doing it. [40] I've left a note on his talk page saying I'll discuss the length of the block with him if he e-mails me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) *** 02:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sir, I am writing to inform you that RIDCSP has already started making contributions . Thanks. User:222.133.52.110

Roger that, we have RIDCSP, repeat we have RIDCSP, over. --Golbez *** 00:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The message above was written by 222.133.52.110, who originally created the page

RIDCSP, it's not a userpage--it's not "you". In other words, you have already contributed a good, informative article to the encyclopedia, you should be proud. :-) Bishonen | talk

09:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Look at the page User:Himmla. I felt somewhat offended but I thought I'd gather some consensus before we do anything about it. Redwolf24 00:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Based on his other edits, he seems to not be the best wikipedia has to offer, but the content of the User page alone doesn't seem objectionable to me. Every one of those images are used in actual articles, several of them in one article. He didn't say "haha look at this". (Though the assumption is, again based on his other edits, that he's probably saying that).

Long story short: I'm sure he'll do something blockable long before we decide what to do about the pictures on his user page. --Golbez *** 00:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, if this diff is any indication. Let the userpage slide. I'll warn him about the vandalism on his talk page. ~~ N (t/c) 00:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

After looking at the only five edits, it's safe to say this account has been created solely for vandalism. See this diff (vandalism on another user's page) and [41] (linking to a

Himmler, not likely to be a coincidence. I have blocked indefinetely. Carbonite | Talk

00:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

And we may not have noticed him so quickly if not for Redwolf. I'm saying this so that Redwolf doesn't feel like we dismissed his concerns. :) They were the right concerns, just about the wrong edits. ;) (Though yeah, it was kind of a red flag to appear to be glorifying 9/11 like that). All the pieces of evidence fit in to place. :) --Golbez *** 00:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So if a user is banned, is it then okay to blank out his user page? Dragons flight *** 01:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh Im so offended :P Well the pictures there were out of context and it said Has no desire to learn English... etc. And to Dragons: I'm an admin so I'd just delete it. Redwolf24 03:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Gateman1997 (talk · contribs)
• BillyCreamCorn (talk · contribs)

Gateman1997 admits to sharing a proxy with this chap. Gateman, a school deletionist, created an article Village Preschool of Saratoga. BillyCreamCorn, a user whose first edit had been just two days before, showed up half an hour later and listed it for deletion.

Thoughts? This is a relatively non-serious instance of sock puppetry, if thatis what it is, just a chap having fun at the expense of kneejerk school inclusionism. Still would be interesting to know if it is, because he's screaming blue murder about it right now. I've asked David Gerard if he'll run a check, too. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone unlock

Take a look at this Request for arbitration. I am quite sure J. Jones is another MARMOT sock, given his insult of Linuxbeak. I am very tempted to just revert his edit to

I got edit conflicted by that post; I brought it to the attention of Sannse on IRC and she has removed it. For future note: Her suggestion was to leave removals on RfAr to arbitrators. -- Essjay · Talk *** 13:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If Marmot wants to request arbitration and is currently blocked, then s/he can do so via email to any arbitrator. If someone else wants to do so on Marmot's behalf, then they can do so without the bad language and we'll have a look. I see no need to put up with attacks like those in this last request -- sannse (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:J. Jones as a sockpuppet of User:MARMOT. I see that the dealing with such socks has been discussed here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, User:MARMOT's actions really border on comical. It's really pathetic watching him, seeing that he was blocked months ago. I mean... if he's trying to make me angry or upset, he's failing. Maybe he needs something in his life... like a job. Oh well, stupid people exist for the entertainment of others. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk *** 13:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Funс (Fun%D1%81) indefinately as a vandal and imposter of of User:Func (Func). Hopefully we will not be seeing a lot of vandals creating UNICODE look alike accounts. --Allen3 ^talk *** 15:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there a technical way to prevent the use of Unicode in usernames on en:? I can't think of a good reason to allow anything beyond the regular ASCII character set for usernames. Heck, there's no good reason to go beyond the basic alphanumerics. Has someone already filed a bug report requesting this change? This problem apparently affects any username containing the letter 'c'; I don't need to describe how irritating it could become. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of bloking non-Latin characters, I would recommend a table to map non-Latin characters that look like Latin characters to the Latin one before the actual account creation. In this case, changing the

Bet, Pi, or Ya that do not pose as doppelganger threats. --Allen3 ^talk

*** 17:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

How do you display the underlying UNICODE charachters, to be able to tell the usernames apart? Paul August ☎ *** 16:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess you could copy the user names to some editor which allows you to display the text in Hexidecimal, but is there some easy way to do this inside Wikipedia? Paul August ☎ *** 16:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the vandal only had a couple contribs, you can visit the User page and look at the address bar in your browser - if it says "Func", then it's the real Func, and if it says "Fun%D1%81" then it's a fake. - jredmond 16:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Not in Mac Safari. I was really baffled. It looked like my user name, in every way. You know, others have brought this up before, and I would like to bring it up again: we really need a Special:Newusers list, just as we have a Special:Newpages. Func( t, c ) 16:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think a Special:Newusers list would be a great idea; it would help us shut down imposters, doppelgangers and abusive sockpuppets right from the start.

The Cyrillic "es" issue has come up before: here [42] is where I posted about it about a month ago. On the two computers/browsers I usually use for Wikipedia, Cyrillic "es" looks just like "c", especially in Recent Changes, where we need to be able to spot the difference. Antandrus (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the "Newusers" idea. Paul August ☎ *** 17:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I also support this idea. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that exists a Special:Contributions/newbies, which does not work anymore since someone created an account with that name. The discussion was on the VP IIRC. (Oddly, I just checked and it works. Maybe it was fixed?) --cesarb 17:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This brings up a related question. About a month ago there was a proposed policy for preemptively reserving doppleganger account names. I thought it sounded like a reasonable idea at the time, but couldn't find it again when I was able to act on it. Anyone else save a bookmark to that page? slambo *** 18:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Doppelganger account. -Splash

18:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Doppelganger account. --cesarb

18:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, interesting, MediaWiki is back to merging separate edits. --cesarb 18:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• There was also a suggestion to disallow non-ASCII characters in usernames in the first place. There are a few legit users with strange names, these could be grandfathered. New users should then have 'simple' names. Of course this doesn't prevent them from doing the lower-L/capital-I trick, but it greatly reduces possibilities of impersonation. Radiant_>|< *** 08:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is probably a problem affecting lots of Wikipedias. ASCII only would stop lots of legitimate names and the vandals would find something else. Secretlondon 21:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many legitimate names would it affect here on en:? I can't think of any non-ASCII usernames among the regulars here, and vanishingly few cases in total. Perhaps I'm just not seeing them.... Of course the vandals would find something else, but I'd feel a lot better if I could be sure on RC that RickK was RickK, and that Func was Func. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, none. Of course, if such a non-ASCII ban were implemented, it should only affect the English wiki (and other wikis that request it) but for instance on the Japanese one it's not very useful. Radiant_>|< *** 08:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure how this is happening. I think the 'c' in this other Func's name may be some kind of Unicode or something. Please block and permaband this vandal account. Er, and please make sure you ban the correct account. :) I'm just "Func", this guy is using these characters: Funс

Thanks. Func( t, c ) 15:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to save anyone else going looking, this has apparently been done :-) Dan100 (Talk) *** 22:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There has also been a similar instance when somebody was posing as RickK. Maybe the same user. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For a second time, this user has violated the temporary injunction as detailed in his current ArbCom case. He apparently has no intention of honoring this injunction, so please keep an eye out on him. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk *** 02:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Jarlaxle has violated his temporary injunction for a third time. He's apparently not going to honor the injunction. May I suggest a week-long block? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk *** 01:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any concerns if I deleted all of these images? They are all unsourced. I'll leave this for 12 hours or so and if noone objects, into the bit bucket they go! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Same for these. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

and these. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Malathion may want to use these as a way of trying out his new gatling mop... Tomer ^TALK *** 08:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Would appreciate if an administrators could look in at my user page and determine whether Viriditas is changing my user page with cause or whether it constitutes vandalism. I don't request any action other than someone have a quiet word with him about it. Seems a particularly unpleasant thing to do to change my user page without good reason or even discussing it first. Would welcome the resolution of the issue by an admin with some experience as I don't really want to make a big deal of it, just to stop it. Coqsportif 12:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop on his talk page. Tell me if this continues. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 *** 20:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. Coqsportif 21:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked both User:Romer and User:Aesculapius75 for 24 hours for vandalizing this page yet again, although the two are making differnt edits. I've suggested to Aesculapius75, who is the subject's son and the creator of the article, that the vanity links to himself should be on his User page, but he refuses to agree, and has indicated that he will return as sock puppets to make the same changes if he is blocked. Romer just says that the page is an attack, although all of the information seems valid to me, and keeps reverting to a bland, non-wikified version despite the efforts of several users to edit the page to a valid Wikipedia-format level. Zoe *** 19:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Recently there was a request at meta for blacklisting this site because of problematic links being added to some petition regarding Elvis Presley. I did add it to the blacklist but am now unsure whether that was appropriate. I did a search to try to ascertain the extent of the problem, and there are 126 links to this site. They have been added by a wide variety of contributors. Since Wikipedia is not advocacy, I do not believe these links are appropriate and am removing all but the best-justified cases.

Anyway, I'd appreciate comments.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, so I agree that links to petitiononline.com aren't appropriate. In my opinion you can go ahead and blacklist/remove them. - Mgm|^(talk) *** 22:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• What he said. The vast bulk of petitiononline.com petitions fail the "is it encyclopedic" test anyway. - jredmond 22:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Why did you remove [43] this section of the Ashlee Simpson article? About eight months ago, there was extensive discussion on the talk page, and the decision was to keep that paragraph, complete with cited sources. --Carnildo 23:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I have now put it back. I was unaware of the discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • Carnildo is misrepresenting the situation completely. In fact there is no consensus about it. I for one favored the removal of that paragraph. Everyking 06:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you saying that because you disagree with that paragraph, there is no consensual support for it? Radiant_>|< *** 09:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes. Everyking 09:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

          No consensus is possible on deciding whether or not to remove a paragraph, because it's a yes/no question. If the concepts we're looking for are "majority" or "lone dissenter", then let's use those. Consensus on how the information in that paragraph ought to be represented is another matter altogether. (Disclaimer: this is a definition flame. I have not seen the paragraph in question nor am I aware of the discussion on it.) JRM · Talk 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said @ Talk:Spam_blacklist on meta, I think this link was beneficial to the Sherry Shriner article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 3#Category:Delaware River crossings, consensus was to merge Category:Delaware River crossings into Category:Delaware River. Boothy443 took exception to this, and reverted the changes that K1Bond001 had made. I warned Boothy that this was per consensus, and if he did it again, he would run afoul of 3RR. He did, so I blocked him for one day. Now a series of IP's have been recreating the deleted category and recategorizing the articles. I've blocked the first one, but I can't do this all night. Anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this besides protecting the articles? --Kbdank71 21:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

At least this will spice up Boothy's RFC. Looks like the IPs are completely different; in fact, they're registered to different continents. So either this is hacking at work; meatpuppetry; or an honest third party involved. (from the history of [44], 200.x is registered to LACNIC (latin american/caribbean NIC), and 203.x is registered to APNIC (asian/pacific NIC). More specifically, the 200 address is Brazilian, the 203 address is Vietnamese.) --Golbez *** 22:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing they're open proxies. Anyone know how to tell for sure? This is interesting: [45] and our very own Administrator's Noticeboard comes right up in the hit list. Antandrus (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Witkacy is vandalising my Talk Page and just broke 3RR rule on Lithuania article. Bf-109 23:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

While Witkacy surely has his ways, I believe he is right in this issue. The problem is that Bf-109 (talk · contribs) shows a modus operandi bearing strong resemblance of that of Zivinbudas (talk · contribs), who was banned for one year and a right of revert on the spot was granted to all of the community. Also, the alleged vandalization of his talk page consisted entirely of pointing to the final decision of the ArbCom (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zivinbudas#Final_decision). Halibutt *** 23:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"His ways" indeed. You're play so well with others.  :-) Tomer ^TALK *** 23:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

About a month ago, a nn vp on

It's 80% the same as the pre-VfD version, the VfD version was deleted because of vanity (so any article on the same guy is not appropriate unless things have changes), and I can count 11 previous deletions (well, now it's 12 — deleted). And yes, it's the same IP. --cesarb 00:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Due to the IP's sheer persistence last time, I've preemptively protected the article, instead of using my usual "three recreations rule" rule of thumb. --cesarb 00:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot has discovered TOR. What a clever boy! The list is here - the whole lot would qualify to be blocked indefinitely as open proxies per blocking policy. I am about to go to bed, could someone else please go through the list and make sure they're all blocked? - David Gerard 00:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Didn't an attempt to autoblock open proxies (of the conventional kind) last time backfire because too many blocks caused a slowdown? It would be better to ask a developer before going wild on the blockip page. --cesarb 00:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Notice also that tor supports "policies"; it is possible that some nodes on that list blocked access to the Wikipedia servers, and thus should not be blocked. An up-to-date list of servers, together with policies, is at http://moria.seul.org:9031/. For instance, 130.89.25.10 is listed as not accepting any outbound connection, and it's on the proxy.org list, even though it cannot be used as an open proxy. So, there is no need to block it, but you wouldn't know by looking only at proxy.org. --cesarb 00:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm just asking on #wikimedia-tech if there's a technical consideration. And if you have a better TOR list, that'd be most useful. Looking at the edits from some of the IPs, the trolls are discovering TOR big-time - David Gerard 12:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The one at http://moria.seul.org:9031/ is the best list you can find; it has all the information you might want about every tor server (not all of them are exit nodes, but you can verify it by looking at the reject/accept lines). The records on it are separated by blank lines, and the lines beginning with "router" have the IP address for each record. The records with no "accept" lines and a "reject *:*" line do not need to be blocked. As for the rest, unless they have an exclusion on Wikipedia's IP block or on port 80 (looking through the list I've seen at least one which can only be used for IRC), go on and block. I'm just worried about possible technical effects of blocking the whole lot at once instead of gradually. --cesarb 16:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Recently there has been a claim on the mailing list that Enviroknot wasn't who he has been alleged to be. Perhaps this whole matter has been mishandled and should be reconsidered? Is there any technical evidence we can look at? Everyking 08:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot is ElKabong is KaintheScion is all the other banned names you'll see on the block list. He was coming in through usually-matching houston.res.rr.com addresses, now is coming in through TOR networks - David Gerard 12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There has been a claim, yes. I fear that it holds not even a little water, however. Perhaps, yes, it has been mishandled, but I find the possibility vanishingly remote. There is technical evidence, but it is not for public consumption (privacy policy and all that).

We have more important things to worry about than whether in blocking accounts thought to be used by one troll we instead did so on accounts of another troll, such as, gosh, writing an encyclopædia.

James F. (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? We can't even see technical evidence now? I just have to take you guys' word for it? Everyking 09:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you do - David Gerard 12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

blocking open relays is proper procedure, never mind Enviroknot's identity. What 'claim' incidentiallly, that E-knot wasn't 'who he has been alleged to be'? I don't care who he is, apart from being a wikipedia troll. What does it matter if a troll is a sockpuppet of another troll? It's all the difference between blocking one troll, twice, or two trolls, once each.

dab (ᛏ)

09:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's the question of whether this person is in fact a troll. I don't know. But I do know a lot seems to be pinned on these sockpuppetry allegations, so if they aren't correct that would seem to suggest it might be helpful to have a community review of the situation. Everyking 09:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

you are awfuly willing to accept as true the claims of a known troll.Geni 11:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Whether this person is in fact a troll"? What in God's name would you call a "troll" then, if this person isn't it? - David Gerard 12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Since I know practically nothing about this person's editing, I can't say. All I was doing was basing my point on what I read on the mailing list. It seemed like something pretty important to consider when the question of Enviroknot came up. Everyking 13:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK, sorry. The guy's being quite the PITA and I'm getting overly terse about him. He started as a POV-pusher then decided he was clever and would run multiple names. He was spotted immediately, partly because he kept using his home cable connection (RoadRunner cable, DHCP but doesn't change very fast at all) but mostly because his editing style is distinctive (he doesn't just act like a dick, he distinctively acts like one), to the point where the AC sanctioned him. So he spawned ever more usernames, all editing in the same trolling and POVpushing style from the same few IPs, also trolling on the wikien-l mailing list and on IRC. Recently he discovered

Tor and has been editing and IRCing through that (leading to frequent short blocks on *!*@*tor* on #wikipedia - Freenode policy is against long blocks on Tor). Whether it's one troll or two (it's one), the behaviour of either is obnoxious enough to block as needed in the opinion of me and many others - David Gerard

13:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, when somebody admits that they've been lying for months, it's not a good idea to readily assume that everything they're saying now is the gospel truth. --Michael Snow 17:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

But there is the privacy issue to consider. Unless information on everybody's IP address is to become public, we will have to trust a small committee to do the sock checking. Presently that committee consists of David Gerard and Tim Starling. In this particular case, I see no reason to doubt their word. And besides, Enviro's behavior was unacceptable whether or not he was socking. Radiant_>|< *** 11:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I note the houston.res.rr.com addresses 'cos he's come in through those as an IP as well. His editing style is pretty distinctive - David Gerard 12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Even without corroboration, I would be inclined to block all of those users. Their characteristic writing style is very similar, and extremely trollish. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the sockpuppets were very interested in editing each other's user/talk pages. They'd remove sockpuppet notices and rant against the injustice that these "unrelated" users were experiencing at the hands of the tyrant admins. The claim on the mailing list is almost certainly an attempt at

retcon. Basically, A Nony Mouse admitted being KaintheScion and ElKabong and then lied through his teeth with this "social engineering" tripe in attempt to make people think 6 innocent users were caught in a witch hunt. Carbonite | Talk

13:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What is really funny is that from the start, I was doing my level best to create the next Alberuni. While I succeeded beyond my wildest expectations, I was also shocked when I saw that the name wasn't ElKabong (as I intended) but really the falsely-accused user named Enviroknot, whose name was tagged illegitimately onto an RFAR by POV-pushing users and who the ArbCom freely attacked without ever paying attention to the facts.

Sorry, Gerard. You can whine and complain, you can kickban users, you can remove them from the en-l mailing list, you can do what you want. You have been given power at Wikipedia, far too much power apparently given how corrupt you've become from your use of it. You know the wool was pulled over your eyes. I'm sorry I didn't stop it sooner but that is my own lapse of judgement. Just like everyone else here, I put too much faith in you. I really didn't think you would take it this far.

-A. Nony Mouse

For the same reason I believe nothing EnviroKainKabong says, I trust nothing A. Nony Mouse says either. Maybe we're dealing with one, two, or even three trolls, with A. Nony Mouse now pretending to be the former. But who cares? SlimVirgin ^(talk) *** 21:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone quickly clear this up: should we block this list or no? I think we should but are there any technical consequences that may arise?Sasquatch讲看 *** 21:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe it's just me but I found Mouse's rant very funny. Especially the part where he complains that people unrelated to him are also sometimes blocked... apparently he thinks he's got a patent on trolling :) Radiant_>|< *** 07:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We also have to consider the Radiant/SlinVirgin definition of "troll": someone who gets in the way of an admin's POV pushing. - A. Nony Mouse
    • Obviously you are way more intelligent than the rest of us. Radiant_>|<
      *** 13:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, no need to further feed the troll; every response made here will just result in more postings from somone with too much time on his hands. (See immediately below this comment, for instance. Can I join the witch-hunting thug posse, by the way? It sounds cool.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Putting your sarcastic and dismissive bullshit aside, you should look at how you act. Cotton Mather himself couldn't have wanted any more obedient a group of witch-hunting thugs than David Gerard has in you. All I've done is prove what was going on: that rather than behaving in a manner fit for wikipedians, you exploit anything you can to consolidate your hold on power and attack anyone who stops you from POV pushing. -A. Nony Mouse
        • Please avoid personal attacks, if you continue to make them your comments will be removed. Thryduulf 15:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Could you please look at the block log before blocking? Your 24-hour "sockpuppet" block ended up overriding my indefinite "open proxy" block (shorter blocks override longer ones). --cesarb 15:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Could use a hand. -- Curps 16:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Found out how nasty that "Double revert in move log" bug is. Yikes. --Golbez *** 16:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I could be wrong but doesn't the software prevent newly registered users from making page moves? (unless, of course, that vandal registered the account before that change was made). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The block prevents the newest 1% of users from moving pages. However, at the rate new accounts are being registered, it's simply a matter of registering an account and letting it age for a week. --Carnildo 19:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

...which lends further support for a Special:Newusers page (IMHO). - jredmond 19:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to alert those who can block, or who track

That wasn't "vandalism" - it was mistaken, yes, but it was not destructive. Also, that IP has not edited anything in almost a week (per Special:Contributions/131.170.90.4). - jredmond 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This user has called User:Dbraceyrules a "nigger" twice now. Once here and once on Dbraceyrules's Talk page. Dbraceyrules has indicated that he/she is leaving Wikipedia, and Xizer is continuing to taunt him/her. Zoe *** 23:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Also see this edit summary. Zoe *** 23:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The edit summary was not directed at anyone. "Nigger" was used like black people use it to call each other. Like, "What up nigga?" "Yo nigga let's go get somethin' to eat." As for calling Dbraceyrules one, I was joking around. He needs to get a grip and learn that text on the Internet should be taken about as seriously as a whoopee cushion. Also, I did not continue to taunt him, I told him not to leave Wikipedia because his contributions were appreciated. I also requested he stop taking everything so seriously. Xizer 23:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It's all a matter of context. One black male in the 15-29 age range can call another of similar age whom he is friends with a "nigger" without being insulting. In any other situation, it's likely to be a deadly insult. --Carnildo 00:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

More to the point -- everything here is public. Crude ethnic slurs directed toward strangers is bad behaviour and is not tolerable in a community where civility is the goal (and the norm, despite how it sometimes seems.) If Xizer isn't a racist, Xizer should consider whether he wants to be considered one by the other strangers he will inevitably be collaborating with should he continue working on Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't stand for this sort of crap. Even if it was a one time thing we shouldn't let it go, but Xizer seems to have a history of juvenile behavior. I'm giving him a little wiki-vacation to allow him to reflect upon his incivility. Gamaliel 07:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

He's back as

khaosworks (talk• contribs

) *** 16:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Xizer, I am prepared to accept that you are a young person who made a mistake rather than being a full out racist...but that is besides the point. You aren't making any friends here by taunting us concerning the pathetic block. I've looked over you edit history, and I see some really great additions to gaming-related articles, and we very much appreciate that, but it is important to try to work well with us, your encyclopedia-writing colleagues. Please respect the block, then come back with a better attitude. Func( t, c, e,  ) 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not block the sockpuppet account indefinitely? The sockpuppetry is completely obvious, and it was used to circumvent an existing block. --MarkSweep 17:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Xizer is being disingenuous. This edit doesn't sound like somebody trying to make amends. Zoe *** 19:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I made that edit after I tried to apologize to him. Also - he continued insulting me afterwards. For this reason I stated that he was the kind of editor we do not need.

We treat users with respect. You cannot possibly be allowed as a member here if you cannot. -- A Link to the Past *** 17:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am involved. I don't think it was right that a vote was held without announcing it to the wider community. I didn't vote because I didn't know about it! Anyway, would another admin look into this. Two admins are involved I believe (I am one of them). The dispute is over the style of the infobox - I want to use the infobox class, the other wants some sort of inelegant style that has a line down one side (!) Ta bu shi da yu 23:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Truth (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Truth|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing other users' comments, claiming they are personal attacks. Will someone please take a look at this situation and block him? He has violated the three revert rule and is basically vandalizing talk pages. I don't think I should block him since I'm involved in his RFAR. He has done this before, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive38#DotSix_removing_comments. Rhobite *** 02:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

taken care of based on 3RR info over on the other page and his further actions on that page. Sasquatch讲看 *** 07:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I just ran across something that looks rather disturbing. There's an anonymous editor (probably just one, but I'm not sure) who has been adding {{AOL}} to User pages outside of the listed ranges at Special:Blockip. See for example this edit [46] at User talk:65.182.7.34. Delightfully, the editor responsible is working from an AOL IP, which makes him rather more difficult to block. Keep an eye on the user pages which bear the AOL template; some of them might not be all that they appear. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

These AOL tags are being thrown up all over the place, including but not limited to Articles [47], Vfd discussions, Categories, Images [48], non-anon User and Talk pages, and anon and user Talk pages for IP addresses that belong to ISPs other than AOL. Many ip addresses are used... is it one person doing all of this? --Mysidia 04:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they all seem to be from the 152.163.100.0/8 and 152.162.101.0/8 blocks. Those are all AOL proxies somewhere in New York state. It looks like just one person, who happens to be a dick. There's also someone in the same block (presumably the same vandal) who has been adding nowiki tags to articles to screw up their formatting: [49]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

So, just to make it perfectly clear: only IPs in the ranges listed at Special:Blockip get the AOL template? We know there are no others? Thanks, FreplySpang (talk) *** 11:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No, we don't know. I recently updated Special:Blockip when I found a new range. However, anyone who does a whois query can immediately see where the address belongs to. In the case of 65.182.7.34, it's Amnet (I don't know exactly which Amnet, as there seem to be several organizations of that name). It is most likely a dynamic IP, but it's not AOL, and there's no indication it's a rotating proxy for which care should be exercised. JRM · Talk 11:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: try visiting http://65.182.7.34 and all doubt should vanish. JRM · Talk 11:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There were a series of disturbing entries to Jimbo's talk page earlier today. I brought it up on IRC, and it was decided to block the offending IPs for one week. The IPs blocked were:

• 67.170.135.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.227.227.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.80.0.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.164.245.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 172.198.8.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Unblocked because it is an AOL IP. -- Essjay · Talk *** 09:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a note similar to this on Jimbo's talk page, and I am bringing it up here so there will be a record of what was done and why. Fellow admins: If any legit users are affected by this, please unblock them right away. (I believe the user may have been using an open proxy, but am not tech savvy enough to make that determination.) -- Essjay · Talk *** 08:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I saw semi-comprehensible rambling, which amused me a bit, and maybe some vague and strange threats, but it never occurred to me that anyone would consider it stalking. I don't see how you get stalking out of it; maybe I missed some part of it. Moreover, a block is just plain silly. The IPs weren't engaged in any vandalism. Blocks are useful for specific things, certain conditions; they aren't a cure-all. You don't just throw blocks at everything that vaguely resembles a problem. Everyking 08:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit unsure of what is the best course of action here. On one hand, I really doubt that these are newbies experimenting with anything, and their contributions seem to be spamming Jimbo's talkpage. On the other hand, blocking them for a whole week without giving them a warning at least is rather harsh, and similar to the blocking policy they use at the Norwegian Wikipedia (One strike and you're out). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

How does that work out for the Norwegians? --Golbez *** 09:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It actually works well in the sense that the Norwegian version is seldomly vandalized. Remember, on the Norwegian version there are probably only one or two administrators logged in at a time, and during the night there are probably none. They have other things to do than to keep watching out for vandalism. But the policy (actually it's just convention) does mean that newbies just experimenting may wind up being blocked and chased away, so it is definitely not a solution I recommend for the English version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just carrying out the decision as it was articulated on IRC. I raised the issue of whether the edits should be removed, and the eventual consensus developed was to block the IPs for one week. It was not a unilateral decision (as I noted in the first line) but rather a consensus decision as to how the situation should be handled. -- Essjay · Talk *** 08:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, that changes things. I am not an IRC person, but I probably would have advocated a bit more leniency. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

67.170.135.43 replaced an existing comment with spam and is unrelated. The other IPs produced the rambling verbiage that is the hallmark of Amorrow, some of it signed explicitly by him. See #User:Amorrow_and_Elizabeth_Morgan on this page. From the way the comments are phrased you'd be tempted to think Jimbo responded, but you'd be wrong; mr. Morrow seems perfectly capable of continuing a discussion on his lonesome. "Stalking" is a misnomer, though, and blocking is mostly useless. He's already been blocked. You can go and keep blocking proxies, but it's not going to do much, I'm afraid. JRM · Talk 09:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to me that anybody who goes through all those IPs just to make a few edits could probably keep going through IPs forever. Even though nobody was blocking him at the time, he was continually switching IPs in between rants. I doubt he'll ever try to go back to those IPs, and even if he had only one IP to use, I'm not sure the offense of rambling strangely on Jimbo's talk page is worth a block to begin with. Everyking 09:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that 172 one in the AOL IP range, where

Well spotted. Essjay undid it himself, but he still gets a finger waggle. :-) JRM · Talk 09:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this has been pointed out on IRC and the IP unblocked. I find it funny how one person could be using so many IPs, most/all of which resolve to what seem to be home computers - could somebody explain? Zombies running open proxies? ~~ N (t/c) 09:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

They all appear to be dynamic. One AOL, others Comcast and Pac Bell, which only have dialup and cable. Seems like they're moving between them easily, and the long-term block was pointless.

t

*** 09:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't take credit; it was pointed out to me on IRC. As soon as I heard it was AOL, I went running to unblock. (I checked all the others, I don't know how I missed that one.) -- Essjay · Talk *** 09:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, consensus on IRC. You're not the channel and see what happens: people start agreeing with week-long blocks for dynamic IPs! Exercise in futility, folks. :-) JRM · Talk 09:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That should be "not on the channel". The sentence gets a distinctly unpleasant undertone without it. JRM · Talk 13:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As much as I'm enjoying the opportunity to be publicly flogged | ; - ) | the bigger question here is: Since the consensus is now largely overruled, should the IP's now be unblocked? -- Essjay · Talk *** 09:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Proper thing to do is check if all the IPs are really dynamic, reblock any static IPs permanently for running open proxies, and either unblocking or limiting to 24 hours the blocks of the other IPs. Since checking for static IPs is really a bit of a black art, we can probably skip that part (we can always decide to go with longer blocks if the contribution histories show vandalism). Right now we're talking about blocking dynamic addresses with no prior contributions for a week because some eccentric found open proxies. I'd say unblock them all and reblock only if we actually see something persistent from each single address, rather than someone who happens to be using those addresses. JRM · Talk 09:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Concur. ~~ N (t/c) 09:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I'll do it now. -- Essjay · Talk *** 09:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Now, with the serious issues out of the way, please recommence the auto de fe. *assumes position at the stake* ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk *** 09:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, now... as you were. You did something you thought would benefit Wikipedia, after discussing it with others, and promptly responded to feedback on your action. I've seen older hands than either of us ignore all three simultaneously. You've got it all wrong—witches are burned at the stake, not saints. Those are crucified or stoned. :-) JRM · Talk 10:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh... except that sometimes people get promoted post-mortem, of course. Like Joan of Arc. JRM · Talk 10:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

A series of accounts, all using the same broken English, all making the same edits, has been ganging up on

I got a notice about this from another user; I checked the IP range, and it's all from "Internet Services Unit" in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The person who brought it to my attention never said "range block" but kinda hinted that might be a good solution; I'm not in the dispute (other than to advise the user who asked my advice) but it seems to me a range block by someone who knows what they are doing (I certianly as heck don't) could be a resonable solution. -- Essjay · Talk *** 08:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

BAD IDEA!! All of Saudi Arabia's internet access comes through one proxy range (for ease in filtering), and that's the range you'll be seeing. Basically, blocking that range blocks the country. If you do need to do a range block, you need to keep it REAL short, make sure your Wikipedia email link works, leave a block message that apologises for the inconvenience, unblock promptly on collateral damage, etc., etc.

That said, I suspect at least some of those IPs are open or near-open proxies (having seen a variety of interesting editors using them). I have no idea which ones and would need to know more about their technical setup of the proxy range, etc. before being able to say more - David Gerard 11:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

See, exactly the reason I say "I don't know what I'm doing," because not only do I not know the technical aspects of range blocking, but I don't know enough about IP reports (like you get at samspade.com) to understand what exactly is being reported. However, while I don't think I conveyed it well, what I meant was, a range block of the range that is being used (which I think is fairly small) rather than a block of that ISP's whole range. Then again, I don't know enough about range blocks (I wish there was a tech-illiterate explaination of how range blocks work) to know if it's possible to just block XXX.XXX.XXX.13 to XXX.XXX.XXX.25 or whatever, or even if using .13 to .25 is indicative of being in a small range that is limited to .13 to .25. I certainly don't want to block all of Saudi Arabia or any other country for that matter! Having revealed my obvious lack of tech savvy, and seeing that there are greater minds than I on the situation *bows to David*, I shall now sit back and keep my illiterate mouth shut unless there is something useful I can contribute. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk *** 12:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems that some blocking of sock-puppets has calmed things down a bit, for the moment at least. With regard to range blocks — I suppose that the procedure has been made so impenetrable in order to discourage admins from doing it. Would it be better to make it easier, but limit its use to a small number of admins (or, perhaps, bureacrats or other group)? --Mel Etitis (Μ&;epsilon;λ Ετητης) 13:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who has the technical knowlage to be doing range blocks is going to be able to figure out how to do them.Geni 14:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the user FWDixon has been fighting with an anon IP who refuses to discuss removing links to many Hardy Boys-related pages in a civil manner. I actually locked editing on five of these pages for a span of a couple of weeks, in the hopes that the anon IP would come by and leave a note about his behavior. He did not, and as soon as I unlocked the pages, the reversions started again. Now FWDixon has given me links to probably over 50 pages where the reverts are going on, and he is really desperate for help. I am going to be away at my university's resident assistant training so I won't have much time to edit, so can someone help him? Here is his message on my talk page. Mike H (Talking is hot) *** 15:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Last night after what looked like repeated vandal edits to Battle of Jutland and others, and after several warnings on the IP's talk page the IP was blocked by me (my first!) and another admin. Later on that talk page he apologized and said he hadn't seen the warnings. Today I recieved the following email:

apologies from IP <82.40.129.146> would you be able to remove any public references of my IP address from this site i.e user chat page i dont want google archiving it i got carried away with editing and test it out i didnt see your warning message untill it was to late.

For what it is worth, I willing to believe him/her. Any suggestions what we should do about this, and how I should respond? Thanks for any help. Paul August ☎ *** 18:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way I blocked the user for 24 hours at 01:22 this morning, and I can see the entry in the Block log, but not in List of blocked IP addresses and usernames, hows come? Paul August ☎ *** 18:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No, only a developer can delete individual page edits, and they only do that in very exceptional circumstances (which this is not). This isn't a big deal, either - just tell him in the future to do his test edits in the sandbox. →Raul654 *** 19:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Not quite true. Administrators can delete an article wholesale, then restore all revisions except the ones they want to see gone. This is a hack, finding the revisions is not trivial, and deleting a whole article certainly isn't, but it does work. It's true that any permanent deletion of revisions or articles, such that not even admins can see or restore them, can only be done by developers. JRM · Talk 21:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

But this anon seems only concerned about public reference in the sense of his/her own talk page, "i.e user chat page i dont want google archiving it". Not about having the IP appear in article histories. Paul can trivially delete that talk page; I thought he was asking if he should. If that was it, Paul, I think you should. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Bishonen., that's exactly right. I was asking if I should. And having gotten your advice, I think I will. Thanks. Paul August ☎ *** 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

user:67.182.157.6, who likes to call himself "DotSix", is under a block for reverting talk:truth 9 times in 24 hours. He has resumed reverting it under two AOL sockpuppets: 172.196.117.124 and 172.198.122.213. If it is not possible or reasonable to block the entire AOL range 172.19*.*.*, could the block on his main IP be extended? By the way, this same sequence of events happened 5 days ago. (The block, the sockpuppets, the extension.) This person does not learn and does not care about the rules. --Nate Ladd *** 19:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall something about this on the mailing list a while back. At one point they wanted to host all our deleted articles untill someone gave them a sample of the stuff we deleted.Geni 11:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's back re-adding the links. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that any information he adds to articles that is directly from Wikinerds is removed immediately then. I have just deleted Erhard Ratdolt as a copyvio as we keep removing the attribution. I might also suggest that if they have concerns with GFDL violations that they cease and desist from contributing information to Wikipedia that is from their project. I have no problem with putting the sources on the talk page: there is nothing in the GFDL that I can see that would stop us from doing this. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Wikinerds has filed RFC against Uninvited on this issue. Radiant_>|< *** 13:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Dan100 (Talk) *** 20:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

And promptly unbanned when I realised he was editing the TALK pages. I interpret the arbcom ruling as applying to ARTICLES. I cannot see why someone only editing talk pages should be blocked. Dan100 (Talk) *** 20:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon is banned from the editing of any Wikipedia page related to vexillology, fascism, or Canada pending a decision in this matter. What constitutes "Vexillogy," "fascism," or "Canada" shall be interpreted broadly. (my emphasis)

The reason the ban extends to talk pages (and you can receive confirmation from User:Fred Bauder that it does include talk pages) has to do, I suspect, with AFD's behaviour therein. Homey 20:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Dan, I'm quite happy to block AVD for this if you feel uncomfortable doing it. He's here to cause trouble only and I honestly wonder why we're putting up with it. Let me know if you disagree, because I don't want to reblock if you're not happy about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) *** 20:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you with your analysis of AVD, at all. I do feel that the editing talk pages isn't really enough of a reason to ban him. However, on balance, if an editor is not here to be useful they probably shouldn't be here, and he's had plenty of guidance (subsequently ignored), so I won't unblock him if you do it. Dan100 (Talk) *** 20:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm going to block him for 48 hours, but only on the understanding that I'm picking up where you left off, rather than second-guessing you. ;-D I interpret the injunction to include talk pages, and it also said (as I recall) that admins had some freedom to interpret what pages it included. I'm also going to protect his talk page for the same period so he can't use it as a platform during his block. He can e-mail me if he wants to object. Anyone who disagrees with the talk-page protection should feel free to unprotect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) *** 21:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia page includes Talk: pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll remember that :-). Dan100 (Talk) *** 22:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder has commented at

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#ArmchairVexillologistDon that he wouldn't tend to block for edits to Talk pages, though the injunction is a bit vaguely worded. I'd suggest that AVD can just be ignored on the Talk pages unless he starts making a substantial nuisance of himself—then he can be issued a temporary block for disruption. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 23:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. The wording of the injunction is " ... is banned from the editing of any Wikipedia page related to vexillology, fascism, or Canada ..." I've left a note for Fred to let him know that I'm interpreting the injunction to refer to talk pages too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) *** 00:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

He's now followed my User page to another article, the well-sourced, extremely-carefully-NPOV'ed article on

He's returned to the Andrew Bartlett article he first discovered on my User page. Shem^(talk) 00:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

He's now making mass deletions from the Andrew Bartlett article, while also inserting unbalanced, POV material. He has insisted on using the word "alcoholic" in the introduction since following me there from my User page. Shem^(talk) 01:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

He has used PISSHEAD PEACENIK PSYCHO PURPLE PARTY LEADER as a source in an article he seems to know nothing about beyond Google searches done to benefit his harassment. Shem^(talk) 02:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, no original research. I know nothing about him other than what I read. You know the fellow (my condolences) so you should take care to ensure your contributions are POV (btw- I think they are fine on that article) Coqsportif 02:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• The attacks by innuendo on the First Lady in the
  Michael Dutton Douglas
  are hardly careful, they are quite the opposite.
• The source they refer to makes no such inferences
• I have not about the matter on the Net, I checked the book reference yesterday and was shocked to see it had been falsely used. I made the change after that. I think more attention must be paid to offline references like this, it's quite dangerous potentially. Coqsportif 00:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)