Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive131

About three weeks ago Maru was blocked indefinitely by me for a fairly serious BOT useage violation. The incident was discussed here but is now archived. Maru has now requested the block be removed, which I've done, as he's given a promise [1] that he won't do it again. --

00:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Reblock if the bot reappears though, I assume. --W.marsh 01:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This has become a most serious and depressing affair.

Quite a while ago, Maru was blocked indefinitely for continually running an unregistered bot that constantly misbehaved. He unblocked himself, claiming that the bots were shut down, then resumed running his bots that same day.

Some time later he was blocked again, for the same reason, and during the discussion around this later block it was discovered that he had previously unblocked himself on a pretext. He was then warned in the strongest of terms that he must not unblock himself. IIRC, Essjay even threatened an emergency de-sysopping.

As I@n says above, Maru has now promised not to run any unauthorised bots, and requested an unblocking.

However, now things get really sleazy. Maru has just disclosed on his user page that he sometimes uses another account,

Rhwawn. [2]

Nothing wrong with that, and kudos to him for making it public, except...

He created this account three days after he was blocked, and has made over 700 edits with it. If blatant evasion of a block isn't bad enough, most of Maru's edits through the Rhwawn account are unauthorised bot edits!

This has gone on too long. I am going to apply indefinite blocks to both Maru and Rhwawn, ask Essjay to look into an emergency desysopping, and request a CheckUser.

Snottygobble 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorse permanently banning Rhwawn as an unauthorized bot account and sockpuppet. Endorse indefinite block (in the sense of to be determined) on Maru. Essjay has not been around for several days so you might want to contact another bureaucrat about the de-sysopping and an arbitrator about the checkuser.

Thatcher131 (talk)

01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If the main account is unblocked, I don't see a (policy) reason to block the sock, if the evasion was in the past. An alternative is arbitration now, but since as far as I know he's promised in good faith to stop the bot then I think we should give him a chance. --W.marsh 02:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI As far as I've been able to gather (from Marudabshinki), he *is* using the pywikipediabot framework, but he's using a manual or semi-auto tool. This is a lot faster than editing the wiki directly, but it's still under manual control. Kim Bruning 01:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about Maru's bot flag anymore. It is about Wikipedia having an admin that

1. Unblocks himself on a pretext
2. Creates socks to avoid blocks
3. Requests unblocking on a pretext

Snottygobble 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block and emergency desysopping. This guy has always struck me as a bit reckless, and he isn't playing by the rules anymore. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinion struck per below. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, like the original block was really dumb? I think the separate account is for when running the bot... (as long as he possibly declared it) , and requesting unblocking is always ok. Granting the request is something else.

I'm not saying that I'm nescesarily right, but it does still seem possible to assume good faith in this instance.

If Marus story is true, then perhaps we could think about desysopping someone else. There's some decent ways to determine the truth though.

We could have an admin or two unblock him, and watch him carefully for a little while. Is that ok? Worst case he messes up, and they can block him again. Kim Bruning 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify your "perhaps we could think about desysopping someone else" comment for me? Snottygobble 02:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Um that pretext stuff is pretty assuming bad faith there snotty. Did he evade the block? Yes. Was it stupid? Yes. Is it worth a desysopping? No. He didn't abuse any admin tools this time, just made a sock that did good edits. pschemp | talk 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In the first case, Maru was blocked indefinitely, explicitly told not to unblock himself, and told that he would be unblocked once he agreed not to run an unauthorised bot. He unblocked himself, with edit summary "bot shut down", then started up the bot again the same day. That is unblocking on a pretext; its pretty hard to argue with that. The quality of his subsequent edits have nothing to do with it. Snottygobble 02:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to reduce the blocking to maybe a week or less. Others agree? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking is a means to protect the wiki. Not a punishment. Unblock right away, but keep an eye on Marudabshinki for a while so everyone stays happy. If he's truely the root of all evil, we can always block him again for good. I have some doubt if that'll happen though. Either way, I'd just like to have a couple of extra pairs of competent eyes on the matter. Kim Bruning 02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you guys want an admin running around that unblocks himself, evades blocks by creating sockpuppets, and promises not to run unauthorised bots while running an unauthorised bot through a sock, you go ahead an unblock him. I won't wheel war with you, but I will think your decision is stunningly stupid. Snottygobble 02:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Maru has posted this on his user page; posting here as a courtesy. Snottygobble 02:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with this block. I don't particularly mind you blocking the Rhwawn account, since it was originally for the Board election, and I don't expect to need it again, but blocking my main account for semi-automated disambiguating and de-selflinking edits really cooks my chestnuts. Was I ban avading? Under a strict interpretation, I suppose so. A process wonk could surely argue that this is grounds for a few days or weeks banned, but an indef ban? Look at my edits. THey were good edits. We're supposed to judge by results, not mindlessly follow process; that's what IAR is all about, and we keep it around for a reason. Does de-sysoping, an indef blocking (with an apparent intention of making it truly indefinite and infinite) truly seem proportional to my actual offenses? I've contributed so much good work to Wikipedia, and so little bad work; doesn't that merit any consideration when I violate your interpretation of policy in my haste to actually get something done? I'd reply on AN/I, but there seems to be some technical problem. --

(talk) contribs

02:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're having him follow procedure now, and watching him. If he is really being stupid, that's all there is to it. If he's actually being smart and someone else is being stupid, we'll find that out quickly enough too. Kim Bruning 02:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Zscout has unblocked citing "reducing duration to time served". That's a strange basis, considering the block was for running an unauthorised bot, and Maru spent his "time served" running his unauthorised bot through a sock. Honestly, I find this decision absolutely mind-bogglingly incomprehensible. Snottygobble 02:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to be making any more suggestions of my own here but some history might be useful. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive124#User:Marudubshinki running unauthorized robots.

1. He ran a bot account,
   WP:BRFA
   , he started running the bot on his main account.
2. He was blocked again because the bot was making mistakes, with the understanding that he could unblock himself if he stopped running the bot. He unblocked himself, and started running the bot again.
3. The bot was deleting pages, using Maru's sysop bit. Quoting Essjay, This is greatly concerning, as the use of bots with admin privs is opposed very strongly on en.wiki (with the possible exception of Curps, though his is not without it's critics, and may or may not still be running) and by the Foundation (an adminbot on another wiki was desysopped by Anthere not too long ago).
4. He was blocked again with instructions not to unblock himself. He did anyway, and started running the bot again.
5. He was blocked a third time and told to stop running the bot. Rather than accept responsibility and seek bot approval at
   WP:BRFA
   , he started running the bot on a second account, thereby violating both bot policy and policy against using socks to edit while blocked.

I'll let the rest of you make the decisions. I wonder whether you really expect he will stop running the bot this time, or you just don't care; and I wonder how long he will run it in assisted mode before he turns it loose again; and I wonder if he will lend it his own sysop functions again. But it's not really in my hands.

03:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If he runs the bot again without requesting approval first, we will take him out for some ParkingLotTherapy. Basically we're giving him a bit of a last chance, but watching him carefully. We'll soon see if he behaves or not. :-) Kim Bruning 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just come back here after an hour off-line and see the sh*t has hit the fan. I'm in total agreement with Snottygobble - I'd thought that his last block was his last chance. Maru must have been awfully close to being de-sysopped after he was exposed for unblocking himself to continue using an unauthorised admin-bot. We now find he was using a sock in order to to evade the block. I'd assumed good faith in unblocking him but clearly that was misguided - Maru was cheating his block all along. He is a loose cannon and has shown ongoing behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. --

I@n

02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that he should be de-sysoped but not blocked because he makes lots of useful articles. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Based only on the information presented here (having not yet done the research myself) I'd support the dead-minning. - brenneman ^{L} 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the death penalty is the answer here. --Cyde Weys 05:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe take this to a RFC, and/or the ArbCom? If I was an admin, I wouldn't have bots running until I got them authorised.

08:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a de-adminship (not an indef block, too harsh) based on evidence presented here too. -

Mailer Diablo

08:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't an RFC or ArbCom be a better solution? --TheM62Manchester 09:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just that we'll need someone willing to do the filing process. -

Mailer Diablo

13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

---

A lot of people seem to be saying that an indef block is too harsh. But I haven't heard anyone actually propose an indef block, so I'm not sure who you're arguing against. I hope you people don't think my reinstatement of I@n's block was intended to be a final solution; as I stated on Maru's talk page, I reinstated the block "while we thrash out the implications of you running unauthorised bot edits through an alternative account created to avoid an indefinite block applied for running unauthorised bot edits".

For the record, I also do not think Maru should be blocked indefinitely. But I am firmly opposed to him retaining his sysop flag. Snottygobble 09:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Indef block isn't appropriate given his good contributions, but unless someone is disputing the facts as laid out above, he has clearly abused the admin tools, and thus should not retain them. Just remove the problem and allow the good contributions. Then block later if it becomes becessary. If consensus here isn't enough for a steward to go on to desysop, send it to arbcom. - Taxman ^Talk 11:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not rush to any unnecessarily hasty decisions. This isn't dangerous. This isn't an emergency. Bring the case to the ArbComm. De-adminship in non-cut-and-dry situations (i.e. repeatedly unblocking self or deleting the main page) is the role of the ArbComm. He is unblocked. Don't reblock him, please. If you think it's serious enough, bring the case to the Committee. No vigilante justice, thank you very much. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur. ArbCom is appropriate if someone wants to do it. If there are further problems, I'll do it myself. Extra chances are good for minor infractions, but at a certain point we have to assert firmly that admins are as bound by policy as everyone else. -- SCZenz 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should take you up on that. If you're willing to draw up the formalities for ArbCom, let it go there. The alternative is going to be widespread support for a steward taking action anyway. The current situation is clearly not satisfactory, per Snottygobble and others. Metamagician3000 07:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I said I'd do that if there are further problems. Have there been further problems? If not, I need to think and look a little more (and maybe talk to Maru a bit) before initiating a case personally; once started, they're hard to unstart. But if there is a case started by someone else, I'll certainly fill in what I know and let the arbitrators decide. -- SCZenz 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My bad. You did indeed say that. Metamagician3000 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To expand on my earlier comments: I do not think that any amount of quick-poll on this page is sufficient to justify the removal of privledges. Barring the making of a

recall proposal

into policy, the only (normal) route to do so is through ArbCom. My statement of "support" before was based upon the presumption that a suficient such supports would give someone the stones to request opening an arbitration case. If no one else goes and does it, I'll will:

1. Go and confirm myself the substance of the statements above,
2. Create a scratch version of a request for arbitration in my userspace, and
3. Post a link here to allow it to be "tuned up" or "cast out" by consensus.

Does this sound reasonable?

brenneman ^{L} 01:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say you should start the case if you think it's warranted. I think the case would be well-justified based on past actions; at the same time, confronting a valuable contributor who may now be turning over a new leaf is probably not good for the encyclopedia. So now you have why I'm not filing the ArbCom case. But, as I said, I don't think we should have an extra community discussion and a hanging committee to present the case to the ArbCom. If you think a case is warranted, just give them the facts and let them take it from there. -- SCZenz 03:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a case should be made, in the spirit of SCZenz's "just give them the facts and let them take it from there", but lack the "stones" (whatever that means) to make the case myself. Aaron, if you are willing to take this on, I will be happy to take on share the load of presenting diffs. Snottygobble 06:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What SCZenz and Aaron want you to do is that if you feel there should be a case against this user, then you should have the balls (that is what "stones" is) to start the processes yourself. If you are not willing to do the case, then there is nothing much we can really do, since we are not going to do the legwork for you. Of course, we will leave comments and stuff when you file the arbcom case, but, to put in simple terms, it's your turn now. The ball is in your court. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will. It doesn't take balls; why would it take balls? It just takes time and effort. Snottygobble 11:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RfAr

I have drafted a RfAr statement at User:Snottygobble/Drafts/RfAr, and have advised Maru of my intention to take it to ArbCom.

Currently the only users listed as "involved parties" are myself and Marudubshinki. I think it is appropriate that I@n and SCZenz add themselves as involved parties and make a statement, but I won't insist. If anyone else considers themselves an involved party, now is the time to begin preparing a statement. Feel free to do so at User:Snottygobble/Drafts/RfAr if you want; just be sure to restrict your edits to your own section.

I have also begun gathering evidence at User:Snottygobble/Drafts/Evidence. You should feel free to add evidence there if you wish. But let's maintain a Brennemanesque insistence on neutral, verifiable facts, okay? This is not a vendetta; it is an invitation for the ArbCom to make a decision, so that we are not left to live with the consequences of a non-decision.

Snottygobble 01:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This request is now pending at

WP:RFAR#Marudubshinki. Snottygobble

11:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like User:Halibutt to be warned for personally attacking me(WP:NPA), multiple times, not only on my user talkpage, but also in numerous discussion threads.

one example comes from my talk page:Then perhaps you could tell me why do you believe black people should be exterminated? //Halibutt 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never made any statements about black people and this was totally nonsensical and out of the blue, check my contribution history to see proof of that. This all started when he started a revert war over the proper name for

--Jadger 23:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This was merely an example of the tactics Jadger's been using against my good name for the last week or so (claiming I said something I did not and then accusing me of it on several pages). And from Jadger's comment on my talk page it seems pretty obvious that he understood it as such, that is an example of the said tactics and not as a personal attack. It seems that this report here has been motivated solely by his recent actions being noticed and by the recent warning he received from one of the uninvolved admins, as well as from one of involved admins.

However, if Jadger indeed mistook my comment for an offence, which I seriously doubt, then I'm sorry, as it was not meant to be one. //Halibutt 23:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jadger? What happened? It looks exactly like you removed Halibutt's comment, without even leaving a comment about doing so—without even an edit summary. I assume that was some glitch or mistake? Bishonen | talk 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

If you were truly sorry, then why have you never said so on my talk page? or anywhere else for that matter except for where you can be punished (here). it was not "an example of the said tactics and not as a personal attack" or else he would of stated so, and my statements on his userpage show that. As for accusing him of saying something he did not, on his userpage I cited from the talk page where he did indeed state what I was indicating.

I did not "understand it as such" as you can see by my statement on his talk page, (which BTW is what I have been told I have been warned for) as I am forced to tell him in the statement that his attacks on me are logical fallacies.

--Jadger 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I want him warned simply for justice (or else I would ask for him to be blocked), not for a vendetta. when two people make personal attacks, they should both receive the same punishment for the same crime, or else it gives the illusion to Halibutt that he can continue to do so, which he has indeed continued to do on my talk page, now he has progressed to thinking he can order me around.

--Jadger 23:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, this makes no sense and is a loss of time. I asked you to remove your offensive comments. You did not and instead claimed that it's perfectly ok to accuse me of things I never said. Above you even claim that you provided a link in which I explicitly state that I have been in a mood that I can revert anyone, which is obviously a lie, since you did not provide any citation for that (no wonder since I neither said nor shown that anywhere - anytime). Anyway, after repeatedly asking you to stand by

WP:NPA

and getting nothing but further offences and accusations, I simply asked here for some intervention. You've been warned and I thought that solves the issue.

However, now it seems that this childish tit for tat is going on even further. You ask me why have I never apologized on your talk page? And why did you never state on mine that you misunderstood my comment? Anyway, if anyone believes I crossed the lines - feel free to punish me. I don't try to evade any punishment, but would like some basic respect from Jadger. That's what's lacking in his slanderous accusations and that's what sparked this entire discussion. Whether it was my fault to be offended by Jadger - I'm not sure. Whether he misunderstood my comment - I don't know. I did apologize the first second I realized he might be offended. I still await apologies for the offences Jadger has cast. //Halibutt 18:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked me to remove my "offensive remarks" but I did not because I could prove that you did indeed say such things (and my remarks were thus not offensive), and I indeed did cite it on your talk page. perhaps you should stop skipping over the occasional line in paragraphs and read the whole article, rather then just what u want to see.

I never stated that I misunderstood your comment on my talk page because you have changed your meaning now (in order to cover your tracks), as you have done before elsewhere, and have been charged as such by others. If you were actually the bigger man as you pretend to be, then you would have done some actions (such as apologising) in order to end the dispute, instead of dragging it out here.

I am not apologizing for the "offences" i have committed because I firmly believe in what I said, and I have been punished for it by a warning which I feel is unjustified. You however have had the chance to end this by publicly apologizing to me on my talk page, which would end the "discussion" and add closure, but you have decided not to do that, instead you have decided to continue making up excuses on here in order so that you can pretend to be the victor . You will only get some "basic respect" from me when you have earned it, I have been brought up knowing that you have to earn respect, and so far you have not.

All Halibutt needs to do is apologize to me and admit that his statements were wrong, and this would be over, but he will not do that.

--Jadger 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You repeat that over and over again, yet you did not prove anything at my talk page. You did not prove that I've been in the mood that I could go revert warring, you did not prove that I believe I could revert anyone for no apparent reason, nor did you prove that I think I can state anything I like and then prevent people from removing it. These were your baseless accusations I asked you politely to remove. You denied to remove them and instead stated that it's all ok to suggest such things. It is not and you've been warned by an admin that it was not ok. I wanted that piece of filth removed as per

WP:NPA

, but you insisted on keeping it in, so instead I asked for some apology. And what did you do? You continued the same disruptive behaviour. Sorry, Jadger, this is just as much time I had to waste. Do not expect any more comments from me unless you apologize. I have a right to defend my good name and believe me I will.

You state above that you firmly believe in what you said. So you firmly believe that you know what I think, right? And that's a reason enough to state what you believe is true and then accuse me of it? I could firmly believe that deep in your heart you're a devoted Nazi, and then start casting such accusations here and there. Would that mean that it's perfectly ok to accuse you of Nazism just because I believe I know what you think? That's absurd and I'm not going to waste more of my time on it. Over and out. //Halibutt 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

stop twisting my words Halibutt.

--Jadger 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:S-man, User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, and User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz seem to be behaving in a very peculiar way. At one moment, they appear to be very naive: at another, they seem to know an awful lot about the technical details of Wikipedia editing. Their writing style seems very similar. All of this at the same time that various vandals with different MOs seem to have descended on the en: Wikipedia... -- The Anome 22:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno...their styles don't seem to be similar enough to convince me of sockpuppetry. However, feel free to open an

RCU on them if you're really convinced. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!}

22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would second an RFCU, also I'm not too happy about this at all. Yanksox 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. That there is definitely some bad news. And Cute 1 4 u is a confirmed sockpuppeteer herself (see User:Raven Symone). However, I'm still not sure about the three up there being the same, but an RCU would definitely convince me otherwise. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:S-man states he is 9 years old, and User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz that he is the second-youngest editor on wiki. This might explain some of the concerns... Tyrenius 23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. Not to be ageist, but it seems unlikely that a nine-year-old (S-Man) would create two sockpuppets, have them interact with each other, and have different styles of writing (S-Man seems very proficient grammatically and in terms of spelling, whereas Qmwnebrvtcyxuz is not - see his userpage). Also, S-Man seems like a legitimate contributor, having been around since December 2005. And as for Yanksox below, can you provide some diffs? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not refering to Wikipedia, just look at the userpage of S-man and look at some of the links he gives out. Yanksox 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound evil, but when I visit some of the links, I find it very hard to believe their ages. Yanksox 23:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

His MySpace says he's 16...although he could be lying to bypass MySpace's "14 or over" rule. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that, it's other links that he supplys and the fact that he has a father and an aunt on the website according to his userpage. It's too complicated to describe, but something just doesn't seem right about this whole situation. Yanksox 23:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (editconflict)To be honest, I think it's either one of two things. One, assuming good faith, it's about 5 users that don't understand the concept of Wikipedia and focus too much on the social aspect or two, thinking about it for a while (paranoia), it's a few users trying to test the patience of the site to get a reaction. It could be either thing, but it is very concerning. Yanksox 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now indefblocked User:S-man as a self-declared vandal. His "secret vandalism project" seems just too knowing of other Wikimedia projects for a kid just playing around. I suspect that these are adults, trying to see how patient we will be with self-described kids. User talk:S-man now seems to have giant images on it: I find the fake page title of "Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..." oddly reminiscent of someone else as well... -- The Anome 23:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you did that, as I was getting concerned about this account. He says he is nine, but the writing is sometimes a lot more mature than that, and on other websites, he gives different ages. He has concentrated his time here making contact with what appears to be a bunch of very young users, mostly girls or purporting to be. He said his father and aunt edited here too, and linked to two user names, one of which had made one edit, the other of which had made none, and in both cases, S-man had created their user pages. There was something decidedly ... odd, and I wasn't looking forward to trying to work out what it was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at this edit, for example. There is something seriously wrong here. I think we should stop assuming good faith at this point. -- The Anome 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth are you associating me with these characters? I’m mystified and disappointed by your misguided insinuations. Take a look at my edit history. I know my contributions aren’t terribly impressive (unless you count my rewrites of Battle Dome, Detachable Penis and Wynona's Big Brown Beaver), but you’re going to have to look hard to find any vandalism. Anyway, I just happen to find humor in some of the edits of S-man (and I'm sorry to hear you've blocked the little guy; there are people out there causing a lot more trouble than S-man, who's still learning and trying to make useful edits). If you’re looking for sockpuppets, I might direct you elsewhere.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What, like this edit? -- The Anome 23:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? That's my user page. A couple sockpuppets of Solipsist3 threatened to kill me for nominating his article for deletion. I chose to make light of it; that's my sense of humor--it may not be yours. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's put a darkly tinted joke on his user page. Lighten up.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I never believed that you were S-Man's sockpuppet - I think you're innocent. However, there's definitely something bad going down with S-Man - my

AGF has been stretched to its limits. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!}

23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It gets more ludicrous by the minute. Here, User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz claims to be eight years old, and furthermore claims here that another user is three months younger. I would suggest that we either:

• take them at their word, and block them from editing on child protection grounds, or
• block them for impersonating very young children, and starting conversations with other apparently very young users

-- The Anome 23:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Jkelly 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have to rescind my comments above about them not being the same person. As of now, I'm thinking that S-Man and Qmwnebrvtcyxuz are possibly the same child impersonator - as I said above, an RCU would clear that up nicely. I think Fat Man's probably okay; he's never stated his age to my knowledge. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think the Fat Man is probably real, and just got caught up in the paranoia backwash.

However, in this edit User:Cute 1 4 u claims to be 11 years old. Very similar writing style to the other two apparent child impersonators. Again, real or fake pre-teens are just too young to be editing here. -- The Anome 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is another purported 8-year-old editor. Note the similarities to the others. Claims to have two other siblings who are editing here. -- The Anome 00:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't give a link...did you mean Bethicalyna2? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right, thanks for the correction. I've now deleted the pages in question. -- The Anome 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been following most (though not all) of these users for some time. I have serious doubts that most of them are the ages they claim to be though I have been unable to come to a conclusion. I figured at least some of them may have been the ages they claimed to be. Anyway, I was uncomfortable enough to have most of them on my watchlist but apart from the occasional copyvio image upload and excessive socialising (

00:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

However, their actions included either posting personally-identifying information about themselves, or being online child impersonators. Either of which justifies an immediate indefblock. Blocks are not punishments, they are intended to stop bad things from happening, and either of those is a bad thing. -- The Anome 01:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that most of these editors came from 71.231.130.56. This shows up at least one other editor in that family. I am not advocating that we block anyone who has edited from that IP address, however. --Yamla 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe User:Bethicalyna (mostly edits as 71.231.130.56) claims to be User:Lindsay1980's sister. El_C 01:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. By the way, I've deleted Lindsay1980's user page, at her request, see her edit dated 01:30, 21 August 2006 in the deletion history. -- The Anome 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser I filed came back inconclusive. I've asked for an explanation, but I haven't received one yet. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser is not magic wiki pixie dust. It provides a very narrow type of technical evidence. Inconclusive means Mackensen can't say they probably are, but can't say they probably aren't, either. It's hard to be more specific without giving away info that could help other sockpuppets avoid detection.

Thatcher131 (talk)

02:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about Cute 1 4 u's block; it seems predicated on very flimsy evidence (based on the block log comment); if there's more to it than that, I can't see it (most of the diffs linked above are broken). Powers ^T 13:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I find this totally unbelieveable. The blocks that User:The Anome has performed recently have been completely unjustified.

1. Blocks User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back for this, with block summary "faking talk pages: possibly a multi-sockpuppet" – does not realise that it is within his userspace, and can do as he likes. Does not investigate that User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back is only preserving an edit which an anonymous user previously added. Unblocks later with summary "unblocking for now", with no apology for any confusion.
2. Blocks User:S-man for vandalising other Wikipedias. This does not warrant a block on en.Wikipedia in any way at all!
3. Blocks User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz, User:Cute 1 4 u, User:Bethicalyna2, User:Lindsay1980 and User:Pizzachelle for being young, with block summaries such as "we don't let very young children edit here". That, is absolute rubbish. We do not hold age, race, sex, sexuality or any other factor against editors here.

-- 88.110.29.105 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with 88.110.29.105. We have absolutely no policy concerning age of contributors. ~ «

t|e

) 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked. If there are reasons to block that relate to their edits (and the

blocking policy) then feel free to reblock (putting this reasoning in the block summary). Otherwise, he can stay unblocked, and continue to edit peacefully. We do not hold any personal factors against editors. Full stop. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame

15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Subhash bose has been blocked for 1 week

This is a long standing issue.

14:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And he keeps on calling me anti-Semitic. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the part of

talk • contribs) returns he/she'll be inclined to work with more civility towards making this great encyclopedia even better. (→Netscott

) 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose for compelling evidence that he's sockpuppeteering. A checkuser is pending as well. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I have not tracked down similarities in their edits, given the interaction between this user and

Subhash bose's talk page. (→Netscott

) 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How am I a sock? Netaji was active on 21 and 22 when I was playing golf in Warm Springs. The diff merely tells him that I was planning to go on wikibreak. Also, I feel these accusations should be treated as personal attacks, because they hurt users. The Muslim users are trying to get Hindu users out of the way.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Per the ruling here and at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose, I have extended the block to 15 days. Iolakana•T 17:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He has contested that these are not his sockpuppets on

19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RFCU is currently in progress. Iolakana•T 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for all of the help. It's always appreciated! :) If he is sockpuppeting, I'll increase the block. The user doesn't seem to respect our rules one iota, so I suspect this to continue for awhile. Again thanks for the backup everyone. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wondering if anyone agrees with me on this. I think it's time to lock the user's page. It's being used to attack others and for others to attack the user. He had put up a couple of requests to go onto the suspected sockpuppet page. But it looks like he's finished now. At this point, I think it's time to lock the page and give him time to cool off before he and others make this situation even worse than it already is. Thoughts? --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am impressed with the promptness with which violations are dealt with at Wikipedia. Hope Wikipedia continues with its great job. Thanks. --Geek1975 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the other users were his sockpuppets, he has continued to use (other suspect) sockpuppets to get around his block: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose (2nd). BhaiSaab ^talk 21:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As previously reported here, Tywright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back to removing information on the Charlie Crist page after being warned multiple times, I think a block may be necessary. --CFIF ☎ 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

He's now back to vandalizing the Tom Gallagher page. He needs to be stopped before his pov pushing goes too far. --CFIF ☎ 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone actually care here? --CFIF ☎ 12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some opinions are needed to end a 3 month old revert war at this article. Mainly it appears that one person and some anon. want to change the POV of this article. As recently as yesterday the POV was shifted.[3] The user who keeps making the reverts has a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi ongoing since 20 May 2006 on these articles. Yet, that has not stopped or slowed using these articles as a battle ground.

So if anyone has some extra time to clean up and throw their two cents in visit Talk:Preying from the Pulpit or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi to end this. C56C 21:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi is like Gastrich without the sockpuppets. Just zis Guy you know? 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is it legitimate for a bot to be run from an anonymous IP? See Special:Contributions/71.134.246.54, apparently a bot modifying interwiki links. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Probably got logged out by accident, looks a lot like Cydebot, you might want to ask around--152.163.100.65 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We've had this discussion before, it's adding interwiki links, it was blocked before cautioning it to stop, I've blocked it again, hopefully, it will log in next time. Yanksox 22:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't look at me, it's not my bot--152.163.100.65 22:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not looking at you, I'm just commenting. Yanksox 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like User:Escarbot. Someone might want to tell him. pschemp | talk 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked further and this probalby isn't Escarbot, but probably is someone else's bot. Anyway, its running the buggy version of Pywikipedia that removes incorrect links so it is blocked indef until an owner comes forward. pschemp | talk 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

0:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would say that Chuckcidi has nothing to complain about. Chuckcidi created the article
  Play Pals as if it were a real company, with no sources or context. After Pilotguy speedy-deleted it, Chuckcidi recreated the article with no improvement. I have redirected it to Child's Play with a note on the talk page. NawlinWiki
  00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Chuckcidi also placed a test message on pilotguy's homepage, for what it's worth. Though pilotguy might provide a better reason for the (indefinite) block on chuckcidi than "out"... --EngineerScotty 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Per
  WP:BITE an indefinite block seems way overreacting in this simple case, and the same thing applies to denying the user to be unblocked. User was editing in good faith and deserves to be unblocked. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)
  19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Suspected rôle account

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

This appears to be a

00:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See User:Vilerage/Iamas for more. Uncle G 01:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a role account to me. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it doesn't matter if it is a role account as it violates

13:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandal bot from several AOL Ranges

For the past few hours tonight there has been massive vandalism by a user coming from 152.163.100.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 64.12.116.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), and 205.188.116.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) and several registered users all blanking pages and replacing them with {{deletedpage}}. There have been several temporary range blocks put in place, after which this vandal goes onto another range or creates a new address. This started with Deletedpage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is now at Make blocks work, plzkthx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and It seems someone's block didn't work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There needs to be other measures made for this unique entity. Ryūlóng 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• This confirms my suspicion that most vandalism comes from very young children, why else would this come so close to the start of fall semesters?--172.133.78.163 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Besides, there are already measures in place to deal with AOL, namely, sit back and allow it to be consumed by autoblocks. I'm not sure how well it works at stopping vandalism, but it does stop constructive edits quite effectively--172.133.78.163 01:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well AOL could fix it (m:XFF). Short of that if the vandal is still going I will block all the ranges, anon only, account creation enabled, for three hours. I think the vandalism has stopped though, at least based on AIV. Prodego ^talk 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on the ranges block logs he/she is still going, so I am going to block as outlined above, unless someone objects in the next 5 minutes. Prodego ^talk 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it stopped, so no block. Prodego ^talk 01:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours, anon only, account creation on. Prodego ^talk 02:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

is an account created to expose the identity of

01:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely and removed the personal information from the edit history.

Cowman109^Talk

01:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on trial here (

02:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, keeps creating vandal templates and vandalizing old guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s page (who is also probably a sock of I'm not on trial here). All the templates have been deleted, but the user continues despite multiple warnings. GeorgeMoney (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Indef. blocked. Vsmith 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If someone could wipe out and protect the monstrosity that is User:Old guy's userpage, it wouldn't get used in this vandalism. Fan-1967 02:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See my page here where a user named User:-Jkb- instead of my name -jkb- posted a pornographic image. This is not the first time as there are still some former users who has been banned on the cs.wiki, trying vandalism in idfferent wiipedias (see also history on my page). Please block this user. Thx, -jkb- 15:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

blocked them as an impostor. Syrthiss 15:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User Veronicadittman has made what appears to be a legal threat against me on Talk:Joe Ochoa (diff), and I'm very unclear on how to respond. Kickaha Ota 15:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

She seems to have characterised the contents of the article as libelous, but not threatened you or anyone particularly with legal action. If you read her later comments, she seems to be most interested in calling the contents libelous so that she could revert them without being affected by 3RR or other rules. In this, she is encouraged by the template at the top of the page which uses the words "Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately." So I don't think this is a legal threat as such. Also note she calls herself a new user, so Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. She seems intelligent, and like she can probably be reasoned with. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, for someone claiming to represent one organization to state that repeating someone else's claim to be a member of that organization is defamatory is pretty questionable. That's what's happening here; the article on X says X is involved with organization Y; agent-of-Y is claiming this defames Y. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

and I really don't see any defamation occuring here. He made the claim, if they don't want it in the article, they should get their history page in order so it can be refuted.--

Crossmr

17:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I assume the contributions from 172.144.137.242 (talk · contribs) are deletable spam.

That being the case, what tool do we use to roll back all of his added links?

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just click all the rollback links on the contributions page. (sysop only) Prodego ^talk 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I knew that. I'm wondering if there's a mass rollback tool to do it more efficiently. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is. No, I don't know anything about it, nor do I have it. Try asking Voice of All, he may know more. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're using FireFox, you can go down his contribs page middle clicking "rollback". It'll open a million tabs, but it's easier than left clicking rollback and having to find your way back to his contribs each time. Failing that,

Steel

17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone who is (this morning) less lazy than I has done the reversions. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Or some of them, anyway. Special:Linksearch found some more, and a user, Joann1108 (talk · contribs), apparently created after they were reverted. Just zis Guy you know? 18:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see

(crystal ball, external links). Block as appropriate. --TheM62Manchester 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the IP's talk page is empty...have you considered talking or warning him/her first? --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I just warned them now about it. --TheM62Manchester 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair (

20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

How about giving 190.10.0.36 an indefinite ban. As User:TomTheHand noted in the latest SSP, the most recent sockpuppet wasn't created until immediately after the 2 week block on 190.10.0.36 expired.--Bobblehead 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

70.18.192.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Allyoops (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (impersonator of User:Ali-oops) are both sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked user [email protected] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same POV edits to same pages about Ireland and Croatia, converting external links to the same nonstandard style [4], same ethnic abuse [5]). Can an admin block please? Thanks! Demiurge 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Indefinitely, if you don't mind, on User:Allyoops - I could do without trolls like Robert Sieger impersonating me - Alison^✍ 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. I changed the date format from International Dating (12 March 2004) to American Dating (March 12, 2004) in an article concerning an unambiguously American subject, and an editor has changed it back!

It's not as if this user is ignorant of the discussion on this subject, so I'm wondering what's going on here? I'd like to think it was an honest mistake, but that's too much for me to swallow. --Jumbo 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The convention is to use Yankee spelling/punctuation/grammar on Yankee articles and proper spelling/punctuation/grammar on British articles and likewise on articles that would tend to derive from those linguistic origins. In this case, it's an article about an American, so the American date system is used. Note that because the dates are wikilinked, provided you have your Special:Preferences set properly (see date/time) it will be rendered to you in the way you prefer. -Splash - tk 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Weeeellll, the American for Americans and British for Brits thing is more like a gentleman's agreement than an actual policy. Folks violate it pretty often, but the key thing is that, if there is a dispute, it's a guideline. People who war over orthography are pitiable to me. Warring over date formats would require an even greater bur in one's saddle. Geogre 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, up to a point. What concerns me is an understandable focus by editors on editors as end users. In fact, most users of Wikipedia are readers who do not have accounts and thus do not have date preferences set. For far too many articles they see dates in the "wrong" format (and it goes beyond U.S. vs U.K.; most tof the world's nations use Inteernational Dating rather than American Dating), or worse, a confusing jumble of formats, including un-linked dates. We should be editing, not for our peers, but for the main users of the Wikipedia - the general internet public. --Jumbo 06:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely everyone using the world wide web has already experienced this "confusion" and knows how to do the mental athletics necessary for converting? I don't see how this should be a big deal. Most of our users are readers, I agree, but Americans are still probably dominant among them, and, if they're not, they're close to a majority. If Americans are more insular, innocent, and possibly uneducated, then we would need to be more protective of them than other nationals, if we make the argument that discomfiture of the reader is a reason to change the editing rule. 12:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's recent comments at Wikimania about improving quality are particularly relevant here. Are we going to be happy with a slap-dash, more or less, bit of this bit of that, encyclopaedia? Or are we going to have something we can really be proud of? I hate to be anal about fine details in the Manual of Style, but if we are going to present a polished product, it's only through the MoS that we are going to achieve it so that we are all singing from the same sheet. --Jumbo 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

With that last independent clause I disagree entirely. It is not a volunteer assembled encyclopedia if there is an editorial board enforcing style sheets. In many prestigious publications, essays submitted by scholars will have local variation (festschrifts, e.g.). Unless a person is actually wrong, I don't believe they should experience correction, and I also don't think that we will be "slapdash" by having variation in trivial matters like orthography (especially since the "American" orthographic reforms were all British reforms until Noah Webster made them and then suddenly were anathema) and date formats. Geogre 19:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We had this discussion earlier and the overwhelming view was that Jumbo was doing the right thing with these stylistic changes. I think changing them back simply for the sake of changing them back is something we should disapprove. Let Jumbo get on with this. Whether it is high priority is open to debate, but it is not work that anyone should be trying to frustrate. Metamagician3000 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. The worst is when there are several formats in the same article, but overall it is something we should have consistent across the project. --

Guinnog

00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left a warning on the talk page of the relevant editor. Metamagician3000 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you'd leave me a "warning" for objecting to Jumbo's changes. It's not at all clear that there's a consensus for his programmatic changes; in fact I'd say the discussion here tends toward the opinion of tolerance of different dating systems and against his unilateral Wikiwide program. There is no provision for such enforcing of uniformity in the manual of style. To be warned about this on an article on which I am the only substantive contributor, and which seems to have been chosen by Jumbo for precisely that reason, is particularly galling. - Nunh-huh 00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is unambiguous. Galling or not, as it is an American topic, under the MoS it is supposed to use American English and American Dating. It is crystal clear. Meta's warning was completely correct. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The question of consensus most emphatically is ambiguous because of the issue of quorum, which is always unsolved on Wikipedia. What tends to happen is that some of the wire-pulling topics (particularly MoS, but also images, copyright tags, etc.) grow contentious and then distasteful to the wide community. The result is that those who care, perhaps too passionately, about enforcing their will on these matters populate the discussions. If they manage to agree with each other, it's a blue moon, but it's also not representative. To some degree, the low participation rate in MoS debates is a testimony of the "no preference/no uniformity" position. The only people who will participate are interested first and foremost in a uniform presentation, so the broader question, "Should we all have to follow exactly one format?" is begged. Geogre 01:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus for Jumbo/Jtdirls actions, no matter how many times they say there is. The MoS talks about changing dates only for substantive reasons, and the idea that an article is American and therefore has to have a certain date format is not supported by the MoS, which speaks only about various considerations that might be made by those who write the articles, and does not envision or encourage programmatic changes simply to dates. It is precisely to prevent such arbitrary changes that the date formatting syntax and preferences were devised. It's also clear that Jtdirl's change to the article (to which I am the only substantive contributor) is not an improvement. As he has edited it, it is now rendered for me as "June 19 1793 – 16 February 1882" (The first date is in a format used by no one, as it has no comma.) This is not an improvement over "19 June 1793 – 16 February 1882", the way I wrote it and the way it's been for the past four months. - Nunh-huh 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why Jumbo should not continue to do the valuable wiki-gnome work that he is doing in bringing date formats into consistency with each other and with our style. This has been discussed before on this very board, and it appeared clear that Jumbo was given the green light. We should accept that and move on. I've asked [User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] to drop this issue for 24 hours on a voluntary basis and then see how he feels - though he has not been receptive to the idea. I'm very reluctant to impose a block on a user with clean record, but I think it will be called for if he continues to disrupt edits that conform to good style and continues to revert pages to stylistically worse versions. Whatever he thinks of Jumbo's actions, there is never a reason (except in extreme cases involving banned users or whatever) to revert on an article on point of style to a worse version as defined by our own policies. Metamagician3000 01:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Enforcing your interpretation of consensus by blocking me would clearly be inappropriate. The version I reverted to was not a worse version. That is your interpretation. - Nunh-huh 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If the point is correct that the comma is not coming out in the American format, then that is a specific different issue and Jumbo obviously needs to do it correctly. Of course, I have no objection to Nunh-huh making that correction if it is needed, or bringing it to Jumbo's attention. If that is the problem, then it was certainly not clear to this point. I would apologise to you for misunderstanding this, but you've had numerous opportunities to raise it before now if it's your only problem. If it is your only problem, then of course I see your point of view. Please clarify this. To clarify what I'm saying: my objection is to any reverts that you make from a properly-formatted version of an "American" article to International Dating (or vice versa). Metamagician3000 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is correct, but the main point is that it is Jumbo's edits that are disruptive, and, as you have no doubt noticed by now, not universally approved of. His changing of perfectly acceptable format to one he prefers, in an article he's had nothing to do with, as part of a program to enforce style conventions that are in fact not "enforced" but merely suggested as possibilities by the style manual, is inappropriate, and certainly not supported by consensus. His choosing an article, Joseph Earl Sheffield, to which I was the only substantive contributor is, of course, to make a point, and not a very nice point, either. - Nunh-huh 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, isn't this just a basic edit war? Two valid formats. One is American, the other British. MoS supports both. Nunh-huh is reverting to one, and Jumbo to the other, but both are supportable by MoS. I write about British subjects, for the most part, but I use the date format that's natural to me, which is "American." I also prefer to link all dates so that monobook settings will magically make them seem natural to the reader, but we had a similar crusade against linking dates. I had to endure three or so people using -bots to unlink virtually every date, whether a person very much wanted to draw attention to it or not, and now, because they're all unlinked, we're going to get someone else changing from one acceptable format to another? Perhaps it's time for an RFC: "One format for all dates or not?" I'm not a believer in either format, but I have to agree that they're both acceptable, so coercing a change is at least a bit bullying. Geogre 03:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that it's an edit war, it's one started by Jumbo who is running a jihad to change date forms. I am resisting the jihad, and agree with you that dates should basically be left as found, rather than changed in a systematic way. If you can think of some other way to discourage this jihad, I am open to suggestions. I had already suggested several times that he try to gauge the feelings of the community on his conformity program, but he decided he didn't need to do this. - Nunh-huh 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we all please just get along? I'm not for one format or another, except that full dates should all be wikilinked so that they show up correctly in user preferences, and for those users who do not have prefs (which is most of the internet) the dates should be in the appropriate format for the article. Conducting edit wars on date formats as a matter of personal preference is just plain counterproductive. We should be working together on improving the quality of the project, and I'd like to see these sorts of issues thrashed out in the relevant MoS talk pages. My beef here is with people going around and reverting my careful changes because they think I'm on a campaign to change WP to my personal format. I'm not. I change jumbles of dates to uniform wikidates in the correct format as per the MoS. I'd like to have a lot more help in this, actually. --06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the latter part of your program (all articles must use the date format suggested by the MoS) that is controversial. There is no agreement that month, day, year must be used on so-called "American" articles, and no where else, and that day, month, year must be used everywhere else. The MoS does not assert that there is one "correct" format, and embarking on a program to enforce suggestions is not justified. The way we "got along" before you began your program is by leaving these things alone, and I once again suggest to you, as others have, that the way to "get along" is to stop making those changes. Change date formats only when there is a mish-mosh of styles. - Nunh-huh 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Nunh-huh says that the date comes up for him in a non-standard form. If that is so, then the method you are using is not correct. I think you are doing the correct thing in-principle, but it actually has to work. Is the problem that you are leaving out the comma? It seems to me that you have a fair bit of support for doing what you're doing, but it's hard to give you that support unless it's done properly (though why Nunh-huh couldn't have simply inserted the comma rather than reverting is mysterious to me). Metamagician3000 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he could be right. Dates shouldn't be displayed in an incorrect format for those editors who have set their preferences correctly.

• [[12 March]] [[2004]] =>
  12 March 2004
• [[March 12]] [[2004]] => March 12 2004
• [[12 March]], [[2004]] =>
  12 March, 2004
• [[March 12]], [[2004]] => March 12, 2004

The first two are my preferred formats. I have tested these and they show up correctly for me. The second two have commas included and should show up exactly the same.

With no date prefs set:

• [[12 March]] [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
• [[March 12]] [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
• [[12 March]], [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
• [[March 12]], [[2004]] => March 12, 2004

With date prefs set to International Dating:

• [[12 March]] [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
• [[March 12]] [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
• [[12 March]], [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
• [[March 12]], [[2004]] => 12 March 2004

With date prefs set to American Dating:

• [[12 March]] [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
• [[March 12]] [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
• [[12 March]], [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
• [[March 12]], [[2004]] => March 12, 2004

Is anybody else getting a different set of results? --Jumbo 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the actual problem is that Jtdirl inserted a space character, thusly: June 19. I have not tested it, but I am reasonably sure this is the reason it is rendered incorrectly. - Nunh-huh 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, you've been removing the necessary commas from Month, Day, Year dates. This is wrong, since your (purported) rationale for changing the dates is to make them render "properly" for those who are not signed in. - Nunh-huh 18:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like having a leading or trailing space [[ June 19]] [[2006]] or [[June 19 ]] [[2006]] => June 19 2006 gives an incorrect result. But this is clearly a minor point, easily rectified by removing the space so that it shows up correctly. As is easily seen, removing the comma from the source does not prevent it from showing up correctly in the displayed text. [[June 19]] [[2006]] => June 19 2006

Minor details such as this do not bother me overmuch, but what is perplexing me is your attitude, which is not entirely helpful, and the reason I raised this point here.

You also make much of the fact that the MoS does not say that format changes must be made. Indeed it does not. However, it says that they may be made, and that is the approach I am taking. Your changing of date formats in British articles to American Dating and American articles to International Dating is not supported by any guidelines, and I wonder why you do so when you are not ignorant of the discussion over this point. --Jumbo 22:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The MoS says such changes should be made only for substantive reasons, and the reason you have evinced as substantive is not. The discussion thus far seems to me to indicate a far from unanimous support for the program you have embarked on. I encourage you to reconsider it. As for Joseph Earl Sheffield, I wrote it, I didn't "change" it. It is you who "changed" it. I changed it back, as you had no substantive reason for changing it. - Nunh-huh 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed a biographical article on an American so that it had wikidates in American format. That's completely in line with the letter and spirit of the MoS. If you are trying to assert some sort of ownership of an article, then please reconsider. Each edit page has a warning in bold: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. My edits are in line with the MoS, which is the result of intense and detailed discussions. If you disagree with the MoS, then raise it there, please. The unpleasantness and edit warring over this issue is not something anybody should be happy with. --Jumbo 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of mischaracterising what I say, how about absorbing it and considering it. Your editing is not in line with the spirit of the MoS. I'm therefore doing what you should have done before embarking on your program: making a request to help gauge whether the community prefers the proposition "It is appropriate to embark upon a program to change all dates not in "American" articles to day, month, year, and all dates in "American" articles to month, day, year" over "it is not appropriate to change an article with a consistent date style merely to switch date styles from one to another". - Nunh-huh 00:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Let's see what sort of comments you get. --Jumbo 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For the past two weeks a anon IP has been stalking this article. 12.72.119.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps putting an [ad] tag on a news report. This has been reverted 5 times.[6] Looking at the contr. history the user is pushing POV at D. C. Stephenson and Madge Oberholtzer. C56C 06:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP put it back in. If you visit the talk page and history, a similiar/changing IP has

WP:OWN. C56C

06:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed look at the articles for D. C. Stephenson and for Madge Oberholtzer; I was extensively involved in giving them content. Either an edit-gang or one fellow with a several sock-puppets (Grazon?) has subsequently been trying to erase D. C. Stephenson's involvement with Democrats and the Democratic Party. (See the Indiana Historical Society page on their D. C. Stephenson Collection, to which a link has long been present in the External links section of the Stephenson article) for some of the substantiation of Stephenson's ties to both major parties, and earlier to the Socialist Party.) And before C56C (using that account) stepped into the article for Irey, I worked to remove both left- and right-wing spin from that article. C56C nonetheless felt it appropriate to declare the listings of the positions that she'd taken as ad-like, and then to include a critical section which was no less-or-more ad-like. —12.72.119.59 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting an [ad] tag and reverting it in 5 times is not acceptable in a section discussing her news appearance. Neither is taking quotes from her campaign website and making a section for each issue listed. C56C 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Since what was presented was a selective quotation whose cited source was a political advocacy group, it was no less ad-like than the section that you marked as ad-like. In both cases, we are talking about “what she really said”. And, while I cannot peer into the mind of whomever originally created the Political Views section of that article, it was easier to quickly locate political views of peculiar interest when they were subsectioned. Ease of parsing ought to be a consideration in the writing of any article herein.—12.72.119.59 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

12.72.119.59 is a stalker troll who needs to be banned. 132.241.246.111 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No. You're systematically editing articles to disparage one major party — going so far as to claim that the Simpson's character of

Mr Burns is based on a politician who was unknown when Monty was created — while erasing any unfortunate ties of persons or events with the other major party. —12.72.118.216

04:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

12.72.119.59 someone took the "political views" off her website and was written in her words, thsu I added a [ad] tag. You added a [ad] for a word for word transcript of a national news program. C56C 20:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First, not only is quoting Irey a legitimate part of presenting her (alleged) views; you continued to quote her in your version. The principal change that you effected was to collapse subsections into a single section (making the article somewhat harder to read). Second, if you'd tracked the actually history of the article, you would see that someone with my same ISP (unsurprisingly: me) had already made numerous changes to the “Political Views” section exactly to removed right-wing spin. Third, as you well know, many ads have used selective quotation. Fourth, it was not even just an excerpt from a pure transcription, but had been tweaked with such things as the (false) use of “conclude” to describe Matthews' final quoted remark.

I doubt that the administrators are going to try to bring edit-gangs such as yours under control; I'm not even sure that they could if they wanted. But if they don't, then Wikipedia will be nothing more that a BBS. Indeed, the term “BBS” will better fit it than it does traditional BBSs, exactly because on those systems, while it might have been hard to find content of value, it was not so readily obliterated. —12.72.118.216 04:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Writing what you've heard isn't doing anything wrong.

BTW troll also goes by —12.72.119.122 132.241.246.111 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently became active editing the

. All in all, the edits seem bizarre.

All in all, I'm little confused about whether to care, or how to proceed.

cheers, Kristan 03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, he's naming himself after a famous person/performer. Doctor Octagon is/was a legendary "beats" performer along the lines of DJ Shadow. Geogre 03:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the same guy. He's got a pattern of inserting references to himself in wikipedia like this. Ehheh 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started cleaning up after him. He's pretty clearly a sockpuppet to my eyes. Nandesuka 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 5 days -- 2 days for repeatedly removing warnings (after being specifically warned not to do that), and an extra three for this edit. Nandesuka 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I came across a confusing situation with this user. He has been blocked by an IP address (216.78.95.175) for being a sockpuppet of

05:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... You have to have a username to be an admin (in order to block.) The IP just added an {{

masterka

05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I figure since I saw Grandmasterka's message to DVDRW that I'll leave a comment too, as original blocking admin back in June. As Normy pointed out, Ozwrestle has had conflict with both himself and Moe Epsilon in the past, to the point of harassment (which was what my original indefinite block on the account was for). I'd just like to comment that DVDRW approached me for advice and I suggested a block as it's block evasion. The new account has also continued to harass Moe, so in my opinion a fully legit block. – Chacor 05:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I was glad to recieve Chacor's advice, as he had placed the original block, and I was unfamiliar with the case. As my summary indicates, I blocked this user for creating a new account to evade the outcome of his disputes in June. It was pretty obvious, after being brought to my attention, that this was the same user that was previously indef blocked for harassment. The discussion that shows this is on my talk page, and if any one has any further questions, please ask.

DVD+ R/W

01:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"this is just your own delusion, due to your neurotic splitting of the workd".[7] I asked him to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and stop this, but he continues: "Go ahead and report me. I dare you." "There is no double-standard, only your neurotic splitting."[8]

Please warn him, I want a civil discussion on Wikipedia without being attacked as a person.Ultramarine 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment, I do not think your personal opinions are very interesting, directed at the user you are complaining about, does not seem particularly civil either. While original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, no article could be written without the editors having some opinion on what should be included in the lemma, and this is what the two of you need to constructively sort out. Feel free to report any users that are being unilaterally uncivil, and they will be warned. In the current situation, I would prefer to see both of you sit back, take a deep breath, and take a trip to the museum or the zoo if this isn't something you usually do. Come back when you're ready to have a laugh about the dispute. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I had an altercation with Light current about a week ago (I can find the diffs, they're numerous and all over the place), where I tried to help him out and he ended up getting blocked. When he was unblocked he was unnecessarily unpleasant regarding me and my help so I told him I wasn't going to have anything to do with him [9]. He apologised but I still don't want to have anything to do with him. Lately he has started addressing me personally in response to posts I make on the Reference desks, asking me if/when I am going to 'forgive' him and 'talk to him again' [10] [11] there are more diffs but they're just a chore to find in the ref desks.

But this edit [12] gives me the creeps. I want him to stop and leave me alone, but I feel that asking him myself will be exactly what he wants, because if you look at his contributions, the large majority of them are to threads I am posting to and I think he's trying to draw me out to make any acknowledgement of him. I appreciate any help forthcoming. --Anchoress 01:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you say "OK I forgive you. Please no more weird comments." after one of his ref desk asides? I wouldn't call it stalking as he didn't follow you to the ref desk-- you both have been doing more ref desk answering in recent weeks than anything else, and he seems to be enjoying the social interaction there with lots of people. There are several of us who answer lots of the same questions, and we should all be a little alarmed if it constitutes an appreciable portion of our social lives. alteripse 02:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your POV, and I'm not suggesting he's posting to the ref desks just because of me, but I'm not going to be pestered into giving him an insincere acceptance of his apology. Because that is what he is doing. I've told him several times I'm not going to have anything to do with him, and he continues to try in the most public way possible to engage me. He has never made any attempts to contact me privately, either on my userpage or through email, and the incident that got him blocked was because of a combination of his desire to make his conflict with another user as public as possible and his lack of understanding of how inappropriate his communications were. Listen, maybe it isn't stalking, and if it isn't, I don't mind nothing being done because it isn't impacting my life. But if I say 'I accept your apology, 'kissy kissy' (to quote him) 'we're friends again' (to quote him) 'sure, let's date' (to paraphrase him) just to get him to stop making unnecessary and unwanted overtures to me, that's giving in to bullying IMO. His comments to me are not helpful to the threads they are posted to, and they are not helping to build a better encyclopedia. I'm not asking him to be blocked or to be banned from posting to the ref desks, but I think it's not inappropriate for him to refrain from making the same personal asides to me in pretty much every thread we both post to. Also, really, the 'here is my blood' thing was really creepy. I mean, YUCK. Anchoress 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at my suggestion again. It says "please no more weird comments", not "let's date", "let's be friends", or "kissy kissy". What you do is up to you, but now it looks to me like you two are playing a game. Sorry to have gotten involved. alteripse 02:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh...he is totally making creepy comments. I'd say something but i'm not his favorite person :( pschemp | talk 06:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So how would you feel if somenone didnt accept your sincere apology for something you didnt actually do in the first place and if then they started to say you were weird and complaining about you for trying to make amends and resolve the situation?--Light current 11:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Whats creepy about trying to restore a working relation ship. Over here, if people want more than you can give, we say 'What do you want blood as well?' Not creepy at all unless one is of a nervous disposition. Only trying to joke her along not scare her.--Light current 09:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Anchoress has completely misrepresented the sistuation to everyone in saying I was nasty to her. In fact all my posts were either thanking or apologising to her or trying to cajole as you would a small disgruntled child. Im surprised in the extreme that she has sought to make a mountain out of a mole hill by complainig here.--Light current 09:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• The comments are inappropriate, even if made in jest -- Samir धर्म 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Which comments were inapproprate exactly?--Light current 11:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• What would you say to him? "Please stop being creepy?" – ClockworkSoul 06:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's clear to me that User:Light current is just trying to be funny, but sometimes comments made in jest can be interpreted in different ways by people. He has already been warned by an administrator about his comments on the Science reference desk page [13] and was blocked for incivility and personal attacks [14] as recently as 2 weeks ago. I know it's fun to try to inject humour into edits in projectspace sometimes, but when many others start complaining about the appropriateness of your jokes, you probably should tone it down a notch -- Samir धर्म 07:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I was just trying to be friendly in a jokey sort of way as you would with an upset child.--Light current 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've left this user a message about it, I agree with Samir. ++Lar: t/c 07:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions is getting out of hand. 100 pages now, with a blatant copy of a page I tagged over 1/2 hour ago still there.

01:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109^Talk

02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, mentioning it here sure makes it empty fast! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this really nessecary? I suggest deleting it, it's worthless. — Moe Epsilon 02:56 August 24 '06

Subst then delete is what I think. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Its no different than any of the other hundreds upon hundreds of userboxes out there.--

Crossmr

03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Try

WP:TfD. Eluchil404

03:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Think

WP:GUS as well. (→Netscott

) 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I read all these comments and the best solution looks like substituting it onto the only users userpage and then deleting it from the Template namespace. Someone will have to delete this though.. — Moe Epsilon 03:12 August 24 '06

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Recreated article

03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

KTM admits to using someone else's account here [15]. I think I read something against that somewhere, but it should be noted.--

Crossmr

03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

this is how the Jan Blackwelder article was found by my brother he told me "i looked under something about speedy deletions that had been challenged and found her" as for my brother using my account I was VERY angry because that is mine to use and not his.

Indefinitely blocked user

04:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On RC patrol today, I noticed that User:King bugsy appears to be manufacturing a history by copying other user's user and talk pages (barnstars and all) and simply changing all the names to read "King Bugsy". This doesn't appear to be a user who changed his name. Am I wrong and he is a good faith name changer, or is he a shady character? – ClockworkSoul 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Big time deception going on here. An admin should blank both this user's talk page and user page. Is there anything else that this user has done that you are aware of that the community should know about? (→Netscott) 05:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

He has less than 50 edits; he hasn't time to do much else. I just wanted to be sure that I wasn't about to wrongfully accuse a decent editor of something very, very bad. I'll have a little chat with him. – ClockworkSoul 05:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, his talk page has been reverted and I've just blanked his user page per WP:Vandalism - Sneaky and "Changing other people's comments". (→Netscott) 05:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It occured to me that they could be

khaosworks (talk • contribs

) 06:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I too considered that and came to the same conclusion as yourself. This is why I was hesitant to act on my "should" suggestion earlier. (→Netscott) 06:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a bit or restoring of content (ie: versions) that didn't fall under the "Sneaky" and "Changing people's comments" types of vandalism. This should be settled now. (→Netscott) 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has removed the warnings about this so this story may in fact not be settled. (→Netscott) 06:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted his removals and dropped him a gentle reminder not to remove warnings from his talk page. Now he can't plead ignorance. – ClockworkSoul 06:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've given him a three-hour vacation. That may have been premature; if you think so, please cancel it. -- Hoary 06:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

He's now acknowleged what he's done, apologized and asked for forgiveness so the 3 hour vacation is likely not necessary at this point. (→Netscott) 06:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked him. I say we consider this "situation" a very stern warning. – ClockworkSoul 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the result of this has turned out for the best. This user's comments now are positive. Good inital spotting on your part ClockworkSoul. (→Netscott) 06:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Netscott. Maybe I'll go and give myself a dozen or so barnstars. Do you know anybody with a nice userpage? ;) All's well that ends well. – ClockworkSoul 06:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I hear the makings of a "Barnstar patrol"?? LOL... I was essentially thinking your exact reponse here actually as I made my last comment. (→Netscott) 06:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep this up, and y'all are going to fall off the right side of the screen. Geogre 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS (

06:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I requested formal mediation from a disinterested politically-neutral Wiki mediator days ago. I contend that the 3 active Protest Warriors, and their conservatively biased supporters have used Wikilawyering (and violations of WP) EXTENSIVELY and inconsistantly to exclude information that they consider unfavorable, and to INCLUDE info they think favorable. They even talked about it on Protest Warrior, where they discussed their sordid, unscrupulous plans to skew this article in their effort to make what many feel is a hate-filled Islamophobic organization look good. I'm new to Wiki, but learning more about WP every day. I also publicly apologized for wrongly accusing other editors of vandalism as I didn't know WP as well as I should. I EAGERLY AWAIT FORMAL MEDIATION OF THE PROTEST WARRIOR ENTRY FROM A DISINTERESTED, POLITICALLY-NEUTRAL WIKI MEDIATOR!

NBGPWS

This user (whose name stands for Neocons Be Gone Protest Warrior Sucks, by the way) came to disrupt the article. One of his first edits was to add a Nazi slogan under the "PW slogans" section. Once he learned this would get him banned, he began trying to subtily undermine the article. He has violated

07:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Neverborn is an active Protest Warrior member who is not unbiased. I believe his accusation of me using a sock puppet is a violation of WP until it is proven. I've never used a sock puppet on Wiki and never would. I EAGERLY AWAIT FORMAL MEDIATION OF THE PROTEST WARRIOR ENTRY FROM A DISINTERESTED, POLITICALLY-NEUTRAL WIKI MEDIATOR!

NBGPWS 07:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Tbeatty's initial statement as well as Neverborn's. I am in the process of filing a 3RR complaint as well, and will have that completed just as soon as I figure out that most confusing of formats. TheKaplan 07:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend that the folks disputing here attempt to employ one of the solutions found on

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. (→Netscott

) 08:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe this requires immediate intervention. As the RfC process requests not to file both ANI and RfC at the same time, we are requesting relief here first. "Exhausting the communities patience" is a legitimate reason for a block. While NBGPWS has a content dispute, the rest of the community has to fight through his violations of policy including sock puppets, 3RR, Personal Attacks, etc, etc. The community is tired of fighting those battles. --Tbeatty 08:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, "Exhausting the community's patience" does not apply here given NBGPWS has one block to their record. In this light using such language will not tend to encourage admins to take your concerns seriously. (→Netscott) 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps this will help. For all my time on wikipedia I've adhered to wikipolicy thinking it was actually taken seriously; in light of how administrators have handled User:NBGPWS's behavior, I am becoming disabused of that notion. Lawyer2b 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Neverborn is "unbiased" with respect to Protest Warrior is immaterial to this discussion.

He has not used his power to edit in order to insert false, misleading, inaccurate, or simply defamatory information into the body of that article.

You-on the other hand-who are just as biased-if not more so-in the opposite direction have repeatedly vandalized the article, and attempted to frustrate efforts at achieving consensus.

Yes, you have been accused of using a sock puppet account in order to avert a sanction for violating the 3RR.

And an administrator has passed judgment on that, affirming that he also believes it to be a sock puppet account.

Ruthfulbarbarity 08:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that might warrant adminstrator action on this report is that the

single purpose account" and likely sockpuppet that has been created to edit solely on Protest Warrior. (→Netscott

) 08:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a single purpose account, and I've demanded proof over that bogus accusation of socking. I've contributed on Democratic Underground Sept 11 memorial protests, and a few more. I'm about to start my own article on the US military sponsored pro war demonstrations called the 'Freedom Walk's too!

NBGPWS

Your contributions say otherwise. Your very first edit was to Protest Warrior and since then about 95-97% of your edits have been related to that article. (→Netscott) 09:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't a 'single pupose user' have 100% of their edits on one subject? (I don't know) I just started a new Wiki article... 'Freedom Walk'!

NBGPWS 10:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One hundred percent of your edits were to that article, and its accompanying talk page, before I began to consistently point this out to you.

Perhaps you realized how odd it looked that you registration with this site had one very specific, deleterious purpose, and decided to cover your tracks a bit.

Regardless, your involvement in the other articles is just as pernicious, if not as obvious.

Ruthfulbarbarity 17:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Recently changed the entire page on God to simply state "Santa." While I think it's funny, it doesn't appear to be the first time. He also changed the Art page. Please block him ASAP. Terry 08:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Page-blanking is a very common form of

vandalism

. The usual way of handling such a thing is to:

1. Revert the page to its former form.
2. Warn the user not to do it again.
3. Report the user at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Blocks of warned users are handled from the page above; see the instructions on that page for more info. In this case, the user in question was already blocked. -- SCZenz 09:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This morning,

10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll history merge and eliminate the cross namespace redirect -- Samir धर्म 11:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we semi-protect J.Lo's discography page. Someone is inflating her sales withut any proof. It is an IP user. Compare his/her page to mine. IP user's Page=[16] My page=[17]

Please take this to

Doc

16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

) 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

She's blanket reverted my good faith edits and that of another user with a false "rvv" edit summary as well. (→Netscott) 16:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense; she hasn't threatened to block you, she's informed you that you have violated 3RR. Your "copyright" issues are bogus, as you've never given them as a reason for reverting. Please revert yourself before I have to report you, and please don't waste the time of this board with content issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the article any further today but please be aware that another involved admin Jayjg (talk · contribs) is threatening me with a block as well. (→Netscott) 16:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making false claims; I haven't threatened to block you either. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine threatening to have me blocked. (→Netscott) 16:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even threatened that. I've told you that if you don't revert yourself I'm taking this to WP:AN/3RR. And if you don't, I indeed will do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with abiding by

neutral point of view regarding that image wherein we add, "X says Y about Z"? I'm not the only editor discussing it as an example of Anti-Zionism see Image_talk:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg (→Netscott

) 16:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide what the image depicts. Just leave it alone and let people decide for themselves. And this is not the page to discuss content disputes or 3RR violations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

When there are editors who are not abiding by

neutral point of view and are talking about another editor being blocked for 3RR and those editors are admins there's cause for concern. (→Netscott

) 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that other editors are not abiding by WP:NPOV is interesting and all, but this is a simple content dispute. Please discuss it there, rather than misusing this noticeboard for that purpose. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The first eight edits to this article are blatant copyvios and should be purged, leaving only the latest four.

18:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This was done, and the matter is closed. —Centrx→talk • 21:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything that stops someone from running an AntiVandalBot, or an AntiVandalBot type script, as an IP? Assuming that the edit summary but was written out, to avoid drawing attention to the bot? Would anyone know the difference?--152.163.100.65 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's not possible to write a bot whose contribs don't show up in recent changes, article histories, and the rest of the usual places ... so yes, we would definitely notice it, and would block it. --Cyde Weys 16:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Of course not, but suppose this hypothetical anon AntiVandalBot didn't use edit summaries or issue warnings, would you really be able to tell the difference between a bot and a person doing RC duty?--205.188.116.65 15:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yup. And by the way, none of the RC patrollers I'm aware of it do it anonymously. --Cyde Weys 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

umm... I beg to differ. a few days ago a 172.x.x.x ip was RC patrolling and vandalreverting. «

t|e

) 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• So you're saying that simply seeing an IP making rapid reverts of vandalism would be enough to identify them as a logged out/unregistered bot?--205.188.116.65 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but I would just like to say if the bot(any bot) is written to do so, then it cannot be technically distingueshed from a regular browser. Only by watch behaviour can you tell if something is a bot or not. HighInBC 14:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

67.165.202.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing a number of pages as of late. I reported their previous behavior earlier ([18]), but the report was removed when it was judged they stopped. However, shortly after this, the user removed tags from another article ([19]) and repeatedly defaced the warnings on their talk page ([20] [21] [22]). –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has now put an 3RR warning on my talk page [23] and has again defaced the warnings on their talk page [24]. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 06:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Recently, there has been spats of vandalism from a user obsessed with the New York Yankees/Boston Red Sox. Several of this user's socks have attacked me, but he appears to be operating out of a fairly large AOL IP range (205.188.116.0/23) as seen by extremely similar edits, including vandalism similar to Eddie Segoura/The Exicornt Vandal. There needs to be a greater knowledge of this situation, rather than just conversations in IRC channels. Ryūlóng 06:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What has this user been doing to you? Give us examples. Nobugs 12:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Smells like Eddie. AOL-based yankees/red sox vandalism edits to power-ranger pages? Yeah, that's him. There was a bit of exicornt vandalism in the last couple days, too: he's active. Another long-time Eddie habit, come to think of it, is making it personal by asking questions like "What has this user been doing to you?" —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

After a closer look at Nobougs' contributions, based on areas of interest, editing style, and disruptivity, I have blocked the account as an EddieSegoura reincarnation. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And based on this I've just blocked Centrix. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, he now appears to be operating out of 64.12.116.0/23 today. He recently reverted a reversion I made due to unexplained blanking of several sections in an article. Ryūlóng 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I just warned 64.12.117.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for removing an EddieSegoura sockpuppet tag. --TheM62Manchester 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to get in the way of this conversation or anything, but you people know that AOL is used by quite a bit more than one person at a time, and giving someone the impression that all of AOL is used by one single vandal isn't a great idea. --64.12.116.65 21:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize that AOL is used by more than one person, but several vandalous edits from this range show that a certain vandal is editting within the range right now. Ryūlóng 21:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Then don't treat the entire range like it's one person--172.135.126.126 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

He isn't. He is making the statement that a particular vandal is operating out of an AOL range right now. He is basing that on the editing style of the vandalism in question, not on the IP address it is coming from. Yes, EddieSegoura's vandalism sprees effectively become a Denial of Service attack on AOL. We are all very sorry for that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I am stating that there is a unique user editting from a dynamic AOL proxy range, which appears to change on a day to day basis. Ryūlóng 23:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Per comments posted at

WP:AIV, I believe this guy is now editting out of 152.163.100.0/24, perhaps /23. Ryūlóng

02:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

When article Croatian War of Independence was created, there was a rather broad discussion about the name of the article (broad meaning I invited native speakers of English and people who have nothing to do with the war to help us decide which name is the best). A peaceful consensus was reached, and the article got it's current name. Several users have contested this name since, and that's just fine, there exists a procedure for such cases. What's not fine is that User:PANONIAN started doing a bunch of edits like this one to bypass the discussion on Talk:Croatian War of Independence (the article is locked for moving, so he can't just move the article). I reverted his edits and warned him that I find this to be a disruption of Wikipedia. He did it again. Before any constructive discussion even started. To me, it is clear that User:PANONIAN deserves to be warned, and then blocked if he does that again after I warned him. The only problem is that I'm not NPOV. He's from Serbia, I'm from Croatia, so I'm not the best person to judge if he is to be blocked. Therefore, I ask you, fellow administrators, to voice your oppinion if you feel that User:PANONIAN should not be blocked and that what he is doing is perfectly legitimate. I will now warn the user, and if:

• he does the same thing again
• no admin disagrees with my intention to block the guy in next 24 hours

I will block him for 24 hours for disruption of Wikipedia. --Dijxtra 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dijxtra, this is ridiculous, I hope that you know that blocking me would be abuse of your adminship. My edits are certainly not a "disruption of Wikipedia". I will ask some neutral admin whether you have right to block me simply because I follow NPOV policy of Wikipedia. I will not change name of the war again, but discussion about your adminship abuse will just start. Have a nice day. PANONIAN (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I wrote that I'm not NPOV and that I won't block you if an admin disagrees. And this is where admins hang out. Therefore, I already did what you sugested: I not only asked some neutral admin whether I have the right to block you, I asked all of them. Please, realise that I'm doing all that I can not to abuse my powers. And I ask you not threaten me. I asked for advice here before doing any admin action. I acted in good faith. You are threaten me with discussion about my adminship abuse?? Which admin actions did I take that you don't like? Your actions don't look like good faith actions to me. I kindly ask you not to threaten me. --Dijxtra 11:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is you who threatened me that you will block me because of edits like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pag_%28town%29&diff=prev&oldid=71492707 Now please tell me which of the rules of Wikipedia I violated with this edit? And if I did not violated any of these rules, who gave you right to threat me that you will block me. I ask here that some other admin say do you have right to block me because of that edit. PANONIAN (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You did violate rules against being an interruption. You willfully replaced a perfectly good link with text that the community has found consensus against. Violating community consensus is breaking a Wikipedia rule. Dijxtra, I do not oppose your blocking of this user if such edits continue. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the argument about "replacing a perfectly good link" might stand, thus it perhaps would be better that I replaced it with this: war in Croatia (That would not replace link, only its description). Second thing, the consensus you speak about was about name of the article itself, not about description of the link that we should use is other articles. PANONIAN (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To echo what RyanGerbil said, the appropriate policy is:

consensus. Dijxtra has done the right thing bringing this matter here rather than blocking you himself, since he's an interested party. However if you continue to insert your POV into articles instead of reaching consensus on the appropriate talk page its likely that a neutral admin will block you. Gwernol

13:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me how name "war in Croatia" could be POV? It is completelly neutral name that does not imply the character of this war (Not to mention google hits with this name: http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=FP-pull-web-t&ei=UTF-8&p=war+in+croatia ) It is highly disputed whether this war was a war for independence or civil war. The current title clearly propagate only one point of view and completelly ignore another. My change was simply in favor of the title that will not propagate any of these two points of view. Now, please tell me what is wrong with that? PANONIAN (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that PANONIAN is behaving wrongly, I feel that Djixtra shouldn't block him personally, for nothing good can come from such an action. I advice to inform the admins ChrisO or Jkelly or FrancisTyers, all active in the area. Believe me Dijxtra, nothing is worse for an admin than the suspect, even when utterly unjustified, of acting as part of a faction.--Aldux 13:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to conclude this case: if we suppose that my edits are not POV (the POV nature of the name "war in Croatia" still should be proved here) and if we suppose that I do not change links but only their descriptions (not in the article about war itself, but in another articles), could then my edits to be a reason for block or not? And if they could, according to which Wikipedia rule? PANONIAN (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, disruption and

WP:POINT, and I'll do it (I tend to start at about a month for persistent nationalist POV-pushers). Is that clear enough? --ajn (talk

) 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Which I will support. Gwernol 16:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As would I. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Croatian POV-pushers are an exception from this. How nice... PANONIAN (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have any specific concerns about Croatian POV-pushing then please do bring them to the attention of admins (use my talk page if you want). I would be sorry to see you blocked, because you've made some good contributions and you clearly do want to improve Wikipedia. However, trying to impose your own version of a name when the matter has already been decided by a consensus of editors isn't the right way to do this. If you feel that the name should be changed, I suggest that you look at

Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and then do what you can to build a consensus for your preferred name. -- ChrisO

19:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that PANONIAN has raised what he considers perfectly valid points. Nonetheless this needs to be discussed in the talk page before going ahead with unilateral changes. I brought this to PANONIAN'S attention and he duely started a straw poll on the subject. Yes, he made a mistake and his actions could have been understood as disruption but he is a veteran user and showed the willingness to debate the issue. I have to say I am personally very discouraged by the uncivil response and namecalling that he has received from some people at the talk page. This is utterly deplorable. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is my last comment on this page, but I suggest to you all to imagine that you live in Serbia and than from that perspective to read these two articles:

Bosnian war and Croatian War of Independence. After reading them (starting from the title of the second one) you could not escape from the impression that these two articles are written with the single purpose to blame Serbia for everything, with no single intention to show any guilt of other side. I am not trying to say that Serb side was not guilty, but that the other sides involved in war were no angels too, despite the fact that they trying to present themselves as such. As User:Thewanderer nicely said here that "the name War in Croatia (1991-1995) is an attempt to downplay the role of certain other nations in the conflict" clearly show that intention of the current name (Croatian War of Independence) is "to magnify the role of certain other nations in the conflict". Finally, I do not want to waste my time and energy on this question any more, and not only that I will not change name of this war in other articles, but I will not any more participate in any discussion anywhere about this issue. If Croatian editors wanted (with threats and sockpuppets) to remove me from this question, they succeded. I have nothing else to say. PANONIAN (talk)

01:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that [email protected] (talk · contribs) is nothing but a spam account. A quick check of the edit history shows that every edit has been to add or change an external link relating to the "usermoney.com" website. Would a rollback be inappropriate being that most of his/her edits are still the top edit on articles? --StuffOfInterest 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, spammer. And he's been adding some sort of referral markers to the urls to identify from which article is the site redirected. For instance [25] and [26] (wikiBM, wikiCahsman, etc) -- Drini 15:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User IDs with email addresses or URLs in them should be blocked on sight. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Editor in question is Nikkicraft and I ran into her when I made a minor change on Melissa Farley. She is clearly a rather abrupt person, who holds very strong opinions and is also obviously trying to be a loyal defender of her friend and colleague, (in real life she herself is Notable and has an extensive article on her activities here).

What I am unclear on is if she is being deliberately abusive (& homophobic) or if she is just a newbie who is particularly clueless about what Wikipedia is (IMHO it's an Encyclopedia) and the difference between a User Page, a User's "My Talk" page, an Article and the Discussion Page attached to it.

I had tried to get an opinion on what should be done on the 20th whe my attempt to follow

did not get positive results by posting to the Admin page on the 20th: 02:07, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (in re: article on Melissa Farley an editor seems to be a bit confused) -- but never got any reply.

If your opinion is that it's just life on Wikipedia and I should get over it I will bow to your superior knowledge.

It's just that even with other intellectually heated controversies I've been involved in when editing, nothing like THIS has ever happened to me here. This woman worries me (especially give her history of violent confrontations in real life). I do not think the article is at all accurate, but I am now afraid to edit it since I don't want to get any more of these personal attacks and even it seems, accusations that because I'm an LGBT person that I'm somehow trying to get be inappropriately "cozy" with her. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression the dispute was resolved. Did anything new happen since August 20? El_C 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conf) This diff would seem to suggest the conflict is being resolved by the parties. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh NO not at all.

I never got a reply to my original query (that I knew of, was it put somewhere that I don't know of?).

Since you have just brought her new comments to my attention and reading what she has now written, I'm still not at all comfortable. Especially since she seems to be "forgiving" me for the insult of not agreeing with her, not passively allowing her odd behavior/remarks and also blaming me for her homophobic remarks. So I'm still and seeking guidance as to what to do. She is in real life a colleague and (sometimes violent) partisan of the subject of the article's philosophical movement, so I am worried.

Also I really do want to know if it was it correct for her to take my enquiries from the "User Talk" page and post them onto the article discussion page with a provocative title, etc.? Should that/can that be removed?

I do NOT ask you comment on the content or correctness, I just seek guidance on what constitute reasonable behavior and what to do. I'll look here for a reply. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 22:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how her saying "I'll start out by apologizing" counts as her forgiving you. Try collaborating with the her if there are entries of interest. No threats were issued at any time, and at any rate, if someone is threatening you, or stalking you and you fear physical harm, contact law enforcement in your area, we are not the police. El_C 23:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well I guess I'll file this under "it's just life on Wikipedia get over it". Thanks for clarifying things. CyntWorkStuff 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the refractored material from the talk page on Aug 20. It's difficult to see what you want done in an immediate sense, as there does not seem to be an ongoing incident at this time. The user made some mistakes and apologized. El_C 23:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to interject here. My main complaint with CyntWorkStuff was because she has posted on several wiki pages false accusations about me. (I'll document them if anyone wants them [yawn].) And now she is posting some more here. She writes that I'm "sometimes violent" and that I have a "history of violent confrontations in real life"? This is such a lie. Ask her to document one instance of it. She says I've made homophobic comments? Ask her for documentation. The only thing I've ever said to her was I don't care what her sexual preference is in connection with discussions about differences on the Melissa Farley page. In fact I couldn't care less. That's not homophobia and also I think it was highly inappropriate for her to even bring up her sexual preference to me in connection with editing a wiki article. --Nikkicraft 09:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to a call at

23:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First let me say I have no criticism of Lbmixpro and have told him his actions are fine by me (he'd put this up here before I managed to type my message). If anyone's interested, it is really a technical matter. User:Phoenix V has publicly stated that he has adopted the new user name.[27] He lasted edited as User:Prof. MagneStormix on August 8. [28] He began to edit as User:Phoenix V on August 9. [29] There is no overlap between the accounts. He is entitled to edit under a new name. I suggested it might be better to delete the former account, which is now defunct, and to deal with Phoenix V for whatever sins he has committed, which as far as I can see to date are primarily leaving a nonsense message on User talk:I'll bring the food. When I communicated with Lbmixpro initially I hadn't noticed the evasion of 4 hours of the block (which I suspect Phoenix V may not have done deliberately but inadvertently), so it is technically the creation of a sockpuppet account to evade a block, although the user has been using it properly apart from those first 4 hours. Tyrenius 23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tyrenius. S/he sounds remorseful (& young), some leniency would'nt hurt. El_C 23:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite agreeing with me, as I'm saying there's not a problem, and what LBMixPro did is OK. This only got posted here because of an overlap in messaging. Don't feel too sorry for Phoenix V.[30] Tyrenius 00:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked ACB Mutant, a new sockpuppet of his. Tyrenius 18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom hearts lll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has for the past few weeks been adding false information to Naruto Uzumaki. Last week, this user was blocked for edit warring on the article. The user has stayed quiet until now, when they began again putting in false information in the article ([31], [32]) as well as trying to insert the same false info behind an anonymous IP ([33]). –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute, albiet unpleseant one. --InShaneee 01:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How so? This user knows what he's adding is false and misleading, and he's still adding it to the article despite previous warnings not to. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF. --InShaneee

02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Which I think stops applying once you point out the incorrectness of what someone is doing. AGF doesn't mean blindly accept everything everyone is doing. If the user has been told the information is incorrect and inserts it over and over, all assumptions of good faith are gone.--

Crossmr

02:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying that it's wrong doesn't make it so...hence, content dispute. --InShaneee 02:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Constant stubbornness from an anon editor

02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This user's edits to this single page have hit 50, and he constantly signs his posts so that his local time is shown instead of UTC, which I have also been telling him is wrong. Ryūlóng 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Give him a good sized block for trolling. The user has a strong disregard for all things wiki policy. --InShaneee 02:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to direct you here for your suggestion, unless that is directed to another reader. Ryūlóng 02:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I'll take care of it. --InShaneee 02:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. This guy just won't give up. He's constantly made his timestamps Pacific Time, despite all of my statements, and now he's still being an ass at the talk page. Ryūlóng 02:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And he complained at Talk:Coordinated Universal Time, too, right before the block. Ryūlóng 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the archive I made of his ridiculous demands, for any future inquiries. Ryūlóng 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So far, Cydebot has destroyed the layout of one of my user pages three times. That bot has also done the same to many other users, as evidenced by its talk page, and Cyde has ignored every single complaint. Furthermore, it has come to light that Cydebot has not been approved to muck with categories, which is what's causing the layout breaks [34]. I am suggesting that Cydebot be blocked ASAP until Cyde modifies it to not muck with categories. jgp ^T_C 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Others, please feel free to review. I'm going to bed now, I won't be around for a while.

masterka

05:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. jgp ^T_C 05:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks, also.  DDS  ^talk 11:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The world of bots is a mystery to me, but I'd have presumed that the bot approval process was strict for a reason, contrary to Cyde's contentions in the discussion linked above. Do we generaly restrict bots to what for which they have explicit approval? If not, why not? - brenneman ^{L} 06:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Having just been through the approval process myself, I can report that you're right, it is strict. Furthermore, when deciding whether or not a bot should be blocked we can be much more aggressive than when deciding whether or not to block a human. If folks feel the bot isn't doing the job it's meant to, or isn't doing it well, it's perfectly appropriate to block it until the owner shows up, and I support that. --kingboyk 07:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So, on RC patrol, I stumbled upon

was tipping my radar. I'm a little too lazy to go back and see what it was, but he had made comments like "I will never let <insert name here> make edits" and other ownership style phrases. He was very definitely pushing a POV. I was about to report him for 3RR, when I noticed he had already been reported. I weighed in my two cents there, in favor of the block for 3RR. My next login, I noticed a message on my talk page, very confrontational, lots of attitude etc:

"Please mind your own damn business. You don't own wikipedia and niether does Zafarnamah. I will edit the article as and when I so desire and will never let Zafarnamah ruin the article with his communal, pro Khalistan edits. Regards! Syiem "

I responded on his talk page with this:

"I'm not sure what you're getting at coming to my talk page with that attitude. You are not above the policies of Wikipedia regarding the WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL. Our editing here is a privilege, not a right. You'd do well to remember that.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"

I assumed the exchange was over and nothing of it. Then, just today I notice this:

"Please mind your own damn business and stop behaving as if you own Wikipedia. Before referring other users of civility I suggest you have a look at it again yourself. All of you a sudden you appear from your shithole and term other users' edits as Vandalism. ArjunSingh 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)"

It's the users only edit. My suspicion was that it was Syiem. I clicked on Syiem's user page, and noticed he'd been blocked as a sockpuppet. Now I'm not entirely sure what to do next. I suppose I could RFCU to see if ArjunSingh and Syiem are the same person. But that'd be pointless, because Syiem is already blocked. So... I thought I'd drop a note here and let you all know, should that editor make anymore abusive comments.

_Fire!

05:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link to the appropriate 3RR warning Syiem received, which apparently started this. My only contact with him/her was on our respective talk pages, and the 3rr page [35]

Mmm... quite simple I'd have thought :) New account pops up and posts a nasty message, clearly not a newbie - it gets an indef block. User:Blnguyen has already beaten us both to it, however! :) --kingboyk 07:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Ray Lopez outbreak, violating the ban on similar user name (again). [36]. As a side note, the individual behind the Ray Lopez handle has been making harrassing phone calls to my personal phone number, and should be treated with due caution. Stirling Newberry 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Following it up with personal attacks and lying about identity. [37] Stirling Newberry 14:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I came across this user from a listing on

07:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire contribution of this user has been vulgarity, spam, & redirecting off-site links to pornographic sites. As far as I can tell, not a single genuine contribution has ever been made from this user. To top it off, when the user's vandalism is reverted, the user often returns to the page to edit in bad faith once again. mordicai. 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed an IP edit to Image talk:CheetahGirls12345.jpg. It caught my attention because the edit summary was "Hi, Cheetah Girls", so I checked it out and noticed that two minors (one eight year old girl and one ten year old girl) were the only contributors to the image's talk page and both had revealed their addresses and first names. I blanked the talk page out of concern for their safety and was wondering if an admin could delete the page as it's unnecessary and the only information it contains is the personal information of two young girls. Thanks! Srose (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is no town listed but it would be safer if a complete blank (i.e. removing history) is performed. If this happens again, maybe even semiprotecting the talk page. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I edit-conflicted with you to add just that. :) Srose (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the "Surrealism" talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surrealism There is a particular user: ClassicJupiter2 and possible sock-puppets who continually interfere with the development of this article (edit-warring with other users). Lately, ClassicJupiter2 has been using offensive language, such as continually describing certain people involved with the article as being "full of shit". Please do something about this problem. Thanks. --Waterfallz 17:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

He was doing that very same thing about a year ago, IIRC. --InShaneee 23:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Want to get acct i mean create account on this computer but everyone here says i will be called a sockpuppet right away, that menas i am someone else and not me right away. help plse. Many people use this computer and we all called sockpuppets. Help?

Thanks. —The preceding

) .

For those interested, this IP has been used by User:MathStatWoman, more info can be found here. - David Oberst 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Small backlog at

20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, JoshuaZ is on it. Thanks! Isopropyl 20:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:71.206.41.192 has inserted inflammatory and offensive content into Old Testament at least 8 times within the past hour. He has only been warned by some of his reverters (myself included). I gave him the level 4 warning and he has edited in the same manner three times since then (at least). I need an administrator to block him, please (no mop yet for me). Srose (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ooops, just realized this belongs on
  WP:AIV. Sorry, taking it there. Srose (talk)
  21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

He's already enjoying a one day break from Wikipedia. If he comes back after that contact me or leave a note on

WP:AIV. Best, Gwernol

21:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No fair; you blocked him as I was leaving this message. :P I should've checked before I went and posted it on WP:AIV, too. Thanks!!! Srose (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Iasson has returned with another new sockpuppet, Eastburn4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's blocked already, but watch out for more Iasson sockpuppetry. --TheM62Manchester 21:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hanby

--

21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that was a violation of fair use policy. Thanks for pointing it out. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not positive the links to google searches are really okay either. They have nothing ot do with wikipedia, and don't seem to obviously relate to the user themselves (i.e. like userbox are used to convey opinions held by the user or information about the suer). Your userpage isn't to be used as a blog,etc.--

Crossmr

22:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does cover pornography, so it could be argued to be related to the project. I suggest we leave those alone for now, although I have a feeling that this user may be related to others such as User:Fat Lui. I'll try and keep tabs on these in case we need them checkusered. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted someone to keep an eye on the AOL IP 205.188.116.131 - this user has made several edits with inflammatory edit summaries without clear vandalism. However, on page

21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've not bothered with the (rather funny) attacks made by

.

In addition, on the assumption that the two users are indeed the same, they have both contributed to a pair of AfD discussions (here and here), which would make them policy-violating socks. - David Oberst 21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

MxM Peace has now posted (to the Talk:Jimmy Wales article Talk page!) an enlargement of this, claiming that "a summons will be issued in the High Court in London against Wiki Foundation and all users who have taken part in this violation." Could someone please take care of this? - David Oberst 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --InShaneee 23:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please can anyone investigate Njiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I've tried reverting his pagemoves, but now it won't let me revert them. Thanks, --TheM62Manchester 09:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed -- Samir धर्म 09:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! should he be blocked?? --TheM62Manchester 09:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the most severe vandalism, unlike this. Iolakana•T 11:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The EddieSegoura vandal, editing from AOL, has become a real time-sink of late. Rather than just fighting off references to "exicornt" and bogus baseball edits, it seems like we are now spending all our time fighting over sockpuppet tags. See User:MER-C/Eddie Segoura, a new VIP-style page, which, interestingly, describes his vandalism *only* in terms of sockpuppet and impersonation tags. It also (shudder) recommends AOL rangeblocks as part of the standard strategy for handling his attacks.

My suggestion is going to be obvious, and obviously unpopular: let's stop tagging his indef-blocked puppets as puppets of EddieSegoura. We don't get much benefit from having the enormous, ever-growing list around; at this point, anyone involved knows "it's a very large list" and that's probably enough. I would go so far as to suggest we replace the existing sockpuppet tags with the generic indefblockeduser one. The benefit is, we will hopefully have fewer angry, concentrated attacks like those of late, and we won't have to block AOL IPs as often. The downside is that it is caving in to the desires of a banned vandal. That's a big downside. I know it. But the pages we are wasting our time on aren't part of the encyclopedia; we wouldn't be making a content-oriented compromise of any sort. Thoughts welcome. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I don't give recognition to individual vandals. They all do the same bloody thing, ergo they are all the same bloody person. All vandals are 'Willy on Wheels', they all meld into one faceless bore, - if they don't like it, then they should stop acting like him.--

Doc

15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, are you saying we should go ahead and remove the identifying sockpuppet tags, since they give recognition to Eddie, or are you saying that we shouldn't, since doing so would be treating him specially and giving him recognition? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm saying remove the tags. But don't treat this version of 'Willy on Wheels' any differently from all the other Willies - remove all such tags - delete the pages that list individual vandals. Merge the lot - and don't encourage the one universal vandal that is Willy on Wheels.--

Doc

15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

except that information is usefull to us.Geni 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Once banned, how? Except for keeping score. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think these LTA pages on vandals are our version of the police incident room. --TheM62Manchester 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bunchofgrapes and Morven. Probably the only reason to tag socks is when they are socks of a known user and have a significant contribution history. There's no reason to tag obvious vandals of the exicornt/willy/enthusiastfrance ilk with a specific template except scorekeeping, which has no value in tracking down further vandal accounts and may lead to more vandalism (either "blank me or I'll keep doing it" or "look how many times I can get blocked".

Thatcher131 (talk)

18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. A vandal creates multiple disposable accounts - many of which are blocked on creation, and some idiot goes round creating a userpage and markng it with precisely the right deadly threatening official template, then categorises the userpage and adds the account to the vandal's hall of fame. It is all just CVU-style para-law enforcement crap - one big game of soldiers for the role-playing secret agents. It serves no useful purpose, except to encourage vandals and paranoia. Block, yawn, forget (repeat the process, until they get bored). And those who want a police incident room - should go play elsewhere.--

Doc

18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Or its useful for some people as not everyone is familiar with 100% of the vandals out there. Maybe not every sockpuppet needs tagged, especially for the big few, but some of the smaller-time or more unique vandals should have evidence pages and some sockpuppet links, especially if it can help establish any kind of pattern for identifying. --

Crossmr

18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

All right. I like the general debate, but I did come here with a more specific question in mind. Let me ask it more directly: If I go around and start removing {{sockpuppet|EddieSegoura}} tags from all the indef-blocked user pages that have them, is anybody going to accuse me of meatpuppeting for Eddie? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You've been here a year and appear to be an established editor. I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't remove the tag from any sockpuppet thats done more than just be created though.--

Crossmr

18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This would be more of a philosophical meatpuppeting, if you will: carrying out exactly the sort of edit that Eddie has been trying to carry out all along. It's not literal meatpuppeting; there's certainly been no quid pro quo offered or anything like that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Do it.

Thatcher131 (talk)

18:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I see is that by him removing the puppet tags himself it identifies him very easily. its unlikely anyone else would do this. If we remove these and he instead decides to enter in with some other kind of vandalism it might make it more of a challenge to identify and deal with him.--

Crossmr

19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There's some truth to that, but our goal isn't to score points by catching as many of his socks as we can -- it's to make him go away. If he confounds us by editing in a constructive manner undetectable as him, that is also OK. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy this 'identifying vandals' bit at all. If they vandalise deal with them, whoever they are. If not, who cares. This all smacks of an obsession with 'Wikipedia's most wanted'. Our best weapon against vandals is to bore them into going away. --

Doc

19:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

that's your choice, but if user x vandalizes a page , we should assume good faith and give them a break. If we don't identify past vandals we never really deal with them, because first time around we should always been assuming good faith. Once a user continues behaviour, we usually ramp up the recourse for it. If a vandal is an obvious sockpuppet of known vandal Y then they should be blocked outright, we shouldn't waste our time sitting there warning them 3 or 4 times then blocking them. If eddy shows up, removes a sockpuppet label the block should go into effect immediately. If we didn't identify any vandals and someone did something that was associated with a known vandal now, but wasn't because we threw out all the files, we waste time warning people who's sole purpose is to cause trouble because we didn't keep any information on their past behaviour.--

Crossmr

19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But if he edits in a vandal manner, someone might be more likely to assume good faith and maybe not block him outright like he should. If any vandal comes back and edits constructively thats cool with me. Its if they come back and display entirely different vandal behaviour that causes me concern.--

Crossmr

19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that Eddie has always created socks here and there that don't change the tags, reserving that for IPs when possible (when the pages aren't semi-protected) or throw-away sleeper accounts when they are. So we're not going to be wastng time we weren't already wasting, in this case. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So then might it not make sense to keep the record and just protect the pages? It seems your intent here is to remove these in anticipation that he's just going to do that anyway and people end up fighting over the page trying to undo his edits, etc. I guess it comes down to is there a purpose of having records or not having records and perhaps address this issue for all sockpuppets. --

Crossmr

19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Running around protecting hundreds of pages for this purpose seems a little heavy-handed to me, and plain unneccessary. All the record-keeping you need should be in the block log comment anyway. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, now look at my block log [38]. See the various username blocks on willy-wanabees and other trolling usernames. Most of these were blocked with no edits. Now, someone tell me why anyone went round creating userpages for these nil-edit accounts to mark them as blocked - or to categorise them by the vandal they were/were impersonating. Do we need a record (other then the block log) that I killed

19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, these are now going red, I'm deleting the useless things. See you on DRV. hehe --

Doc

20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have as well wondered the same about the people that go around following after the block log and applying those tags. I assume they just want to increate their edit count, and have struck upon one of the myriad ways we have of doing so without actually having to work hard. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So then maybe we should set a threshold, only sock puppets with more than 5 edits should have a sockpuppet tag on them?--

Crossmr

19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Higher than that. Pure vandal accounts should never be specially identified. Tagging should be reserved for cases where the account lasts long enough to insinuate itself into the edit history of multiple articles, or represents a known editor with a known agenda, like Lightbringer. An account with all vandal edits should not be rewarded with a specific tag no matter how many edits it manages to accumulate before it gets blocked. Giving the vandal a name and a special page either rewards or angers the vandal, neither of which has anything to do with writing an encyclopedia. (Naming the vandal also rewards the CVU which ditto. Like Doc said, block, yawn repeat as needed.

Thatcher131 (talk)

19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just put Indefblocked on them all, except in very special cases. If it is needed, a page identifying behavior is fine but, for example, we don't need help identifying page moves to "...on Wheels" as being bad, it is obvious even for anyone who doesn't know there is a history associated with it, and we don't need to have special logos for each of them. It is just a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started doing it. Thanks for the input, all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Often wondered why we spend massive amounts of time with these templates. Sometimes the sockpuppet templates will be changed multiple time on accounts that I block. Seems quite pointless to me. Part of the Template for Every Occasion patrol.

The advantage for IDing is making it easier for less experienced users to understand the reason that reverts of banned user are made on articles or why articles that seem fine are deleted. IMO, posting the information on AN or AN/I does not help because it is removed. If the accounts have not edited at all them it is pointless to label them. The rest need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. In this case and many others not labeling makes good sense. FloNight ^talk 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[Message from banned user removed]

You are still banned, Eddie. The reasons for your ban had nothing to do with sockpuppet tags. You are not welcome to edit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[Message from banned user removed]

No, no Eddie.. — Moe Epsilon 22:58 August 25 '06

I apologize that I did not get the message until now, but I'm seriously tired of AOL vandals going at pages I edit and even if they are not Eddie, the fact that they make themselves appear to be so is just a pain in the ass and just makes Eddie return and get more of his own true sockpuppets blocked. And Eddie, stop commenting here. It's not improving your case any more than it could ever be. Ryūlóng 23:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This repetitive vandalism strikes me as a modern form of arcade or video games, where people with nothing better to do spend their time racking up huge scores just for bragging rights. I agree that the solution is to make this boring for them, and one way to do it, if we have sufficient coverage to respond to these incidents promptly, is to go through the boring escalation of templates each and every time an anon or new user vandalizes. We kill two birds with one stone: truly "new" vandals will be given the appropriate cautions, and inveterate perpetrators must spend five times the effort to get the same "score", hopefully boring them five times as fast. I don't know if this is practical, though. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't we include

WP:BJAODN?? --TheM62Manchester

23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No. It's not a joke and it's not nonsense. Deny recognition to those not worth recognising. Spend editing time usefully rather than playfully. -Splash - tk 02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be a bad idea, Jeffq. That requires spending at least 5 times the editorial/adminstrative effort on time wasters who deserve nothing other than a summary block and a redlinked user and user talk page. Don't give them oxygen, don't give them acknowledgement; certainly don't quintuple the effort they extract. -Splash - tk 02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that all the real vandal pages get transwikied to countervandalism.org so that they are of some use to us, yet don't give the vandals their time in the limelight. Then start merging vandal pages which deal with vandals with similar editing patterns (e.g. TCV, Mr. Pelican Shit and WoW). I'll tag my two vandal pages for speedy deletion (u1) once they get transwikied.

As for tagging, tag enough accounts to establish a vandal's MO. MER-C 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, NCV's and WOW's long term abuse pages are up for deletion at

04:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, my Eddie page has been deleted on my request (I've kept a copy on my hard disk). MER-C 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As you can see

17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you use

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR to report him for his 3RR violations. CharonX/talk

23:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MuerteArbusto

Please look at the edits coming from User:MuerteArbusto (contributions). I warned the user for racist vandalism to Chitterlings (the user's first edit), and in response he or she left this message on my talk page. Most of the rest of this user's edits are copyvio or vandalism. --Allen 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indef. blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Username meaning in Spanish was Death to Bush. Not that it matters anyway, now that it's been indef.blocked. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

By error I have registered twice ton Wikipedia - after some time of inactivity I couldn't log in so I have registered anew. Now I have found that I have some contribution to both accounts and also some to my IP before I have logged in for the first time. Is it possible to join the three into one account without losing any information? NoychoH 19:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. At one time, the developers offered such a service, but with the growth in users and in demands on developer time, it is no longer possible to merge accounts. -Splash - tk 02:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A good tip is to put a notice at the top of each of your user page linking to the contributions of the others. HighInBC 15:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Mccready for one week for disruption. I realize one week is a rather long block for a generic charge of "disruption", so I invite review. See User_talk:Mccready#Blocked_for_disruption for more information. If anyone feels this is inappropriate I invite them to adjust the block as they see fit. Friday (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. I know that you have followed his talk page for months like I have. I appreciate you following up with him. Likely you are the best person to do this block. His talk page has many requests from other editors for him to be more collaborative and civil. Still think that he has great potential. Wish that he would spend more time working on less controversial topics. FloNight ^talk 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I echo that. El_C 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has created account User:Petr.adameк for vandalising my user page [39]. Please, can you block this account and remove from its userpage false information that it is account of Petr Adámek on cswiki? It is probably the same vandal that has created account User:-Jkb- to vandalise page User:-jkb- [40]. --Petr.adamek 20:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Golbez 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

King Vegita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing my user page:[41], [42], [43]. —Hanuman Das 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had the page deleted and recreated it, so these diffs will no longer work. Could someone simply inform him that he has no right to edit another user's user page for any reason unless he is an admin? —Hanuman Das 20:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already attempted to address the issue on his talk page. So lets try continue discussion there, limiting conversation on ANI. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 20:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You do not own your user page, it belongs to the community. I merely added a link to the previous name, because it had administrative action taken against it. The reference I found in the WP:AN/3RR archives of the last time he was banned for 3RR. It seemed an attempt to cover up a mischevious past, and my interactions with you suggest someone who would have a past as a POV warrior, and finding out about the 3RR violation in the past after having reported you made it important. I know that there is no policy banning me from editting your user page, so long as it is for constructive reasons. I did not add anything negative on the page, only a fact that I found in the archives.

However, I should note that there was a clear violation of

WP:AN/I

. You're not an admin, stay off both my user and talk page from now on" I neither vandalized it nor is there reason to use the f word, even if you later censored it to "f***ing".

KV(Talk) 21:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman has since gone on a

WP:V stating clearly, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." Hanuman is an editor who tries to work the system to violate its principles.KV(Talk

) 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see you're not willing to take this to your talk page. Just grab an admin and ask him/her to weigh in please. SynergeticMaggot 21:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I grabbed 2 that don't like me. KV(Talk) 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not one of the two, but I will respond anyway. 1) That wasn't userpage vandalism. It was a strange thing to edit war over, however. There's no obligation for Hanuman Das to keep a notice of a previous username on their userpage. 2) That response is clearly not a model of

21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I am one of the two. I do not actually dislike KV, we have just often disagreed. Hanuman Das' comment is uncivil. I understand KV's rationale in wanting to note a previous username. But, I see Hanuman Das says he changed names to avoid harrassment and coordinated with an admin about it. I didn't look any further into it, but taking it at face value I can see why he would be annoyed. If you guys are going to need to work together, mediation would be a good idea. I have no opinion on the editing issues or 3rr violations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:King Vegita's actions were wrong. You don't just go around tagging someone else's user page with "this user is also known as so-and-so" unless (1) there is suspected abusive sock-puppetry or proven abusive sock-puppetry OR (2) you have that person's consent. While Hanuman's actions were less than civil, I can tell you I'd be annoyed if someone kept on adding "this user is also known as whoever" repetitively to my user page without any evidence -- Samir धर्म 00:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Next time, clarification need to be sought on whether what is seen as "cover[ing] up a mischevious past" warrant such a userpage notice. El_C 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Further note: the IP might be linked to 205.188.116.131 (talk · contribs) two posts up. Both IP's use the exact same edit summary, verbatim. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem to be coming from the 205.188.116.xxx range. I'd suggest a range block, but I'm afraid there would be too many innocent users affected. Maybe we're supposed to quit reverting his edits? ;) --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perspective - those aren't legal threats. So just revert and ignore like most AOL vandalism. --

Doc

23:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This user is now being idiotic in 152.163.100.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). Ryūlóng 02:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer User:Prof. MagneStormix is creating sockpuppets faster than I can block and tag them. See my user page and talk page, and also check User:I'll bring the food. Thanks. Tyrenius 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Solution, don't bother tagging them. It only feeds the air of publicity and is of no other use. --

Doc

23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Block and ignore.

Thatcher131 (talk)

23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tyrenius (and Doc), again! El_C 00:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Rob38204 has vandalized a number of pages by adding inappropriate commerical links. These have been his/her only contributions to Wikipedia; there is no mitigating constructive input. I placed a vandalism warning; he was also warned by an admin yesterday. Would suggest that the next episode of vandalism by this user be considered grounds for blocking. 68.166.14.179 00:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I will respectfully disagree. This is an unacceptable level of spamming, so the user has been blocked for 48 hours on this occasion. Thanks for the report. Gwernol 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Rob38204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Andeh 02:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert38204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another one of the users accounts (Robert instead of Rob).--Andeh 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been exessive vandalism by AOL IPs in the range of 152.163.100.xxx and 152.163.101.xxx adding nothing to articles and leaving the edit summary of "Adding Child Porn"" what is to be done about this. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 02:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS on this. Prodego ^talk

02:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain, I don't quite see how it applies...and I don't mean that offensively. But every 5 seconds when my recent changes refreshes I see 1 or 2 more dummy edits with the summary of "ADDING CHILD PORN" by the same AOL IP range. Sorry for not understandaing. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 02:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you set an e-mail I will explain, but think about it for a minute. Prodego ^talk 02:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it nevermind, I'm an idiot. Sorry. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 02:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's at it again. MER-C 07:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User has continued to revert pages, especially D12 to his/her own vandalism, and from user's talk page appears very understanding that his/her edits are vandalism. Proceeds to personal attacks when informed. - RPIRED 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sure all of you know that I, the former NCV, have stopped after my last vandalism on August 25, 2006 at mercury (planet). Please look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal.Ryron 03:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One wonders why he feels it necessary to create multiple new accounts just to go around telling us he's a reformed vandal. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Be on the look out for edits like this, which should probably be removed by someone with oversight. They are null edits with repulsive, and possibly damaging edit summaries. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Here's another.
• Here's another.
• Here's another.

They are all coming from AOL. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't meet the criteria for the use of oversight. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

They are still extraordinarily annoying, though. Is it within the powers of a sysop to just delete the page and restore it without that three-line-long edit summary? Hbdragon88 05:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so; vandalism is speediable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. pschemp | talk 07:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know admins could pick and choose what to restore. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Demelo (talk · contribs) has been creating a hell of a lot of strange articles, several of which are about programs he created, as well as copying the contents of his user page into an article about himself. I'm not sure what should be done here. Ryūlóng 05:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note from an uninvolved passerby, unless this person's contribution history has been modified (or unless I am missing something), it appears that he has created exactly two articles, not counting his professional resume appearing on his user page. You have nominated both articles for deletion. Shouldn't that be sufficient to handle the problem, at least so far? 6SJ7 07:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think. pschemp | talk 07:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved the entire Talk page discussion, multiple editors, over a long period of Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research into a subsidiary page, not an archive, simply based on FM personal feeling that he didn't like the long discussion. I feel that behaviour is highly inappropriate. Archives are one thing, but moving active discussion to a page that few if any people are going to have watchlisted, only serves to disconnect the discussion from any new editors who wish to join it. There is no productive value in that action. Wjhonson 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is being trolled. FM moved a fruitless discussion to a subpage, and anyone who wants to can continue it there in exactly the same way as before. It's not an issue for AN/I in any event. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This appears to have been created as an attack on User:Dokdo (whose user page stinks). --Lambiam^Talk 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked by

talk

) 08:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And I've also blanked Dokdo's user page. --

talk

) 08:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Try

WP:AIV next time, it's much faster. :) --Andeh

09:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:CltFn & User:Dy-no-miite keep removing sourced material on Robert Spencer. (The controversy section). Removing sourced material is vandalism. Articles on Bernard Lewis and Edward Said do have a "controversy" section. So having this section is not against the policy. The vandalized section already has POV tag, so there is no NPOV issue. --Reza1 09:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reported the 3RR violation here:[48], but it seems that an admin sided with other party. Please take an attention on the suject.--Nixer 11:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean the equivelant of the wrong version. Since editing on the article by both of you stopped some time ago and blocks are preventative even if I agreed the other admin was wrong, a block at this point would be nothing more than punative. On the other hand looking at your edits for the last few hours you seem to have become rather obsessed with this even attempting to modify the admins outcome on the WP:3RR request, I suggest you find something more constructive to work on before this becomes disruptive --pgk^(talk) 11:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The matter is just would the rules in Wikipedia work or not. The case is clear and the violation of the rules also. And we see now that the admin sides with the party that violated the rules to protect them. The fact is that the side violated the rules winned because the admin sided with them. Note that the only right way to prevent conflicts is to be just and strictly follow the rules. If you do not want this user to be blocked, just revert his version and warn him not to revert back. I think this would be enough.--Nixer 11:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell do you want me blocked? To make a

WP:POINT? Ryūlóng

11:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"would the rules in Wikipedia work or not", well read

not an experiment in rule making etc. etc. --pgk^(talk

) 11:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit warring did not stop as the party violated the rules still maintains their own version of the article.--Nixer 11:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt regarding

11:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Look also at my responses here:[49]--Nixer 11:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I forgot to add my page too, thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the actions of Cactus.man. The edit war have stopped and there is no need to block anyone. Besides the edit war is a rude form of voting if 2 editors are for a version and 3 editors are for another version, the three should win. In this case we have a user (Nixer) against another (Ryulong). One against one. I do not see why Nixer should win abakharev 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And why Ryulong should win? What the purpose of the 3RR rule if admins do not stop violators, but instead block others? He has right to revert 4th time, I - havent. Double standard. --Nixer 12:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have the right to revert a 4th time. Yes, he violated 3RR. No, that doesn't mean he has to be blocked. Blocks are to stop people from disrupting the encyclopedia - whether they've broken the rules or not. You've both voluntarily stopped disrupting the encyclopedia, so there's absolutely no reason why anyone needs to be blocked. --james^(talk) 12:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

He did not stop disrupting, he insists on his version. He reverted 4th time even after I worried him about 3RR rule. The

WP:3RR says "Do not revert after the reporting the 3RR, just wait an admin to revert the violator. All parties violated the 3RR should be blocked"--Nixer

12:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't touched the page in 3 hours. I don't see him still "insisting" on his version. Whether he reverted a 4th time is irrelevant - we've already established that nothing needs to be done over the 3RR report.

WP:3RR actually says that offenders "may" be blocked at any admin's discretion - not that they "must" be blocked. It's up to the admin to determine whether there is a continuing problem, and whether that problem would be solved by preventing a user from editing. It's not about "Hey, you reverted 4 times, you're gone for 24 hours!". The 3RR doesn't work like that. --james^(talk)

12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

He did not edit the article because his version is protected by the admin's intervention. He has no need to edit the version that is his own.--Nixer 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is only semi protected, you can still edit it. By the looks of things it's been that way for 18 hours, well before your edit warring began. I fail to see the problem. --james^(talk) 12:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I semiprotected Pluto last night; I don't think it's been unprotected since. This was because of regular and continuing vandalism, not because of edit warring. The version I protected it on was the last "clean" one.

talk

| 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact Ryūlóng continues edit-warring and reverting to his version: [50]--Nixer 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. Somehow, every change was undone by another user and then I editted it to a completely different version, until you reverted me, again. Get off of it, Nixer. Ryūlóng 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now this user even tries to remove information from

WP:AN/3RR: [51]--Nixer

19:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And I was reverted by an admin, who closed the AN, again. Get off of it, Nixer, for your own sake. Ryūlóng 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is: are there in Wikipedia users not eligible to the general rules?--Nixer 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am subject to the same rules as everyone else, just as you are. The closing admin at both 3RRs decided that my actions did not deserve a block because I had stopped, mostly because I fell asleep. You, however, have been reverting and have broken 3RR for the umpteenth time, including a user who I think is also you. Get over it. Ryūlóng 19:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you are continuing revert-warring with total of 6 reverts for the 24 hours.--Nixer 19:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my last edit on the page was replacing two apostrophes with two sets of quotation marks. Please stop, Nixer. Ryūlóng 20:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you here: [52] also cortrected quotation marks?--Nixer 20:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a completely different edit. I did not revert in anyway. I merely editted to something resembling a version that had been reverted by someone else to one of your versions. Ryūlóng 20:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The

12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Abdullah Geelah (talk • contribs) seems to have done this more than once. Image:Sheikh_Mountains.jpg is ripped right off http://www.hargeisacity.50megs.com/photo.html *sigh* This is going to take awhile to clean up. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  13:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed, with one more also (

I@n

13:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through his image contribs and marked the ones I could identify as copyvios. There were quite a few: [53] Thanks to

Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh for catching some of them! FreplySpang

17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hafele-Keating experiment

A variety of IP's are conducting talk page vandalism and POV additions/removals is occurring on

13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This appaears to be a content dispute with some civility issues/removal of comments. I've posted a note on the page. Semi-protection seems uneccessary. JoshuaZ 16:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Lguong (talk · contribs) User's only edits are to put tags on blocked usernames. Probably related to the usernames that have been blocked. Roadsoap 13:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry...but exactly what admin action is required here? Thε Halo ^Θ 14:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible checkuser or investigation? I dunno. Hbdragon88 00:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of self-identified children posting personal information (such as

14:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. --

Guinnog

16:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:TheM62Manchester placed a troll warning tag on Talk:Allan Wilson (Scottish politician) a day or so ago. I talked to the user about it (see User talk:Metros232#Troll warning on Talk:Lucozade and User talk:TheM62Manchester#Talk:Lucozade. After that conversation, I figured that TheM62Manchester would remove the tag from the talk page, however, that appears not to have been the case. Just a few minutes ago I got a message [54] from User:Allan Wilson MSP who—from what I see on his talk page—is hired as Allan Wilson's "Administrator of his online Presence". Allan Wilson MSP has asked me to remove the tag on the grounds that it could be damaging to his boss's public image. What's the best way to procede with this? Just simply remove the tag? Metros232 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. These things serve no real purpose anyway. --

Doc

14:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake! --TheM62Manchester 17:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Long Crendon is a village in Buckinghamshire that's had it's page continuously vandalised over time since 2003 by the same user constantly re-adding the same nonsense about badgers, and accusing those that set the page right of pedophilia, child molestation and general vandalism. The IP used is mostly 195.92.X.X though other IPs have been used over time. It's getting quite tiresome tbh; surely it's time to start blocking this time-waster on sight? -- Roleplayer 17:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately its pretty infrequent, I don't think you'd have any luck getting it protected, as far as blocking the range, well again its pretty infrequent, a 24 hour block would likely do nothing to change the pattern, unless we're going to look at a several month block for the range.--

Crossmr

18:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be an artful badger. Seriously, this is not much of a problem, so long as a few people keep the article on their watchlist and revert the rubbish. I've added it to mine. After a while this fellow will stop making the effort, because he will see his graffiti washed clean in short order. If he turns it into an edit war, then he can be blocked. So long as we have enough eyes on it, the article can be kept clean for 99% of the time, which for an article like this one is OK. After a while he'll stop doing it and we'll have it back completely. It may be worthwhile searching for other badger-related rubbish. --Jumbo 18:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The accounts Bobtherandomguy (

18:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible S-man Sock

I came accross this account today and I noticed on the page that he claims to be a relitive of User:S-man. This user page was also created by S-man. Not sure if he is a sock of S-man but wanted to bring it up to you all just to be on the safe side. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

69.235.204.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RogerMooreArm

• 14:33, 26 June 2006 - edit by User:RogerMooreArm (older diff)
• 00:30, 08 July 2006 - edit by User:Houlihan1 (older diff)
• 15:17, 26 August 2006 (current diff)
• 15:12, 26 August 2006 (current diff)

I really dont think an actual checkuser is necesary. --Cat out 20:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where exactly to report this, but this user has been impersonating me, which I suspect is the same user who created the accounts User:FaIIout boy and User:BinderBinder.--Fallout boy 21:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account.

DVD+ R/W

21:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous sock

Another opinion welcome here. Anonymous sock (talk · contribs) requested their talk page deleted and I removed the speedy tag since i felt neither CSD:G7 or CSD:U1 applied — there is use in keeping the talk and user pages in administrative context due to the sockpuppet activity and an indefinite block. Please see User talk:Anonymous sock#Right to vanish.

There are also issues with an IP block. Thanks/wangi 21:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This user's first (and as of the time of this writing, only) edit is to nominate himself/herself for adminship

22:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure its just somewhat seeking negative attention.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Per ongoing heavy defamatory vandalism for the past hour. 152.163.100.0/24 and 205.188.116.0/23 each for 30 minutes, with new accounts barred -- Samir धर्म 08:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gah, no! If there has to be an AOL range block, which I dispute anyway, at least leave new account creation open. Remember the 'Encyclopedia that anyone can edit' text on the main page? -

M^ask

19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

These range blocks expired by the time you had made this message, and new account prevention was necessary due to massive creations of impersonation accounts from a single user. Ryūlóng 23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I know they had expired, but you still file a police report even if your house was robbed before you got home. And that was not necessary because of creations. You block those, but you dont shut off that huge number of potential contributors. The new blocking policies for AOL proxy pools say to leave creations up. Not wanting to find the bad apples of the bunch is no reason to

M^ask

00:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the main issue was with the fact that several abusive accounts were suddenly created by a banned user (see below) as well as another unrelated "I'M GOING TO SUE THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION FOR $1,000,000" vandal operating in the larger range. Unfortunately, these two blocks were necessary at 5 in the morning (EST). Ryūlóng 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

An example of the latter is here. Ryūlóng 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Keeping new accounts open in this case would have made the range block useless -- Samir धर्म 04:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't have been applied. By doing this block you dont just block the vandal, but every dial-up AOL user online at the time who rolls onto the proxy. New Account creations are to be left up for AOL range blocks. Thats pretty much it. This was childish vandalism, easy to fix, easy to block the new accounts that are used abusively, and no where near worth denying that many potential new users. Seriously folks, this isn't brain science. Get out of the 'we're under seige by vandals' mentality. There aren't that many of them and their easy to revert, and block as they come up. AOL gives us many, many of our contributors, a good portion of our admins and one of our stewards. -

M^ask

21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(deindented) Apart from the creation of abusive accounts, there was mass removal of sockpuppet notices and userpage vandalism by the IPs in question. MER-C 05:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And this was any harder to detect then normal vandalism? Was he using their name? any edit to a userpage by someone who isnt that user is easy to spot. Think about these things before the blocks get applied, and take your finger off the big red button cowboy. -

M^ask

21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. I'm not a big fan of range blocks myself -- Samir धर्म 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell, even I use AOL, not that often now, though. --TheM62Manchester 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, did you read this section at all? I think the kind of vandalism being exhibited from that range trumps potential new accounts. I don't appreciate your tone.

Danny Lilithborne

22:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this bad faith? --Striver 16:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's more than bad faith. It could be vandalism, a personal attack, this should be remedied at the fullest extent (I've took a look at it). — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 15:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's a shame that we have administrators vandalizing our encyclopedic content. --Cyde Weys 17:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Inexcusable. Doesn't admins have an oath that they promise not to do anything that damages Wikipedia as a whole? Reminds me of the "Terror Bite incident" in Time Crisis 4... — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 15:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't have an oath. This is an encyclopaedia, not the Scouts. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't see the reason in protecting it from vandalism, when the only vandal was an administrator.--Andeh 18:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are specific protected page editing guidelines. An administrator vandalizing a protected page would likely be desysopped. --Cyde Weys 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot fathom how someone can build the reputation to become an admin, and then do something like that. This does seem to be an isolated incident after a short look at his contribution history. HighInBC 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This template was vandalized by two members (not one), and also two other admins edited but they did not revert the vandalism. --Inahet 18:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I added the owl and the sound clip. That was immature. I won't do it again. It was my own edits which were by far the most egregious. The graphic added by the other editor, while maybe not in retrospect the best choice, was probably well-intended. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, we all feel a bit silly once in a while. HighInBC 18:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't I simply speedy delete it? Any objections?--MONGO 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn we had 12 pages on Alex Jones and his works. Maybe a template wasn't the best approach to organizing them, but I think something should be done. Merge a bunch and delete others? Keep all and make a Portal for him? He already has a category. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How long would this have gone on had it not been noticed?? Unfortunately, this template in its vandalized form was transcluded in a number of articles [55]. I don't think admins should get off easy, some disciplinary action should be taken. --Inahet 19:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, honestly, whenever I see Alex Jones

NWO stuff, I want to laugh, so maybe the template was created to put a pun in an obviously ridiculous bunch of POV fork articles that should be combined into Alex Jones but instead can't because all the conspiracy theory advocates come out of the woodwork to POV push nonsense in this encyclopedia.--MONGO

19:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, as one of the admins involved in the vandalism you should be apologizing, not making excuses. --Cyde Weys 04:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism? I didn't know the images were a factor...I didn't create it, I didn't add it to any articles and all I did was try to keep the text wording from running into the infobox, which I ultimately achieved simply by reverting the template to an older version. I didn't know the images there weren't to be used...that sort of thing here on wiki is a mistery to me. All I was trying to do was keep the article text from butting up against the infobox, which caused run on. Explain, so I understand how any of my edits to the infobox were vandalism.--MONGO 05:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I created the template. I added the sound file (it's the bumper music for his radio show), and I added the giant owl (per his writings about the Bohemian Grove). Nothing anyone else did could reasonably be called vandalism. Mongo's edit was before I added the sound clip and the owl, and was nothing but an attempt to correct my botched formatting in what he would have assumed was my good-faith contribution. This isn't to mitigate what I did, just to make clear that it was only me who did it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll go along with whatever people think is appropriate. Speak up here or on my talk page, or put up an RfC if you want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Striver doesn't seem to mind the template as demostrated on the template talk page. I didn't know that having a picture of the Dallas Cowboys in the template was "vandalism".--MONGO 20:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Striver disagrees with you: [56]. Dionyseus 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

But on the template talk page, where he made the comments after doing so on my talkpage, he didn't seem to mind the template minus the images...that was what I meant. I even said above I'd be happy to speedy delete the thing.--MONGO 05:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I can forgive a small spell of sillyness from an admin, but grudgingly. HighInBC 04:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

When I clicked on the sound file, I laughed so hard I literally fell out of my chair. If this is what you gents call vandalism, who am I to judge it? —

04:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

When I play it again, it brings me to tears. I pray this fits for BJAODN. —

fgs

04:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind we're writing an encyclopedia here. Whether or not it's funny is irrelevant. --Cyde Weys 05:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive128 number 49, I had made a request for User:OhmyΩ to be blocked for repeating harrassing me (with quite personal stuff) at my talk page, which went successful. Now, User:Dr.Gauss just made edits referring to his/her former account, the above incident, as well as comments harrassing me on my talk page. This user is definitely a sockpuppet of User:OhmyΩ. His edits are: [57], [58], with quite unnerving comments like the section title, "Thinking of U ;-)" and "See in another TIME !!!!", quite referring to outside-of-Wikipedia life (This user seems to personally knows me, but I have no clue who he/she is). I reverted these edits, but User:Dr.Gauss reverted them back- [59]. I hope something can be done to alleviate my situation. Thank you, Basawala

• Blocked. - Mike Rosoft 10:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

] 00:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up this page's edit comments

I've been tidying up the recent spate of abusive edit comments. I just tried to clean up this page's edit comments by delete/undeleting: I think the deletion failed, as this page simply has too many versions for the DB or UI to cope with. If this page suddenly disappears, you can blame me. We probably need some new UI to be able to do perform selective version deletion on pages with many versions. -- The Anome 00:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

00:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. If he's being particularly troublesome, Checkuser requests sometimes result in the IP being blocked for long periods, if it won't result in too much collateral damage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. --

Rikurzhen

00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Move for community ban of User:Zen-master

I've extended the block on User:Zen-master, which was formerly one year to enforce an ArbCom ban, to indefinite, based on his evasion through sockpuppetry, which has already resulted in the block being renewed once. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zen-master. I could renew it for a second time, but really, what's the point? He clearly has no intention of sitting it out. Any objections? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

another sockpuppet

07:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest

The Future

16:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Too obvious. The choice of article and the first edit being creating the userpage with a weird one sentence aphorism are the giveaways. Blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was obvious, but either way works I suppose :) —

The Future

23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Can an admin please look at

02:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but looking at it I would agree that it's juvenile and unacceptable vandalism. GoGoGobots has been warned but appears to take the warnings lightly (and I say that charitably). Transformers K-Mart should probably be speedied as a hoax after everything with talk pages and edit summaries is fixed. As an aside, this should probably have gone to AIV. Captainktainer * Talk 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like an opinion on a editor I have a problem with. There's this fellow named User:Kmaguir1 whom I encountered because he put in disruptive and disparaging digressions about a few contemporary philosophers whose work (and articles) I follow. After a bunch of back-and-forth, he eventually got blocked a couple times, first for a few hours on 3RR, then eventually for 10 days for sockpuppetry. I was one of the main people filing the various administravia, looking up diffs, and all that (probably the main one; though by now a good chunk of editors have become pretty annoyed at him). Oh, those specific types of insults on those specific types of biographies was the only thing he edited before his blocks.

Mr. Maguire is back from his 10 day rest, with an obvious dislike for me personally. The latest thing he has done is add a weird template to two biographical articles I created: Alex Martelli and Danny Yee. Neither of these persons has anything to do with contemporary philosophy; so taken together with the fact that I created both articles (and that he has edited little else), it's pretty clear the tag is really about me, not about the subjects. On the other hand, neither person is huge general notability. I believe both are significantly more notable than a lot of biographied subjects, but neither is of worldwide fame (well, actually, both are known in many nations, but to limited audiences). Here's the tag:

{{dated prod|concern={{{concern|Not notable}}}|month=August|day=27|year=2006|time=02:54|timestamp=20060827025429}}

What do you think I should do? I've contemplated changing it to a straightforward AfD myself. I think both biographies would easily get voted "keep", but I'd certainly be happy to yield to consensus if not. On the other hand, the gesture itself is obvious bad faith... if someone I had no contact with had simply doubted the notability when they clicked on "random article", I think an AfD nomination could be in good faith (albeit wrong analysis). This is something different... i.e. it's

03:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I also see that Kmaguir1 has added the same tag on Raymundo Baltazar, which had been created by another editor he was in conflict with on the philosopher articles, User:Agnaramasi. I had never heard of Baltazar before just now, but Baltazar is also clearly unrelated to Kmaguir1's prior editing interests. LotLE×talk

Not to delve to deeply into the good/faith bad/faith, WP:POINT, or disruption aspects here, but let me just make sure -- you know you're free to simply contest the PROD by removing it, right? That puts no burden on you to take it to AfD. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I know I can; and I certainly will in less than five days absent anything else being done. Still, I would sort of feel better if someone else took off the tag, both because of my prior conflict with Kmaguir1 and because I did create the articles (so perhaps I'm utterly delusional about the prima facie notability of the individuals... as unlikely as I find that). LotLE×talk 03:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, now they're on articles for deletion, by the same fellow who PRODed them. That's not entirely nice! ^^;; Kim Bruning 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just noticed a new user Eddie Jacobson (talk · contribs) edit the article Butterfingers, an Australian band. Eddie Jacobson is the lead singer of this band. Not sure what would be an appropriate course of action now. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

He has inserted nicknames for two band members, including himself. If those nicknames are accurate, then there's no issue. If they're not, it's a case of adding incorrect information, in which case, we would revert the edit and ask the party to provide a source. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the question whether he is using some famous person's name, which isn't permitted, unless he is that person of course. He could just be a fan, for example. Tell him he can't use that name unless it's his. Tyrenius 09:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And what sort of evidence would the user provide? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference - what if you happen to share the same name as a famous person? Is it not permitted then? --

Charlesknight

09:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you are not using the famous person's name. You are using your own name. Tyrenius 10:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out

10:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but "well-known" is an incredibly vague term, and fails to address the broad range of backgrounds held by editors on Wikipedia. Without getting on a soapbox here (I'll save that for WP:UN's talk page), I'd just like to mention that there are far, far too many "notable" people, to one group or another, such that far too many new members acting in good faith will find themselves blocked for using their own name, which just so happens to be shared by someone they have never heard of. WhoMe? 14:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a request for clarification to the talk page of the username policy. Input would be appreciated. WhoMe? 14:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood (I think). If it's your own name, you can use it, even if it's the same name as a famous person. You're just not allowed to use a pseudonym that's the same as a famous person. When there's doubt, usually a discussion takes place on

20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

So let's suppose we contact the user Eddie Jacobson, and he claims that that's his real name. How do we verify this? At current, it seems to me your suggestion is unenforcable. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC) [End of copied material. Tyrenius 20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)]

It's not my suggestion. It's just what's on the page

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, where it is accepted that these names have not been verified. Tyrenius

20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Huge backlog at

WP:AIV

Need a couple of admins over there - it's been several hours since the last vandals were removed from the list. MER-C 09:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tirid Tirid is an old user with a small number of edits. Striking is also his resemblance he bears to another user, Space Cadet. Less than a day after Tirid Tirid voted on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus, just like Space Cadet had done, a report of the users' similarities was finally written. Tirid Tirid also got tagged as sockpuppet, and on suspicion of having evaded 3RR, feigning greater support, evading increasing punishments for revert warring, and committing double-voting in at least four cases with this account, the case was listed at CheckUser. But it was archieved without ever having been commented on, along with a great number of other cases, putting the astronomical number of listed requests from 90 down to 36. Renata3 would later conclude it was because of that former "massive backlog" that the case had never got checked. After shortly being blocked again, Space Cadet never continued to edit. But Tirid Tirid went on. Now he simply removes the suspicion of sockpuppetry from his user page again and again, and this, I think, should not continue. Sciurinæ 12:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dfranks078's contrib's history has edited nothing but Jake Gyllenhaal. He has repeatedly replaced the free image with other copyrighted ones he has uploaded himself, and paid no heed to warnings placed on his talkpage. It cannot have escaped him by now that people are reverting his images for good reason (they, at least, use edit summaries). A block would be nice. Dev920 13:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The two dodgy (and now deleted) image uploads aside, I can't see anything to justify blocking. The other edits look reasonable. I think we should cut people some slack when they have only been here for half an hour. --ajn (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe too many months of dealing with other Jake vandals is making me cynical. I'll try to engage him if he does it again. Dev920 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A user using this IP address constantly adds irrelevant information to the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer article. Several warnings have been posted on their talk page, but the pointless edits have continued. Can something be done, please? --LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A review of Lolababy's edits reveal that they are, almost without exception, to articles that Mr Beale has edited. Apparently, it stems from an off-site dispute. It's a fairly classic case of wikistalking, and there are a number of other policy problems (using minor edits to cover up removal of sources, borderline vandalistic behavior). Furthermore, he's impersonating another user with a sockpuppet. AIV does not seem appropriate because the vandalism is borderline at best; the key concerns for me are the abusive sockpuppetry (which requires administrator attention) and the stalking behavior. Mr Beale is taking it in stride, but the disruptive behavior by Lolababy is fairly inexcusable. Captainktainer * Talk 21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SUSPSOCK? WhoMe?

21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the impostor when I happened to see it on my watchlist. I've now blocked User:Lolababy indefinitely as well. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

All primary source information (including photos) was just edited out of the Sweetest Day page by Transfinite. It was replaced with unverified information. It seems obvious that someone is interested in keeping the Sweetest Day page full of disinformation rather than primary source information. Can anything be done about this?

Thank you!

Miracleimpulse 06:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You inserted a lot of malformatted stuff into the article without clearly identifying a source. I would say the other editor was right to revert your edits. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The source of all information was clearly stated as being The Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper issues dated 10/8/21 and 10/8/22. Each photo was clearly marked with the source and date. No primary source has been identified for any of the current information posted about Sweetest Day. Why shouldn't the facts about Sweetest Day be posted on Wikipedia? Miracleimpulse 09:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that you've uploaded a mass of images with completely incorrect copyright tags. --InShaneee 13:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the correct tag to use for self-made images? Miracleimpulse 15:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You have the correct tag for self-made images already. But these images are not self made, they're cropped images from another source. Cropping a copyrighted image doesn't remove the copyright. If you think these are off copyright by age, one of the PD tags is correct. If you are asserting fair use, a fair use tag is correct. A discussion of tags can be found here: Commons:Copyright_tags, and it does cover fair use (although fair use images have to stay on en: they cannot be uploaded to commons). Hope that helps. That said, I looked at the article as it was prior to reversion and I agree with those who said that it was a mass of unformatted (and possibly copyrighted) material. That material should be discussed on the talk page, and the article modified to cite the material without including it. ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Are the images in this article now in compliance with Wikipedia copyright tag policies? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweetest_Day&oldid=71758612

Also, why do the Administrators of Wikipedia have no comment(s) on the unverified nature of the current Sweetest Day article? The "Herbert Birch Kingston and His Friends" article has zero verification and lists no primary sources. This seems like a double standard. Miracleimpulse 06:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I had asked for Halibutt to be warned for personally attacking me less than a week ago, my petition on here was removed without any action being taken, and he has now done it again. if you will notice here[[61]], he has personally insulted me again. hopefully this time someone will do some justice and atleast warn him.

--Jadger 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You called a user Trollobo instead of his username Molobo and you want us to warn the user who pointed out to you that this was rude by doing the exact same thing to your username? Grow a thicker skin. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the most

The Future

23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. BTW, User:Molobo is not another user, it is a troll that has been banned for a full year for his trolling. Hali was not the one that pointed out it was "rude", it was Lysy. that is not his only personal attack upon me, on my talk page "why do you think all black people should be exterminated" yet I have never spoken to him about Black people or anything of the sort. as in Western law, not only must the law be done, it must be seen to be done. So let me get this straight, if both sides break the rule, neither should be warned/punished? In that case I would like the previous warning upon myself removed from my record/talk page, as it for my remark that was in response to the "black extermination comment", which was not in fact a personal attack, but I pointed out his personal attack upon me was a logical fallacy. --Jadger 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. I suggest you find something more productive on Wikipedia to do than name call which isn't getting you nowhere. —

The Future

01:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't mean you get to call him Trollobo. And I agree with everyone else; I saw no attack against you.

Danny Lilithborne

01:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

then if they were not personal attacks, can I remove the improper warning from my talk page? you all after all stated it was not a personal attack, that makes one against 4 (4 saying it wasnt a personal attack, 1 saying it was) --Jadger 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets get a few things straight, we never said Halibutt's edit was a personal attack. We never said that your edit wasn't. Next, Wikipedia isn't based on votes nor is a democracy (your 4-1 comment above). Still, you're editing here has become vexing, so I strongly suggest you let the matter drop now.. If you remove the warning from your talk page, I will revert. —

The Future

01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with The Future here. You are not going to get what you want from us here. My advice is to drop the matter. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia is built upon consensus, it is the wikipedia's foundation. --Jadger 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, and I think everyone here has come to the consensus that were not going to warn him. —

The Future

02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, if this is not too offensive then feel free to undo my username block. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 23:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't find it offensive but that's because I have no idea what it means. Can you explain please? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Stasi were the East German secret police. So "Stasi2" is a bit like naming yourself "Stormtrooper2" or "KGBfan7" - Nunh-huh 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah well in that case I agree with the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Um.... there's nothing wrong with "Stormtrooper2" or "KGBfan7" as far as I can see. "Stormtrooper" is a common term in

this French organization. wikipediatrix

01:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The test is not "can you dig up an inoffensive use for the name", but "is this name likely to be offensive". Stormtrooper and Stasi both, I think qualify as likely to offend. It is no great hardship for someone to choose a name less likely to offend. - Nunh-huh 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have to "dig up" these references, they came from page one of a Google search. We're talking about stasi.com here, for Pete's sake, not something obscure. wikipediatrix 04:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to block for every bad word from another language? That is, is every word with a bad connotation from every language off limits? My mom was harassed by the Stasi before she escaped, so I sure don't have a lot of sympathy for them, but I'd try to ask the user what they meant by their username. If they meant something else then maybe this username could slide. But it's no biggie either way to me. They can always choose another username. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I should probably point out that Stasi may also be a genuine name - I regularly deal with someone at a software company with that forename. It's pronounced like "Stacey" in her case. Google suggests it's a surname too. The user's few edits don't suggest they are a fan of the GDR. --ajn (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally know someone with the first name Anastasia that has a nickname of Stasi. I most definitely do not consider it offensive. -- JamesTeterenko 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Stasi is a not-uncommon surname. Look here and here and here and here. Game over. wikipediatrix 04:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel ambivalent towards the username, but I would probably lean towards letting them have it, but that doesn't change the fact that wikipediatrix is acting like an idiot, the "game" is not over, it is a discussion with two side. You can't just "win it" by coming up with a few unlikely alternate definitions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is outrageous that a new user that makes good edits is spit on like this. Not a nice way to greet newcomers. The name is in no way inappropriate. Lapinmies 07:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked this user, per this discussion. Their few contributions all appear to be good edits, let's AGF and keep a potentially good contributor. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is a common surname, then I think it should be allowed. HighInBC 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This user insists on removing warnings from his user talk page every time I post them. I would like to request that an admin mediate this situation so as to work toward a resolution for the both of us. Wandering Star 00:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want this user to leave me alone. He is harrasing me after leaving an invalid vandalism warning on my page. I have every right to remove invalid warnings from my talk page. I have been the victim of personal attacks from this user, uncivil behavior and repeated harrasment on my talk page. I would also ask for a review. Or someone could just tell him to leave me alone. Either way.Jasper23 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you both take a 24-hour break from each other and Wikipedia before someone says something uncivil or worse... FWIW, Dispute resolution is over

The Future

01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a warning was in order here as it was clearly a good faith edit. Edit warring to keep a warning on someone's userpage achieves what exactly? A better approch would be to discuss the matter on the article talk page and stay off user talk pages altogether. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion. I guess on my end, I got worked up over having my edits deleted, with the reasons given being that my claims were unsourced, even though I had included sources in the body of the text. I responded to this by posting a warning on Jared23's page, in an effort to head off an edit war. Jared responded by posting comments on my pge which rubbed me the wrong way, and the whole thing escalated from there. I looked at Jared23's talk page and saw a link to an earlier admin incident log showing that he makes quite a habit of deleting things from his User:Talk page when he doesn't like them. Since he wound up deleting every one of the warnings I posted to his page, I felt somewhat incensed. It was like talking to a brick wall, you know? Like trying to reason with somebody who just flat refused to listen or even acknowledge that anything had been said at all, except for the things that he posted on my own page. He can talk, but he can't hear. At the end of the day (literally, since I'm on EDT), I suppose it shouldn't matter so much. After all, who really cares if Jared23 deletes comments from his user:talk page or not? As for my edits to the article Cracker (pejoritive), I guess it was inevitable that somebody would have deleted all or a large portion of them. Better to just accept that some of it survived in some form, and not get irritated over it. I don't need the high blood pressure anyway. Wandering Star 02:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandering Star, the earlier "admin incident" was a poor reason to get on Jasper's case. Did you research it? If not, please click on my links here. Jasper wasn't "making quite a habit of removing warnings", he was removing inappropriate warnings placed by inexperienced users, and has every right to do so. This is the previous ANI thread on the subject of Jasper23 removing warnings and getting harassed for it. This is me warning the harassing users to stop. This is one of them self-reverting the warnings and apologizing. And this is me expressing regret that Jasper seemed to have been driven away by the threats and the stress. Wandering Star, I hope you'll stick to your decision to be more Zen about these kinds of things. After all, if someone removes a warning, it means they've read it; that's good, isn't it? (And Jasper, nice to see you back, and a tip: if this issue comes up again from editors who have noticed the "admin incident" (now the two admin incidents...) but not how it panned out, you might do worse than save a link to this comment of mine, so as to be able to give any new warriors on your page the links it contains. I'm sorry to say the don't-delete-my-valuable-warning edit warring seems to become more and more common.) Bishonen | talk 07:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

Apologies in advance for the length, but it is a complicated case.

Wikipedia regularly finds itself caught in the crossfire between extremists from both the Republican and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland. Both communities use certain terms to define Northern Ireland in an area that suits their political agenda while sending a fuck you (or 'Wikipedia accepts that we are right and you are wrong') message to the other. Unionists call the place "Ulster" to claim it wasn't created by an Act of Parliament only as recently as 1920. Republicans say "Six Counties" or "Six Occupied Counties" to claim that the place's existence is invalid. Various users have spent a lot of time reverting the POV-pushing from both sides. One republican POV-pusher, Lapsed Pacifist ended up being referred (by me) to the arbcom for his republican POV-pushing behaviour. (He did a runner once referred.)

Now a Unionist POV-pusher is not merely engaging in the word games, but abusing WP processes and vandalising articles in the process. A valid term, "constituent country", is used to describe Wales, Scotland and England. It is also used by the British Government and the Unionist Community to refer to Northern Ireland, to suggest that Northern Ireland, far from being a creation of a controversial 1920s law, is an ancient country akin to Scotland and England. Nationalists and Republicans reject the term, arguing that Northern Ireland is neither a nation, a country nor a country country but merely, depending on one's politics, a region of the United Kingdom created in 1920, or part of the country of Ireland.

Because of its highly controversial and disputed nature, and because of sensitivities to the way both communities use language, it was agreed not to use the term in its descriptive sense in the Northern Ireland article. Instead a neutral, non-judgmental variant was piped, with an attached footnote explaining that unlike in Scotland, Wales and England, the term is controversial and disputed by one side, and accepted by the other, when used about Northern Ireland. A pro-Unionist editor, Setanta747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (known as Mal) has been waging a one-person campaign to ensure his community's term is used as fact rather than described as a controversy in the article. Because his POVing was constantly reverted, he has proceded to abuse Wikipedia procedures:

1. by proposing that the article on the the real, perfectly valid term "constituent country" be renamed "constituent part". This is clearly a bad faith nomination. (He then voted oppose to his own nomination!)
2. by changing the articles on those parts of the United Kingdom where the term's usage is non-controversial so that they also use the piped link to the neutral variant only needed in Northern Ireland. It is simply a stunt in his tactical battle. He wants to have people from England, Scotland and Wales endorse the term (as they correctly will) and then to stop him messing around with their articles rally to support its controversial usage in the Northern Ireland.

I am an admin but having dealt with Mal's antics repeatedly I cannot intervene to close off his ridiculous stunt renaming nomination. Nor can I sanction him for his bad faith edits here, here, here and here. Could someone else please intervene? Setanta's stunt pulling and POV-pushing has gone on long enough. Reducing one page to a mess is bad enough. (Those of us who have spent the time fighting of extremists from both sides are used to it by now. Their antics on WP are so notorious they even have been written about in Irish and British newspapers!) But taking his POV 'war' for tactical reasons to other pages is crossing a line and making a mockery of Wikipepdia. This has to be stopped.

Again, apologies for the length. It is, as I am sure you can see, complicated. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Um...why not file an RfC? It would be much more organized than listing the issue here, and it would be a lot easier for the involved parties to find. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The move nominator has since confirmed that its a bad faith nomination, not least by this dubious tag[62] applied to the term that they made the move proposal to. Djegan 06:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that User:Not a dog is a sockpuppet. It appears to me that they are "new" as of August 15, 2006. Since that time they have made well over 250 edits. They have a knowledge of WP that far exceeds that of a new editor. Their behavior patterns appear similar to recently blocked User:Ste4k. Can someone check the IP addresses of these two users and even if they are different, are they located in the same area? If not a sockpuppet of User:Ste4k are they a sockpuppet of someone else? —Who123 13:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this accusation. Not a dog 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you lay out the evidence at requests for Checkuser then they can make sure one way or the other. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the correct place to report this, but User:Edipedia has been inserting illegitimate warnings on my Talk page, and subsequently deleting comments left by other editors on my Talk page.

• Edipedia inserting illegitimate warning - [63].
• Removal of warning by another editor - [64].
• Edipedia removes comments left by other editors and re-insert illegitimate warning - [65].

--- Hong Qi Gong 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, a character called User:Achilles2006 has been popping in and out of the articles on Robert Kennedy and John F Kennedy and adding in spurious remarks and generally being a pain. I just realised someone else gave him/her a warning for being offensive. I've tried a thousand times to remind the 'contributor' (vandal, in my opinion) that this is an encyclopedia and not National Enquirer. Others are having trouble getting the person to stop adding in cutting little remarks and it's gotten to the point that others are now just reverting his/her additions. Could one of you take a moment to tell me what to do at my user page, please. I'm really at the end of my tether and would prefer he/she found another article to vandalise / use to subtly call others names. For some reason unbeknownst to me his/her current piece of enjoyment is to accuse RFK of having had affairs (no such evidence). Having been a solid contributor to both articles I am getting really fed up now. And that shouldn't be the case, I shouldn't have to keep undoing this person's foolishness. Thanks, guys.Iamlondon 00:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI posting:

17:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Put an end to this move/redirect war

[66] Can someone put an end to this move/redirect war please? Preferably by removing the participant under arbcom sanction for precisely this kind of disruption? SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have discussed this problem with an admin and neither of us were able to find guidance on:

or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) and so I have been advised to seek guidance on this issue here.

The problem arises following attempts by a Wikipedia user to seek out references to "England", "Scotland" and "Wales" and edit them to read "United Kingdom".

One example of this can be seen at Atlantic Ocean where User:Owain recently made changes including changing text:

from "Aberdeen, Scotland" to "Aberdeen, United Kingdom"; from "Liverpool, England" to "Liverpool, United Kingdom"; and from "Newport, Wales" to "Newport, United Kingdom".

I came across this change while using VP and had made no contribution to this particular article myself but reverted on the grounds that there was no problem with the original text and that the changes reflected a minority POV, and certainly did not conform to "common usage". My revert was immediately reverted by User:Owain so I issued a warning to him using VP, which he chose to delete from his home page. I therefore requested that VP admins protected the disputed page.

I believe that:

• the edit was nonsensical, totally unnecessary and politically-motivated
• the edit made the article imprecise in not giving sufficient detail to pinpoint a place by omitting the obvious (i.e. the country), and gave less information than the original edit
• to deliberately ignore the country is to disrespect the people, culture and traditions of those nations
• there have been a large number of edits to this page by many other Wikepedians, all of whom saw no problem with the identification of the country

User:Owain recently made changes the article on Lisvane by changing the text:

from "For the village in Conwy, see Llysfaen" to For the village in north Wales, see Llysfaen

Again I had made no contributions to this article but believed the edit presented a biased POV, expressed by a small number of users involved with

who attempt to wipe out, or depreciate, any references to the counties of England, Wales and Scotland which were formed following local government reorganisation in 1974 and again in 1996.

Finally User:Owain recently made several changes to the article on Aberdyfi by changing the name of the town to the anglicised version of "Aberdovey" throughout. Again I must point out that I had made no previous contributions to this article. Despite being presented with several 'reference' articles, all using the spelling "Aberdyfi", he continued to revert to the out-of-date spelling, thus flaunting the "common usage" policy. The comment he makes on his talk page "I attach absolutely no authority to the 'National Assembly'" (the elected parliament of Wales) reveals his political motives.

I believe that what we are witnessing is an attempt a small group of people to use Wikepedia to put forward a heavily-biased, right-wing, "British Nationalist" agenda, views which are rejected by the vast majority of the population as being out-of-date. I am informed by other Wikipedians that these antics have been going on since before I began contributing to Wikipedia.

If Wikepedia is to be accepted as a serious source of information then this cannot be allowed to continue and must be stopped at the highest level. Should an investigative journalist attempt to compare Wikipedia to other conventional encyclopaedias I believe that we would be totally discredited on the grounds of neutrality.

I am not a member of any political party and have no political axe to grind, in fact I treat all politicians with equal contempt!

Can we please have a definitive ruling on the convention to be used when referring to place names here? -- Maelor  19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't make 'rulings'. Open an RfC, or go to the ArbCom, if that's been tried. --InShaneee 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This thread should probably be moved to this editor's talk page with a pointer toward Wikipedia:Requests for comment. (→Netscott) 20:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

troyboysc (

20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The {{attackuser-m}} template had been repetively removed by User:Bastique after I complained about the bot removing it on irc. history Furthermore he protected the page he is revertwaring on.

I believe it is necesary to mark such accounts targeting spesific users. I have no problems with the category.

--Cat out 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected and reprotected, seems to be a lame edit war. --pgk^(talk) 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

what was the point of unprotected and reprotecting? --Cat out 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You were complaining about the protection since he was involved in the war. So I've imposed the protection instead. --pgk^(talk) 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt complaining about that. I am not a troll, dont treat me like one. I am not the kind that jots for "Admin abuse" unnecesarily. --Cat out 21:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The account can't attack anyone. It's blocked. It had no contributions. And I support the non-recognition of vandals. And it's been unprotected and reprotected by someone else, so I'm no longer involved in the admin activities portion of it, only the minor edit war. Bastique▼^parler _voir 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The account was created with the intend of intended attacking/impostoring me. Marking it as such is more than acceptable. --Cat out 21:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah... Except that you used your rollback tool and protected a page in a dispute you were involved in. (The lamest one ever.) Don't do that again. The current version is fine.

masterka

21:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The rollback tool was done before protection. The protection was placed with an edit summary. Cool Cat had already performed 3RR prior to what I did. Would you like him blocked as well? Bastique▼^parler _voir 21:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like the attackuser-m template back on that page. --Cat out 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• The template should be deleted - as should all these categories that lump together attack accounts. I've started by nominating mine
  Doc
  21:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both participants... It feels odd blocking them, but this kind of stupidity is not constructive. By the way, using rollback OR page protection in a dispute you are involved in is frowned upon.

masterka

21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked Bastique (for he is doing the right thing) and shortened Cool Cat's block to two hours (as my experience with Cool Cat is that he needs the extra tough love). Also, Bastique's use of protection was not protection abuse; it's a case of an uninformed and meddlesome user interfering with new but generally agreed-upon practices regarding how we report abusive users. Cool Cat acted rashly and without knowledge, and in so doing acted to feed the trolls. He should know better; his two hour cooling-off period will help to remind him that it is important (a) not to feed the trolls and (b) talk to others before acting. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to start deleting all these categories and pages, re-open

22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

AOL proxy block

The AOL vandal is back again: to stop them, I've temporarily blocked one of the large AOL proxy farm ranges from eiditng for 15 minutes. -- The Anome 22:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• They're not "proxy farms" that's just how AOL works, and I can't imagine that there's just the one person using AOL that you can call it "the AOL vandal". There are many, many idiots out there, and many of them use AOL. That doesn't mean however, that each act of minor vandalism is anything but that.--AOL user 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

.

He seems to be having the same problem with misplaced userpage content at the French-language Wikipedia, as fr:Utilisateur:Gencom; could anyone help him out in the same way there? -- The Anome 00:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

He is also in violation of

WP:Username for using a company name as a username and advertising. pschemp | talk

03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This material is now being reposted, both by User:Carillo and User:83.214.8.132. The MO is the same as before. Speedy deleting as advertising. -- The Anome 18:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked the originating IP for linkspamming. Perhaps someone who is an admin on fr: could take a look at these, very similar, edits: [67] -- The Anome 18:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

...and he's back again, this time as

23:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now blanked the pages and locked them against recreation, since there seems to be no other way to communicate with what appear to me to be this user's repeated efforts at advertising. The pages in question are: Laurent BOUDIC, LaLawrence, Laurent boudic and Lalawrence. -- The Anome 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This user is part of a complex blocking web and is currently requesting an unblock. I'm passing on it and am curious what the consensus of other admins is on this situation and the block. More information is here[68]. Yanksox 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin myself, but I hope my opinion is still valid. :) I wasn't aware that one had to be a certain age to edit Wikipedia, so I think blocking for that is rather odd. A checkuser filed came back inconclusive, so she's probably not the same person as S-man, as was speculated. However, she was in cahoots with S-man and his project to vandalize other Wikimedia projects. So I think that as long as S-man retains his block, Cute 1 4 u should, too, since they were blocked for the same thing. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the block was based upon speculation, but in some manners she has exhausted some of our patience with certain actions. I'm not sure if this has to do with age or the possibility of trolling(?). The whole we'll vandalise other projects was the icing on the cake for me, maybe she needs mentorship in order to better understand the project. Yanksox 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

She claimed on her talk page that she didn't vandalize, and from what I can tell on Simple Wikipedia, she's telling the truth. Maybe we should reconsider...? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

She has impersonated celebrities (see

Cowman109^Talk

21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to lessening the block, but we would also have to consider the other younger users which all seem to be connected to each other. I've been curious about how all of these different users met each other, was it through here, a colberation? I'm not sure, there has been some exhaustion of community patience. Yanksox 21:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a shorter (that is, a definite) block. We should also remember that assuming this person really is the age claimed, it seems to take longer for time to pass when you are young. That said, I'd fully support a permanent ban if there's any further problem behaviour from this user and furthermore, I explicitly agree with what Yanksox says immediately above this. We should also remind the user that Wikipedia is

not a social networking site. It's also worth noting that I am probably functioning as a hopeless optimist. --Yamla

21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(De-indenting) (edit conflict) Perhaps the Wikipedia Youth Foundation had something to do with them meeting up? They're not the same person, according to CheckUser. But I do agree, their use of Wikipedia as a social networking site was inappropriate. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser was inconculsive, not definitive, we don't know wheter or not they are related. Yanksox 21:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you suppose a checkuser should be filed with just S-man and Cute 1 4 u? The others in the first one may have thrown it off... --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You can try it, I'm don't know how any checkuser will respond. Yanksox 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

((edit conflict)) Here I go again, butting in even though I'm not an admin. I saw all the ruckus on Cute's talk page and have to voice my opinion. From what I can gather, she never vandalized or intended to vandalize an article, project, category, template, etc., on Wikipedia. In light of this, and being

WP:BOLD, my suggestion is: block for a short period of time (1 week, perhaps), indefblock her from the other project that she intended to vandalize, and set her up with a mentor (I'll volunteer). Srose (talk)

21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. I don't think she has bad intentions, but merely age-related ignorance. I think mentorship would be a very good alternative to an indefblock - it's worked in the past. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this, it's a much better idea than the block alone in my opinion. I also support this for any other user blocked under these terms provided a mentor volunteers (please don't look at me, I'm not good at this sort of thing, though I'll chip in from time to time). I doubt we need anything particularly official set up. We probably need to run this past the original blocking admin, mind you. --Yamla 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've notified The Anome. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that no one set themselves up as "internet mentors" for eleven year old children named "Cute 1 4 u" without discussing the matter privately with the WF. Jkelly 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst well-intentioned, this would be worse that the original problem. Children should only be supervised by their parents or other legal guardians, not random strangers from the Internet, no matter how well-intentioned. I also agree that this issue should referred to the Wikimedia Foundation. -- The Anome 21:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on my part as well. I hadn't thought of the unpleasant legal circumstances. Srose (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. Aren't the servers in the US and under US law? Aren't all users required to be 13 years old unless they provide signed consent from their parents? I know

17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We should get an answer from the Foundation once and for all about how old you have to be to edit Wikipedia, and therefore interact with other users. I do not think mentorship has to be anything other than communicating through talk pages, so I do not see why anything special would have to be done for it. Some people want all those under 18 or 21 excluded (from comments on the Village Pump), but I doubt that is going to happen. Blocking those that admit to be under 13 would be the most extreme thing I see the Foundation doing. Although, there is the problem of a person who is too young editing through a shared IP with lots of people on it, a dynamic IP or ultradynamic IP (an IP that changes with every page load). Also, there are school IPs that have people with a wide range of ages editing on them, from elementary students, to high school students and faculty. -- Kjkolb 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what the foundation says, if there is law in place wikipedia will need to comply with it at a minimum so working from that is a starting spot. I'm not an American but I often see mention of it on sites hosted in the US, but I don't know the specifics of the law, if anyone has them handy it would be a launching point for a decision.--

Crossmr

18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is what I mean. We would ask the Foundation and they would ask their legal counsel. -- Kjkolb 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the world's leading expert on this but I believe this 13-years-old thing only applies if the site wishes to collect personal information from the user (name, age, location, etc). Wikipedia asks for none of that so there's no problem. --

Steel

18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I found it here [69]. Personally I'm not sure how wikipedia falls under this. We don't necessarily demand personal info to use the site, but on the other hand, we're aware that we do have it (especially if this user can be e-mailed, than we do indeed have their e-mail and fall under coppa).--

Crossmr

18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Age question aside, blocks should be preventative rather than punitive. If she's learned her lesson about sockpuppets, then I think she should get another chance. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The age question is sort of central here. If I interpret coppa one way, she should be blocked indef until we have consent on hand from her parents that she's allowed to edit here.--

Crossmr

20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, shouldn't she only be blocked until she's 18? =) Powers ^T 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Till she's 13 actually, so 2 years. Which would probably end up being indef as its unlikely they'd return to that account after 2 years.--

Crossmr

23:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this discussion to User:BradPatrick. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should be clear on the law so our policy is consistent with it. In the future, we may also want to post some suggestions to all young users when we notice them (Don't post your name, address, and other personal information. Don't upload personal pictures, etc...), sometimes the user is just not thinking of the potential consequences of being too open. NoSeptember 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a template is in order? {{younguser}} or something like that?--

Crossmr

23:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's just be careful with the templates; make sure they're not too obvious... I don't think Wikipedia is pedophile-free. (No site on the Internet is anymore.) Srose (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer a more general securityreminder welcome which mentions this. There are three benefits: First, it would be flexible enough to be used with people who just post a lot of personal info regardless of age. Second, it would not work as a flag to pedophiles. Third, users given the template will be less likely to be offended by it. JoshuaZ 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, we can work with that regardless of what happens in this situation. I still think we need to address the issue of Coppa though.--

Crossmr

02:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

removed unhelpful speculation Jkelly 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that User:BradPatrick has been informed of this issue, we can wait for direction from the Foundation, and publishing further speculation here is unlikely to be helpful. Jkelly 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, folks, could some explain what is meant by "coppa" here? It seems to be a central issue, yet no explanation is given, no links provided, and there is no WP:COPPA. It seems to be related to underage children registering on websites with parental consent, but I haven't been able to find any Wikipedia policy on this issue. This is an important issue at en:Wikiquote, where q:User:Cute 1 4 u is an active editor and has even requested adminship (which I can say rather certainly will not happen). But I apparently need some pointers to critical info. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC), en:Wikiquote admin

COPA is the Child Online Protection Act - a law in the United States that forbids the collection of information online from minors under the age of 13. — Werdna talk criticism 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Child Online Protection Act --kingboyk 09:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), not Child Online Protection Act (COPA). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 10:02Z

Thanks! Do you have any links to any policy or discussions within the Wikimedia Foundation or its projects that pertain to how to protect both underage editors and the Foundation itself? For example, how are we supposed to confirm parental consent, when our editors are anonymous, even if they claim to be so-and-so? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Unfortunately, I didn't see anything in the article or the FTC external link "How to Comply With The Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule" that covers Wikimedia's situation. We don't collect, let alone distribute, any personal information other than an optional email. The real problem is that children (and quite a few adults, too, but they're on their own) are often unwise enough to post all sorts of personal information about themselves. (I could write a few paragraphs of bio about "Cute 1 4 u" based on the info she's provided on WP, WQ, and linked sites, which would scare the hell out of me if I were her parent.) This is not information we collect, so it doesn't seem to be covered. Nor is it clear how Wikipedia could obtain "verifiable parental consent" when we don't even really know who the editors in question are. (All that bio info could be made up; "Cute" could be a 35-year-old male, for all we know.) Surely somewhere in Wikidom there is a discussion going on about how we address, or are planning to address, this issue? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As to the point I made above and COPPA it doesn't require that you intentionally collect the information, but if you know that it has been provided i.e. someone admits to being under 13 and they've entered their e-mail address in their account, then you've violated COPPA. A site could be COPPA compliant and then 5 minutes later not be because an under age individual has shown up and entered their e-mail without parental consent. In order to remain compliant you have to either remove the individual's account or get parental permission.--

Crossmr

18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm a Wikiquote admin. I have reason to believe Cute is 11. Does Wikiquote have her email address? I can't query the database to find out. I could try to email her, but I will only know if she has one if she responds. If she doesn't, I still don't know. Assuming that Wikiquote is violating COPPA by allowing her personal information (unrequested, but on her user page) to be displayed, who do I contact to get permission? Do I become a stalker to track down her last name and address, then write a letter to her parents? Or do I remove this information, ask her not to repost it, and block her from editing if she doesn't provide a means to confirm consent? If she does this last, how do I know it's legit? We're probably not talking about kids scrawling poorly forged signatures from their parents about being unable to do their homework. These and many other questions and their consequences must be addressed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Where is this discussion taking place? As an active admin on a WMF project, with this likely underage editor currently causing concern on WP, WQ, and possibly other projects, I would like to join this discussion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I am really concerned about the situation now. Maybe we should create a new policy that prohibits displaying personal info on a userpage. As said somewhere above, no website is safe. There could be a pedophile anywhere in Wikimedia.--

talk c E

02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Practical suggestion

Have a policy that "No one identifiable as under-18 may have a user id on Wikipedia". This doesn't mean no under-18s can edit, or even have user pages, just that if it is possible to identify them as youngsters - what a paedophile will be looking for - then the account is immediately blocked. This is one occasion when opening another account would be perfectly OK - as long as again there is no way to determine the age of the user.

The "identifiable as under-18" criterion could be very broad: photos, mention of school, link to MySpace site with info... Anything. And it should be made clear that these measures are not punitive to the user - they are entirely protective.

There is still the issue of potential abusers sending out speculative emails to users hoping are young. But some of these emails will end up going to older folk, which will then be an indicator of who might be dodgy.

Will require policing, but may be lightweight in comparison to other solutions. Dunno how any of this will interact with the legal requirements: as said above, let's wait on what Brad says. JackyR | Talk 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this should be a matter for the Foundation and it's lawyers? Sometimes guidance has to come from up above. We're just unpaid volunteers and not (in the main) legal experts. --kingboyk 15:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is up to the Foundation. We must be secure and protective to all young Wikipedians. But maybe we shouldn't be too harsh yet. If we make this new policy, all userpages, including subpages, will be reviewed by an admin. If there is info that could pinpoint the exact location of a user, the content in question will be blanked. If the user puts it back, then we tell the user it is for their own protection. If it happens again, the user will be blocked.

I don't see the need of under-18, under 13 is what the law requires. By sticking to that we're not placing any subjective criteria on a user that would require judgement. Anyone under 13 who identifies themselves as such should be blocked until they turn 13 (without asking for birthdays, if they identify as 11, block for 2 years). --

Crossmr

18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I also recommend that we have a special page for dealing with harassment. That way, if a young user is contacted by a pedophile, then we can take immediate action. Also, having a centralized page for complaints and reports could make it easier for local police to view all of the incidents and take action. Note: I am not an admin.--

15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have an opportunity here to deal with two problems at the same time. The second problem I'm seeing is the increasing usage of this site as a social network, especially by under 18s. They have a few minor edits here and there to fairly trivial articles, but mostly a stack of userboxes and a talk page bursting with chat from other under 18s. Why don't we simply:

• Delete and prohibit all user boxes which state the user's age or year of birth (birthdays are fine, just no year)
• Delete all Wikipedians by age categories
• Automatically block anyone who states their age if it's under x, and block them until birthday x, per
  Crossmr
  .
• Strongly discourage users from revealing their age if under 18, because it detracts from our encyclopedic purpose (and will lead some people to discriminate against them too, I might add).

If these ideas, or a variation thereof, are thought workable perhaps we could put up a policy proposal page somewhere. --kingboyk 09:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a policy proposal already at

Thatcher131 (talk)

17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.

I've blocked Bethicalyna (talk · contribs) who seems to be here only to chat and play jokes, and who has had some interraction with cute 1. I will review if an unblock is requested. --kingboyk 07:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate

Please edit the draft of

13:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If the discussion was moved, what happened to some of the old comments in this thread at AN/I? I can't find some of them on that page. Kasreyn 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of a comment left on my talk page by another user concerning my addition of {{

to assume that these users are all sockpuppets, it could be that Kmaguir1 is just now an AFD browser, and not creating sockpuppets to list AFDs. These are just the AFD hits, none of the stubs that he prodded.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Yee (second nomination) (article created by LotLE×talk
  )
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphael Samuel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymundo Baltazar This will be deleted!!-Kmaguir1 08:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Martelli (article created by LotLE×talk)
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_August_27#Category:Nominalist Wikipedians (category created by LotLE×talk)

--Ryūlóng 06:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and then there are these off color comments at the AFDs [70] and [71] and possibly [72] at the discussion about him. Ryūlóng 07:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Worse still, IMO, is Kmaguir1's gratuitous insult about Danny Yee's appearance: [73]. Yee happens to be a Wikipedian himself, but he has not been involved at all in the AfD of the article about him, nor in any of the other issues with Kmaguir1. I think Kmaguir1 feels somehow that insulting Yee's appearance is a way of attacking me for adding the image to the biography. LotLE×talk 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the comments alleged by Ryulong were even close to off color, none were personal attacks, so no problem. And I say that adding the picture was deranged--not the subject in the picture that was added. If Lulu could read well, she may well have noticed that. Furthermore, I object to lulu and ryulong and anthony krupp consistently running to admins every time they have a problem, and unjustifiably so everytime. They misrepresent and misrepresent and no longer have any objectivity on the issues. I am, as Ryulong states, a bit of an AFD browser. I like it because it's one of the easier ways to get rid of much of pointless drivel that haunts Wikipedia, without actually engaging in edits. And yes, I am a hard deletionist--but not harder than some of the people I've seen on that page. And i don't know how sockpuppetry has been alleged--I'm the one putting up all the deletions, articles which I pick either from the "random article" box or I just look at names I don't know that have been up before, or just look small and insignificant. It's time for Lulu and the rest to just be quiet and go about their business on wikipedia with a dignity that has so far not embodied them.-Kmaguir1 08:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1's characterization that I run to an admin etc. is false. His allegations of my misrepresenting lack evidence, and I would challenge him to provide them, by pointing to actual diffs, if I were not tired of disruptions. I think his AfD browsing is fine, even if it began in a meanspirited way (trolling Lulu's page creations). I joined him in one of the delete votes, objected on others, was silent on yet others. I say all of this to address his slander, above. I find his advice to be quiet and go about the business of editing to be excellent, and hope he takes it as well. Finally: I think his lack of respect for

WP:CONSENSUS is more of a reason for an Admin to look into his edits. See bell hooks and its talk page for a case in point. He has yet to answer specific questions I've posed to him regarding criticisms of hooks, ones I'm willing to have included. I'm willing to play ball; I haven't seen that he is.--Anthony Krupp

15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. On his Talk page, commenting on his former meatpuppet friend being able to edit under a new user name, he wrote: "May he edit long and edit well. And may all of y'all go to he-Kmaguir1's restaurant, Tuesday night happy hour from 6-7." Perhaps an administrator can determine whether this is incivil.--Anthony Krupp 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you called me satan. I don't know how it gets more incivil than that.-Kmaguir1 18:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1's argument now seems to be that my allegedly bad behaviour excuses his. Not valid. Regarding my behavior, anyone is free to see on my Talk page that I compared Kmaguir1 to the 'ha-satan' figure ("the adversary") of the book of Job. This is not the Christian Satan, but is rather a prosecuting attorney against mankind in the heavenly court of God. That is, this figure works for God. In Goethe's Faust, the sense is that the 'satan' figure wants to disrupt but ends up doing good (i.e., God's work). In short: I made this religious history/literary reference in the context of saying that some of Kmaguir1's disruptions have actually resulted in others improving several articles in question. If any administrator regards my conversation as incivil, kindly let me know and I will take steps to make amends. But don't let Kmaguir1 throw a smoke screen over his own behaviour, which has exhausted community patience. (See comments here and elsewhere by Ryūlóng, LotLE, csloat, inter alia.)--Anthony Krupp 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the differences in the text of the Torah with respect to the way Satan is conceived and the way the devil is thought of in the New Testament. However, I happen to be a Christian, so I see them as consistent and part of God's plan and part of His inerrant Word. And regardless, it's always, without exception, a personal attack to compare someone to Satan, regardless of your historical hoop-di-doo. It was extremely unwise, and it will be yourself who opened yourself to criticism about it, not I.-Kmaguir1 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir's edits to Bell hooks have consistently ignored consensus and have been in explicit violation of WP:BLP policies, which he has been reminded of over and over. Instead of engaging in talk, he simply keeps adding the disputed material to the article once a day, when it is quickly reverted. It is taking up time from Wikipedia users who could better spend that time improving articles.--csloat 18:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• pm_shef
  14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that these IPs are probably socks. However, there is not much more to do with this specific incident. JC/VW gets new IPs at the drop of a hat and/or uses open proxies. So, blocking these IPs won't add too much to the vandal fighing. -- JamesTeterenko 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Threats can be found on User talk:84.195.124.111

User refactored

18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the talk page and warned the user. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The user persists in edit-warring to refactor the talkpage. [74] [75] [76] The user doesn't seem to understand why he can't do this. Will somebody please talk to him again?--Rosicrucian 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for three hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User has been warned by several admins, had it explained to him that he does not "own" the content he posts on article talkpages, and is still blanking out his comments on the article talkpage asking us to archive the page early just to suit his wounded pride. [77]--Rosicrucian 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm reporting personal attacks made by user Toira (talk · contribs), see [78].

Toira has a history of making incivil comments towards others on the Zinedine Zidane talk page, [79] [80]. Those who have participated in the discussion including myself have pretty much let those personal attacks slide, and one (of my knowledge) has asked him to calm down [81]. But as it seems this person has no interest in talking in a civilized discussion and is not willing to heed advice, what is the proper way to deal with such users? --Inahet 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How long does it take for an admin to answer a simple inquiry on this board? Sheesh! Ignore the above request, I placed a warning on toira's talk page. If personal attacks persist, I guess I'll take it up on the right board. --Inahet 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that while this kind of thing may seem urgent to you, there are many other urgent issues which require the immediate attention of administrators. Think of this page (and all related pages listed at the top) like an emergency room, where each issue is triaged and a determination is made about which issues need response NOW versus those which can wait a few hours. Placing a warning on his talk page was the correct thing to do, and doesn't require an administrator to do it.

If you think someone has made a

joe

16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Jon_Awbrey has moved Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to Wikipedia:WikiCaviling, on the grounds that he claims the original title is defamatory to lawyers. However, politically-incorrect or not, "Wikilawyering" is the actual terminology that has been in use on this site's discussion areas; "WikiCaviling" is an ugly neologism with no support that I know of. Page titles should reflect actual usage instead of attempting to impose political correctness. *Dan T.* 18:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey appears not to wish to bother with such apparent wastes of time as bothering to convince others he has a point before embarking on move revert-wars. I've locked

Wikipedia:WikiLawyering against such moves and suggest others check other places he may have been hard at work for similar activity, with a 24-hour block IMO being appropriate should he have been working hard enough at his quest to warrant serious admin consideration that he's been sorely disruptive - David Gerard

19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Jon for 24 hours for fairly egregious trolling not only in the page move itself, but also the accompanying comments on the Wikilawyering talk page. Gwernol 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

He'd disrupted

WP:SR. FeloniousMonk

19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've unlocked

Wikipedia:WikiLawyering, but the close attention of others in 24 hours when Jon's block is up would be a good idea - David Gerard

20:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking over his recent contributions to his talk page, he's clearly trolling others there, I'm concerned about disruption when his block comes off. FeloniousMonk 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I share that concern. I'm sure there will be several eyes on John for some time to come. If he returns to his trolling behavior he should expect longer periods in his bijou prison cell. Gwernol 02:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Jon do anything besides trolling? I killfiled him on the mailing list ages ago. Just zis Guy you know? 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiLawyering - um, yeah. I won't speedy-keep this, but I really think someone else should. Speedy-keeping this is entirely apposite process IMO - David Gerard 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And fresh off his 24 hr block for disruptive page moves for the same article? I'll do it. He's exhausted the community's patience with this. FeloniousMonk 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Slowpoke. I will lengthen his vacation to 48, however, for repeat offenses.

Phil Sandifer

22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You've got to be quick around here... FeloniousMonk 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have given him a brief block for disruption. I have no objection to longer. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Exists now, just thought I'd let you know. Happy editing--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Testing..1.2.3.. 12.34.56.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).--Andeh 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know this user has been blocked from editing Wiktionary as he was a sockpuppet of the guy who deleted the Wiktionary Main Page. Should he not be blocked here too? Just FYI 86.41.133.9 00:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. So long as a user is making useful edits and not consistently breaking Wikipedia policies, he's welcome on Wikipedia. Blocks are preventative, not punitive measures. I don't like this user's contribution patterns... but nothing particularly out of order jumps out. Captainktainer * Talk 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Camroarty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Htanzler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to make similar edits to the Charlie Crist page to banned user Tywright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), removing key information from the page on his stances, an admin needs to look into this. --CFIF ☎ 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone check Opemans contribution history [82], I have a suspicion that their edits are recreations of deleted content.

00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the deletion log: [83] [84]. What exactly is the basis for your suspicions? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Found it - see [85] - I don't know if this stuff counts as recreation of that article, but should be checked.

exolon

02:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't view deleted pages, unfortunately. However, from what was mentioned in the AfD, M7 MBA Business School seems like a repost of M7 (business school). I would like an admin to view the deleted page to make sure it's substantially similar, though. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, I remember this as a noob back in February. The old Afd is here:

Thatcher131 (talk)

04:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Still two of his contributions left, probably need deleting as well.

exolon

18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The aforementioned user has been engaged in a pretty contained (3 articles) but unending edit war on

02:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Put it in the title but forgot to mention it here, his contribs also show some knowledge of policy, and him gaming it, with 4 reverts spaced out over slightly longer then 24 hours the 23rd/24th on

M^ask

02:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a rather long discussion with this user through email in May over this kind of edits, and she promised to try and behave. Apparently she's resumed the same behaviour since. I also warned her about 3RR on her talk page, which may explain the 3RR gaming. As far as I'm concerned, she has no useful contributions at all, and since she's been nothing but disruptive for several months, I'd recommend an indefinite block. - ulayiti (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

02:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

KRBN (talk • contribs) has had a pattern of nominating articles and categories for deletion while simultaneously blanking the articles/categories. A few admins requested that he stop blanking and in addition that he familiarize himself with the criteria for speedy deletion, as a number of his nominated articles did assert notability.

A review of his edits showed some

.

In good faith, a number of admins and editors have pointed out policies and guidelines.

He left a slightly cryptic query on my talk page. I replied to him on his talk page, quoting his comments. At the time, I reviewed some of his interim edits and found that he continues with the same edit pattern, which he has been warned is considered to be vandalism.

My initial inclination was to block him from editing. However, I would appreciate review by an admin (or two). Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin) But would support a block, if they've been warned countless times and still their actions don't appear to change, then the last resort is to have a short block (12/24hr?). And leave a clear statement on the users talk page of why they were blocked (not just the usual {{test5}}.--Andeh 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Await his next move. You've now given him a detailed explanation together with a clear warning. Let's see whether he takes it on board. It looks to me as if he is genuinely confused about our processes. We have to give him some chance to understand explanations. Sure, if he continues with the practice of blanking articles at the same time as he nominates them for speedy deletion, he can be given a substantial block. Metamagician3000 12:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has put "Child Porn" a bunch of times on some history pages. Check it out here. I not sure if you can edit it or not but I thought I'd mention it. -

09:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

fixed. pschemp | talk 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Zenguru (

which was removed by me. But after that he kept on putting the matter back.

His violation of

.

Note that this is not an edit war. Since various different users have removed the matter many times. But Zenguru does it again and again. Also, the matter is highly sensitive as Shivaji is respected and followed by many in Maharashtra. Also the user is trying to force his view on the history. As it is said, if a lie is repeated many times it is believed to be truth.

After I warned him the second time, he now doesn't use his username but without logging in he makes the changes. The IP address is 203.145.159.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Here they are - diff8 and diff9.

Note that he has now changed some of the matter and he has removed a few objectionable matter esp. "But Maharaj invite a young prist from Varanasi named GagaBhatta for Coronation ritual and he agreed to do so because of heavy offering and proof which says Maharaj was belong to kshtrya kula (Sisodiya)". This false information was not put in by the IP address, seemingly to confuse us. Also check out his other edits to Jesse Glover. The IP address mentioned was blocked a few times as well.

--NRS^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 09:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the above diffs show him exceeding 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. I note that Zenguru is also adding print references for his claims, which are removed every time the coronation paragraph is taken out. Confessing my complete lack of knowledge on this subject, I would like to know why you think the references are unreliable (especially the one Zenguru says is "published by the Maharastra State Government"). Andrew Levine 09:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, not in 24 hrs but he is reverting back anyway. The links he claims as references are [{Dalitstan]]-affiliated websites and/or Independent Research organizations. However, I must say that the universally accepted version od Shivaji's history is that he was a

is not for these things.

Anyway, if you feel that my argument isn't powerful enough, then it's alright. Let Wikipedia be filled with false information. As you would have noticed, I have stopped reverting the accused user's edits to "Shivaji" article now. See the current revision. If false information can so easily be fed into Wikipedia then what's the use of editing it. Isn't it ?

--NRS^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 10:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to let disinformation perpetuate in Wikipedia, I just want to understand the background information underlying this issue so I can come to a better understanding. Does Zenguru misrepresent the reference "Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar writings and Speeches volume 7 chapter 10, page no.156- 185 published by Maharastra State Government"? Or is Ambedkar considered an unreliable source, and if so, why? Andrew Levine 10:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As it is, from the reference title itself, we can understand. The problem here is not whether Ambedkar is a reliable source or not. The thing is whether what Ambedkar wrote about Shivaji is reliable or not. When Ambedkar wrote the thing, he wrote it as pure speculation. Also, it was a charged atmosphere. And Ambedkar being a recent convert to Buddhism had a reason to write it. The so-called lower castes shudras were ill-treated by Brahmins and he had a reason to attack Brahmins in his writings. But then, everything he wrote doesn't become the truth because of that. Then why doesn't everyone feed the articles about Hinduism, that Ambedkar wrote, into Wikipedia. That's because it cant be put, first because it is derogatory and secondly, it is false and was written in a fit of anger. That's because Babasaheb wrote it in anger and a feeling of revenge. Lest you may think otherwise, I must tell you, that I have utmost respect for Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. But just because he was Great, doesn't mean every word from his pen is the truth.

--NRS^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 11:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then couldn't the article include the information Zenguru is adding, but point out that it is based entirely on potentially damaging charges made by Dalitstan supporters and strong activists for certain castes? That is, rewording Zenguru's contributions to say something like "Some people affiliated with such-and-such movements, as well as Dr. B. R. Ambedkar shortly after his conversion to Buddhism, have speculated that not everyone at the time accepted Shivaji's coronation... (and so on) ... However, these highly charged claims have been challenged by historians like so-and-so, who say that..." This is how we normally present controversial and potentially injurious allegations made by notable groups and individuals in Wikipedia. Rather than call it the truth, we point out who's making the accusations. I trust that users like you with much better knowledge in the subject than mine are up to the task of fitting such a wording into the article. Andrew Levine 11:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks. Please take a peek at

12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good faith attempt at refactoring the page - whether or not it was the wisest possible move - and the user concerned seems to be in good repute. You may be in the right here, but does it matter awfully? I suggest you simply be big enough to let it go (and the same applies to everyone else who has been wounded by what happened). If you do that, why should the dispute escalate? None of the material that has been deleted is a great loss in my opinion. Really, everyone who got involved in this debate over the past few day needs to take a step back and a few deep breaths. A policy is needed for next time, and we all need to think calmly about what it should be, but endless arguments about who was "right" and who was "wrong" are not useful. Metamagician3000 13:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I believe however that the comments should stand and users not refactor selective sections of the debate (and obfuscate their meaning) - especially those of an opposing POV. . I won't escalate in either case, but let's leave the discussion intact. I'm not upset, just want the dialogue preserved and the meaning intact. And I appreciate it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd favour leaving the comments as is. Archive it if necessary (although it eems already like an archive) or provide a summary but it may be best to leave comments alone. I typically feel that way, by the way. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, my first ANI post, how exciting :-). In all seriousness, I did my utmost to make sure that the comments I deleted had no relevance to the situation. It is somewhat common practice to refactor discussions such as that, if they have descended into bickering, which they seemed to have. As the other user in the debate's block log, and back and forth accusations of bullying had little to nothing to do with the discussion, I removed them in order to keep the debate on-topic, or to move it back. I won't re-remove them, as it seems to have been contentious in some manner. — Werdna talk criticism 22:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lkinkade (talk · contribs) has been splitting out any and all Disney-related information from articles on the Winnie-the-Pooh characters. These are major changes that Lkinkade did not discuss beforehand, instead declaring "I am currently working on separating out all of the A. A. Milne characters from their more recent animated versions. The information about the original character was difficult too distinguish from the Disney character and attempts to use the article to find out about the original character were being foiled." [88] Worse, the changes are being made poorly -- the new articles have titles like Disney representation of the Milne character "Eeyore", and the old articles have no links to the new ones, resulting in the appearance of censoring Disney-related content from these articles, rather than a good-faith article split (although I am assuming good faith that the user is just unaware of good-practice rather than actively trying to hide the Disney-related content). I've asked him to stop but I wanted to put this notice up so that other editors are aware and can keep an eye on things. I also have no idea how to go about fixing this. Thanks for any help. Powers ^T 14:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to steal Lee's thunder on this one, but these changes were the result of a complaint regarding the content of

Piglet. A broader investigation disclosed that most of the articles on the A. A. Milne characters suffered the same defects: a total lack of references, and a concentration on Disney's representation over the A. A. Milne originals. Disney's representations of classic literature, in many cases, are so divergent from the originals that they really deserve separate coverage, and furthermore the gross popularity and greater recent exposure of the Disney content tends to result in the originals being overwhelmed. An example of how far this goes was on Quasimodo

, where a "fair use" screenshot of Disney's version was used to illustrate the article even though there are public domain illustrations in the original 1831 novel, and there may also be public domain material from the first Lon Cheney film as well. However, the editors of this article elected to use Disney's version -- which is not free by any means, and is also very unrepresentative of depictions of Quasimodo, being far less grotesque than virtually any other depiction in history -- instead of available free content. I suspect that these articles are being dominated by Disneyphiles, and as a result they are skewing these articles away from NPOV. This action benefits Wikipedia both by sequestering articles which are likely to attract the use of unlicensed media and by presenting a fuller, more complete examination of characters which have effectively led a "double life" (one as they were originally conceptualized by their original creators, and another as they have been reimagined by Disney). I think it a good thing that our readers are made aware that the Disney versions are not all that exists of these classics.

Finally, this is not really an appropriate issue for the Administrator's Noticeboard. That you ran here first over what is merely a content dispute suggests that you are attempting to strongarm Lee into backing down on this issue. Powers, I think you need to back off here and contemplate whether you are attempting to support a Disney-friendly POV on these articles. By my eyes, before Lee worked on them, they were very strongly Disney-friendly and certainly not neutral. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not really something for AN/I, although Powers did seem to want editorial attention more than administrative attention, and said "I also have no idea how to go about fixing this" so I'll assume he didn't intend to "strongarm". Take this away to the talk page, although you can ask for administrative assistance later if there are things like ugly redirects to clean up, or if

dispute resolution

breaks down.

To offer an editorial opinion, the treatment of the characters as they appear in Milne can certainly be improved, though it's quite clear that a separate article is not necessary; rather have two top level headings, one "In Milne" and the other "In Disney" (or words to similar effect) to distinguish the content. --

talk

) 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree AN is not the best place for it, but there is no single talk page on which to discuss this. I suppose I am trying to "strongarm" a bit, but only insofar as I'm trying to get him to discuss these changes before making them wholesale across the board. There's also the issue of the completely non-encyclopedic new article titles, and the complete lack of any cross-referencing between them. This looked for all the world like a situation that would only get worse if allowed to continue, and I wanted to enlist some help in reining it in until a consensus can be reached. I'd appreciate a little more assumption of good faith, Kelly. Powers ^T 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record, I did not "come here first". I posted on Lkinkade's talk page first, then came here to make sure other editors were aware of it. I apologize that I don't have

Talk:Piglet (Winnie the Pooh) on my watchlist and so missed the discussion that apparently affects all Milne articles, but I maintain this is something that should not be done without broader discussion. Powers ^T

16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "

Be bold"? And I've been reviewing your edit history; you're a Disneyphile, and I suspect that you're trying to push a pro-Disney POV. So I question your neutrality. Kelly Martin (talk

) 16:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, how can I argue against that? I have maybe 20 Disney-related articles on my watchlist; if that's evidence for bias, then I guess I'm guilty. If you'd look at the actual edits, instead of just the titles, maybe you'd notice that I am not exactly a rampant pro-Disney POV pusher. I really don't appreciate this when all I'm trying to do is raise an alert to what looked to me like potentially destructive behavior. Yes, we want users to be bold, but this looked like something that would take a lot of effort to untangle, should consensus be against the split, and should be discussed first. If this split can be done correctly, I may not even have a problem with it, but the way it's being done seems reckless. Powers ^T 16:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a strange sense of "reckless", then. Oh, and the reason I said you came here first? You posted a rather irate comment on Lee's talk page, then posted here SIX MINUTES later (during which time Lee made no other edits) without first discussing the issue on any article talk page or in fact anywhere else at all. AN/I is not the place for just-started content disputes, no matter how "reckless" you think they are. (And reverting changes like the ones Lee made is actually very easy, your histrionic defense of your preferred version of these articles notwithstanding.) The tone of your second message on Lee's talk page was "I'm going to sic the administrators on you because you're being bad"; it came across to me as an attempt at intimidation. If that was not your intent, perhaps you need to be more careful in how you phrase your messages. Your conduct definitely "fanned the flames" rather than calming them. If I had to guess, from examining your conduct, I'd say that you were very emotionally upset because someone altered your preferred version of one of your favorite articles. That stinks of

article ownership and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. You don't get to own articles here, and you don't get to be the defender of the "consensus version", and even more so when it's a consensus of like-minded people (which I suspect is the case here). Reading through the article's talk page, I don't see much evidence of a significant debate toward consensus, except for one episode where you argued vehemently toward favoring Disney's representation over all others. More evidence toward the conclusion that you're biasing the article in Disney's favor. I really do think you're letting your personal affinity for the Disney franchise cloud your judgment here, and that you really should back away from this issue. Kelly Martin (talk

) 16:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly is correct - reverting many of those changes was reasonably trivial and required no adminstrative intervention, and Kelly was also correct that you are being overly protective of your preferred version. I know nothing, nor care at all, about the reputed contravercy over ownership, but I will help all parties in interest craft well worded articles at the names of the characters, without the creation of POV forks, that describe all of the relevent positions on who exactly Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore and Tigger are. I would support blanking this section of AN/I, and was considering doing it myself. JBKramer 17:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the impression that I'm being overly protective of "my preferred version". Winnie-the-Pooh is in no sense "one of my favorite articles;" I think it's bloated, overly long, and attempts to discuss both the franchise and the character without fully succeeding at both. I fully support any effort to improve the quality of the article, but the way this split was done appeared hasty and ill-advised. I also apologize for posting this discussion here; as I've already said, it was not the most appropriate place, but likewise I didn't know where else to discuss it (since more than just one article was affected). Despite appearances, I can only offer my sincere assurances that this was not an attempt to protect a favored version, nor to unreasonably promote a pro-Disney POV. I can't prove it, since it's impossible to prove a negative, so I can only offer the record of my contributions and disucssions as evidence of my sincerity. Powers ^T 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, if there is a need for separate articles about the Disney versions of the characters, they should be named in the standard Wikipedia disambiguated way, like "Winnie-the-pooh (Disney character)", instead of the clumsy names that are being used now. *Dan T.* 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Note AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winnie The Pooh (Disney). Powers ^T 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I request that the following IP address's are banned from Wikipedia. The IP address's are similar, and by looking at the changes made (as they are the exact same style of changes to the same articles) you will see that they both belong to the same person. By looking at the first of the two Ips, you will see that this person has received about four warnings in just one day. I have warned him again in the second IP address, but his constant edits are relentless. Please ban him.

The IP address's are as follows:

216.254.223.100 (Contributions done by him are here)

216.254.223.195 (Contributions done by him are here)

The Haunted Angel 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User SoftPale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is probably a sock of SoftPaleColors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His first edit was to go to an open ArbCom case and to make a statement confessing that he was indef blocked: [89]

So I'm just reporting it here. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 (talk)

21:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

He claims that he mailed the arbcom and no one has unblocked him, but maybe they haven't had time to look it over. SoftPale is a sock of SoftPaleColors though and has admitted this to be the case.--MONGO 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support unblocking. I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to support Mongo's conclusion. JoshuaZ 21:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

SoftPale (talk · contribs) has one edit...[90] [91]. I blocked this person when they were using their other account, namely SoftPaleColors (talk · contribs) after they showed up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite and posted this personal attack...having not made a single edit in the six months prior to that edit. This editor only had 15 edits total prior to the posting at that Rfc and now posting as SoftPale (talk · contribs) has stated, " I also from emailing the arbitrators, that they are completely biased in favor of administrators. Only one even answered and that person was fully biased against me because I am a lurker here, refusing to put my statement here." which I take to mean that they haven't been unblocked after emailing arbcom [92].--MONGO 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Only one even answered" refers to the fact that he posted {{

Thatcher131 (talk)

21:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pgk was probably responding to the unblock request so unless arcom wishes to unblock him, I would prefer that this sleeper account remain blocked.--MONGO 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if there is a Sri Lankan admin or editor, or an admin or editor who speaks Sri Lankan I could use their help in communicating with

19:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Edit - the user seems well intentioned, but seems to lack knowledge of our policies, specifically Deletion and Copyright.
  exolon
  19:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This IP address has made between 100-250 edits since January of this year. A sampling of these edits show that about half of the edits are page blanking vandalism, while another set seem to be legitimate. Turns out this IP address belongs to Aurora Public Schools (below is the ARIN print out). Probably this is some kid using his/her school IP to vandalize wikipedia pages. Since I have no idea how to deal with this kind of vandalism/IP situation I am reporting it here. --Metatree 20:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to replace the whois listing (which wasn't formatted right anyway) with this link

Thatcher131 (talk)

21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to consider blocking the following IP: 67.66.203.21, for adding dubious information to the Lex Luger and Dennis Stamp articles. Here's the evidence:

[93]

Duo02 *Shout here!** 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has posted quite a few personal attacks here: [[94]]. He doesn't sign his posts much, thinking that will make him safe. This needs to end. He has been told about personal attacks, but continues to attack people because of how a page is edited (and it's not edited to his liking, so he attacks people). It's also notable, that he has done personal attacks in the past as well. RobJ1981 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rob pretty much said it all, but Killwsitch has made personal attacks even after being told to stop and gets upset if people edit a page and he doesn't agree with it. TJ Spyke 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Industry is using Wikipedia to promote a fake story about the origins of Sweetest Day in order to sell products. The fake story is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetest_Day

The true story is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweetest_Day&oldid=71758612

Each time I post the true story of the origins of Sweetest Day, the edit is promptly reversed to the fake industry story.

Is Wikipedia really the place for distribution of corporate disinformation to help sell products? What can be done about this?

Miracleimpulse 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now, neither version has much in the way of references. I'd suggest taking a look at

Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm sure that an accurate version will win out provided it is better documented. I'd also suggest visiting the Wikipedia:Manual of Style for pointers on formatting Wikipedia articles (such as not writing in all caps). Dragons flight

23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)