Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive154

Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs) has been blocked five times for revert-warring on Derek Smart. The last block was for ten days, ending 25 November; today Supreme Cmdr is revert-warring on Talk:Derek Smart again. In addition, he seems to be unable to remain civil and avoid personal attacks as any random sample of his contributions will prove. --Ideogram 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Supreme Cmdr is Derek Smart's screenname/forum name, and that this is likely him (if the contributions are pro-derek). Derek smart is also well known, perhaps even notorious in the press, for his incivility and personal attacks against people on his forums; wikipedia shouldn't be a stretch.

I must support a community block for him. I blocked him about a month back for similar behavior and it seems he has no intention of changing.

Cowman109^Talk

21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A thought, what about a month or longer ban from Derek Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) related articles? (→Netscott) 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be the only page the user edits, so a community ban from only the page would have the same effect.

Cowman109^Talk

21:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you were to do that, you'd have to ban him as well from articles about the games he created (Battlecruiser series, et al), because he'd likely take his aggression out there. That's assuming he even obeyed the ban: Smart isn't known for doing that.

_Fire!

21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A good idea. I support banning him from all Derek Smart related articles. --InShaneee 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think such a ban would be a good faith gesture rather than an outright Wiki wide ban. I suspect that such an article based banning may not matter in the long run though. (→Netscott) 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree.

_Fire!

00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Little note, Derek Smart sues anyone and everyone who disagrees with him in any way. So if he gets blocked, and it really is him, he'll probably throw around some legal threats somewhere. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't seem to be any objection to the article ban. Would anyone like to inform him? I'm already quite involved in the situation so it would be best if I didn't myself, of course.

Cowman109^Talk

05:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --InShaneee 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, you should list specifically the articles from which he's banned. By my accounting, that's

Universal Combat Special Edition). Also, whether it apply to the associated talk pages. This just to avoid the inevitable "Well, you weren't specific"... - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs

) 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this straight. I get banned based on a consensus by the very same people who got me banned those past times? Not to mention that this was done in a secretive manner and none of the prominent editors of the Derek Smart were even aware of it, let alone get a chance to offer their opinions? Yet another example of what is so very - very - wrong with Wiki. You folks on a power trip think that Wiki is where you can get to display your power over someone. And to those of you who stupidly keep saying that I'm Derek Smart, you should be so lucky to think that he even gives a damn about what a bunch of nobodys are writing on a Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well thats Wiki for you. Its the virtual version of a Kangaroo court where if enough dissenters get together and gang up on someone, they can inevitably reach a consensus. I for one do NOT support this ban as it is highly dubious and unwarranted. WarHawkSP 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Supreme_Cmdr has just done a revert over on the Derek Smart article. Ehheh 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You can do whatever you like, there is no consensus for the ban and I will simply not honor it. Here, let me quote from

WP:BAN

for those of you who think you can just get together and ban someone.

Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The choice was either a site-wide block or an article ban. The article ban was chosen as the less-restrictive of the two. If you reject it, your forcing the choice or option A.

This is actually how it's done. ANI is hardly a secret board, it's the usual place for reporting disruptive editors. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr has been blocked for another 2 weeks for blatantly violating this article ban. I'm beginning to lose my patience with him, as it is clear he will not acknowledge that he is not to edit the articles relating to Derek Smart any further. Perhaps an indefinite block should be considered once more?

Cowman109^Talk

02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

True, perhaps more time should be spent on this discussion, but I think it's clear there is already enough evidence that Supreme Cmdr won't stop this year-long edit warring, so even an indefinite block would be appropriate at this time. More people are welcome to comment, but so far the only exception to those agreeing is a user who is currently being looked at for being a potential

Cowman109Talk

19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking from a third party view, If he is the creator of said media, why block him? Couldn't he provide you with the most accurate information seeing as he's the one who made it and all?GrandMasterGalvatron 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He could, but he would also have to provide sources as we need

Cowman109^Talk

23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WarHawkSP (talk · contribs)

I add this subsection now because

I would like forgiveness from the community, and, while I have done some bad things here, I hope the community can forgive me, I do not WANT' to be banned by the community, I'll be a good kid. I will not use sockpuppets, or be abusive, or anything else. This account is my sockpuppet, last-ever one at that! --Chadbryant 14:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm! And who should recompensate admins' hard work? Just use this new account if you want to become cooler. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Netsnipe already blocked this account as soon as it started making disruptive edits. – Chacor 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially this one. Tagging an article w/o discussing! It wasn't a good sign from someone wanting to be forgiven. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

nor was 1)falsely claiming he was unblocked, 2)disputing the most benign article he could possibly find, or 3)immediately nominating several RfA's. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal the block, log back on as Chadbryant, not Pifflinman, and bring the matter to your own talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're trying to get yourself unblocked, that contribution history is only pushing you 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

New user

There may well be

Wikipedia:Username concerns here as well. Jkelly

18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

DER holds the copyright to all information Media anthro continues to delete. This information is not only legitimate and accurate, but it is also information filmmakers, anthropologists, ethnographers, historians and many others will find great value in. All sources, including DER, have been cited according to Wikipedia policy. Is this not a site for sharing important factual information? It seems Media anthro has a problem with DER, or DER's filmmaker's, who I'd like to point out, are some of the world's most respected and important documentary filmmakers. Also, DOCUED, is DOCUMENTARY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES abbreviated, not sure what Jkelly is alluding to here. Docued 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've answered at User talk:Docued. Jkelly 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're willing to turn over the copyright information into the public sphere (i.e., you can no longer claim any of it as your own, even if someone uses it in their own material), then you can feel free to paste it here. But you'll also need to put a notice on your website that all information is now under the

GFDL license. -Patstuart^talk|edits

18:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, that is not true. GFDL allows the copyright owner to dual-license. The originator always keeps the copyright. What they add to WP is released under the GFDL and can be copied/changed. But they can also keep the copyright notice on the original page as well. That page does not have to announce that the material has been dual licensed elsewhere. But they do have to send an email to Wikimedia Foundation stating that they GFDL what they do add to WP. 32.97.110.142 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

32.97.110.142 is correct... we don't expect contributions to be released into the public domain. Regardless, we don't really want cut-and-pastes of promotional text however it is licensed. Jkelly 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

After posting a GFDL notice on a DER page,

Without a specific GFDL release, and without specific proof that the person in question has the right to make the release, they are a copyvio, and the User should be blocked for serial copyright violations. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I think the fact that he has modified the external site to indicate GFDL licensing proves both things: that he has the right to release them on behalf of his org and that they are no longer copyvios (even though the notice is not quite correct). The question does remain whether we want the material or not. I'll leave that for someone else to decide. 32.97.110.142 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I wonder how many of these were added by DocuEd? I am removing the worst examples, includingone article which had over thirty separate links to DocuEd's website. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• On further review I think they should probably all go. As far as I can tell, every single one is an off-the-page advert - prices and shopping cart come even before the publisher's review. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Another for fair use. Article

An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate the article (or an article section) whose topic is the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article.

Now, could someone else take a look? I've been reverted and the 40 or so screenshots have been reinserted. Maybe I was wrong, but if not, could someone explain User:Jreferee the fair use concept? -- Drini 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be another of those "I'm going to put a screenshot for every item in a list" cases, which are often a ridiculous amount of work to resolve. Jkelly 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's image-cruft at best, but more to the point, it is probably a FU problem. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s has resolved a lot of these cases, and can probably point to precedent. Jkelly 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that is too many iamges, they need to go (except for the lead). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in to the issue as I?ve been a priori disqualified to do it ;) From my talk :

See your talk. I did it sinc ethey didn't fulfill Fair use criteria for their insertion. -- Drini 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree since I know otherwise, but I'm not going to argue otherwise because I think your going to be one of those Wikipedians you can't argue with. It doesn't matter, we've solved the problem. (...) Angel Emfrbl 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stealthusa has uploaded a host of copyrighted images. He has been warned about using these images on his talk page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stealthusa), yet he has either decided to ignore these warnings or does not understand them; he has now removed the image warning and placed incorrect licensing tags on the images. Please note his contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stealthusa Elcda0 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left a last warning. Jkelly 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And right after that, he uploaded another copyrighted image. I've blocked him for 24h with a stern warning to knock if off. The fact that, rather than acknowledging his confusion, he left an indignant note on your talk page indicates to me that we're not getting through to him. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous discussion. He's back as Theavatar3 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). I tried to wait to see what he would do, and while he started out OK, his edits have once again turned strange. Among things, he's brought the block notice and page protection from his old usertalk and is flaunting his block history [1], has used questionable edit summaries [2], and has made various random odd edits [3] [4]. He's again created a couple odd articles, though seeking their deletion aftwards [5]. All of that in addition to general reference desk sillyness. He was blocked before for trolling, and adding nonsense and misinformation to articles, and it looks like he may be continuing.

He was just blocked for 24 hours by Friday. Unfortunately he's learned he can switch his IP about to escape blocks. Is there anything that can or should be done? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked as a blatant sockpuppet of an indef-blocked editor. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if there's some way we can keep an eye out for any editor who edits their own userpage more than 35× per day, it should be really easy to spot him. Anchoress 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more the ref desk edits that could raise suspicion. His editing style is fairly easy to make out once you spot him, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, with all the unnecessary and deceptive wikilinks. I actually noticed those, and I recognised them, but I was too wonked out on painkillers to make the connection lol. Anchoress 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of edit wars broke out today on

Both users have previously been blocked (by me) because of the constant edit wars between the two of them. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• MariusM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and
• William Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have been blocked 72 hours each. Note that their block logs are identical, both having been previously blocked 24, then 48, hours for exactly the same behavior. —freak(talk) 06:03, Dec. 9, 2006 (UTC)

(moved from

Yes, there appears to be two new socks of this user operating per their intimate knowledge of articles User:Mactabbed/User:Maior's socks have been editing on and sudden involvement . They are TechJon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rand Integer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (→Netscott) 05:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For those wishing to familiarize themselves with who this individual is see Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mactabbed. (→Netscott) 05:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what to make of

Well I have fixed the move. Feel free to do an actual move if you feel that the plural is the better title. Viridae^Talk 04:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not encounter the page until yesterday, but going by

sg

04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I left this comment on the user's talk page. -- tariqabjotu 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the place to mention it, but there is a huge backlog

Images for deletion are normally left up for a period of five days before being processed, so those still have a couple more days. -- tariqabjotu 04:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked User:Dragong4 for 24 hours, after he was reported to AIV, for various unnecessary comments on the talk pages for North Korea and the Village Pump. You can see them in the difs of his recent contributions. This user has been blocked several times before, most notably a 6-month block in June which was lifted after a month. Should I have givenh im a longer block, or not blocked him at all for these comments? Thanks for your comments. Academic Challenger 06:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the interesting history of Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been criticized for mass tagging sprees, not the least of which is connected to a great number of articles created by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) and involving the Starwood Festival. Mattisse has been subject to many checkuser cases, some of which are documented here, which resulted in a block, here, and here, which resulted in a longer block (1 week) for inappropriate uses of sockpuppets.

Well, an RfC and a mediation case are still ongoing regarding Rosencomet and the Starwood Festival articles. It was recently brought to my attention that Mattisse approached another user involved in the disputes, complaining about an article that one of Mattisse's own confirmed socks created, apparently as a device to discredit other parties in the mediation and create an impression of impropriety. I feel this action warrants a longer block. Thoughts? --Ars Scriptor 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm advocating for Matisse, my only comment is that Matisse was asking

Addhoc

18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

However, Matisse should learn that 'It wasn't me, it was my granddaughter' only works as a sockpuppetry excuse once and is a poor one the first time. I hope she has learned better sense. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, same excuse given here. —Hanuman Das 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out, purely for the sake of information, that I've taken on the Starwood Festival mediation case. As far as I can see, Matisse has declined to involve herself in the mediation process, although if I've missed an alternate account of hers, please let me know. - Che Nuevara 07:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There are some 65 cases listed at

Maybe regular users can do everything that needs to be done on that page. If the community discussion indicates a need for admin action, a request for action can be made on a page that admins pay attention to. --JWSchmidt 02:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I would consider it, but what the heck could I possibly do? Patstuart^talk|edits 07:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at their contribution history, they seem to be spamming multiple pages with references to Jade Esteban Estrada. Thoughts? Gzkn 03:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would try saying something to them first, and asking for the problem. It looks to me like the guys is trying to promote himself, or perhaps an overzealous fan. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This IP number constantly vandal

Hi. This is normally a case to report to

WP:AIV. However, you'll have to warn him first, which I'll do for you. -Patstuart^talk|edits

06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!

I've more offensive usernames to report:

• SAPTAM HIMU - all caps username, possibly vandal account; perhaps a sock of:
  • MANOJSHETH (both accounts created 5 minutes apart)
• Dipanjan majumdar2007 -- username too long
• Chanakya666 -- possibly religously offensive username per '666', the Mark of the Beast per Christians.

If you feel I've got my arguments wrong, just don't block those users. Cheers!

As no kind of expert whatsoever, I have to disagree with dipanjan - it's long, but not all that long, and to my knowledge there's no stated limit. Besides, CSCWEM got away with it. --Kizor 07:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

None of these usernames appear to violate the username policy.

desat

07:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What about admin MONGO (talk · contribs)? Patstuart^talk|edits 09:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm against blocking any of these too. The last 3 appear to be Indian names. Manoj is a popular Indian name, Sheth is a popular surname. Same for Dipanjan Majumdar. See Chanakya for the significance of the 3rd name. I wouldn't block anyone for just 666. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I weant to complain about 71.139.38.76 who has for some time been tracking my edits and blanking them. This mystery person seems to have no new materials to add, and seldom comments--for example major reverts are called "typo". Recent blanking =

I found one bad faith revert ([7]), which I have warned the IP about. The rest seem to be content disputes, with explanatory edit summaries, and I it may be best to discuss them on the talk pages of the articles, or with the IP directly via their talk page, rather than get dragged in to reverting one another. I wouldn't call it stalking, as the IP has reverted other people on various articles, not just yourself.

►

11:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has a history of mischief. They were blocked for the month of November. They're back now, and vandalizing again. They've only received a couple of warnings since returning, but they've vandalized at least four articles over two days. Not sure what the policy is on warnings for a repeat anonymous vandal, but it seems at the very least like something to keep an eye on. Waitak 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again. Refer to

WP:AIV next time for prompt actions. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®}

16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Waitak 00:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a user, it's an IP address. Unless you know for sure that it's the same person, whatever happened in november or before is irrelevant. Zocky | picture popups 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

See here. Newyorkbrad 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• A loss for WP. A pox on the houses of those who drove him away. Crockspot 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, this is indeed a black day for Wikipedia. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope a little time off will allow him to reconsider; if we let the trolls win, Wikipedia is finished. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is exactly why we cannot be soft on trolling, it drives away legitimate editors. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an important point. Jkelly 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Trolling is bad. (and see my comments below) Patstuart^talk|edits 19:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Aude on the "truthers"

This would mean more workload on others to monitor the 9/11 pages. I didn't come to Wikipedia to work on those pages, but won't tolerate undue weight amount of "nonsense" fringe theories. There are so many 9/11 pages here, which are attractive to the "truth" movement, who are extremely persistent and determined to spread the truth with their

Examples of the tactics used by the "truthers":

• Charles Burlingame, the pilot of
  Loose Change video, "The only thing they (the filmmakers) seem to have gotten right about the Sept. 11 attacks is the date when they occurred...They aren't truth-tellers looking to save the world. They're con artists hoping to sucker conspiracy-theory paranoids or anti-government malcontents into shelling out their hard-earned dollars." [8] His daughter, Wendy Burlingame came on the Loose Change forum and remarked "Reading the conspiracy theories regarding my father have made me and my family sick. We realize this is being done by sick individuals who need to deal with 9-11 in a different way than others. It does not make it any easier when you read your father was involved with the terrorists when you Google his name. I hope the people who write these things can sleep well at night." [9] BTW, she died earlier this week in a suspicious fire in her apartment. [10]

• They are also going after Lloyd England, the taxi driver who's cab was damaged by a lightpole when AA77 flew over the highway and crashed. See photo, Image:Pentagon_taxi_hit_by_lightpole.jpg. ([11] Dylan Avery (director of Loose Change), his "co-producers" Jason Bermas and Korey Rowe, their friend Russell Pickering, and their other buddies on the "Pentagon Elite Research Team" came to Washington at the end of August. They found out where Mr. England lives and came by unannounced with a video camera. They tricked the poor old 70 year-old man into talking with them. They are probably going to cherry pick bits from the "interview" and use it in the final cut of Loose Change. They have already been showing the video and amusing themselves with it. This google video is sick [12] Here's one of their blogs, which talks about their "interviews" with other Pentagon witnesses. [13] (it's a myspace link, so okay to click on it w/o fear of being tracked) Who knows, some of this could be lies, but some of it is real and disgusting.

• The truthers ("Killtown" in particular) have also gone after Val McClatchey, who took this photograph near Shanksville, moments after the plane crashed there. [14] Here's one of Killtown's blogs [15] (it's a blogspot link, so okay to click it) Killtown and others accuse her of having faked the photograph. Here's how Killtown has harrassed Ms. McClatchey, as reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [16] "The real estate agent has recently become a target of bloggers calling themselves "9-11 researchers," They have visited Mrs. McClatchey's office and called her at home, posting satellite maps of her property and accusing her of digitally altering her photo to insert a fake smoke plume. The bloggers have picked apart her story, highlighting inconsistencies in different news accounts and questioning her motives. Others have described her as "surly," "hostile," "irate" and "defensive." People have called her at home, accusing her of being anti-American and of "holding the photo hostage." On a simple Google search, Mrs. McClatchey's name now pops up in the same sentence as "total fraud." ... This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."

• And the NY911Truthers show up every Saturday at Ground Zero to "protest" and harrass tourists and passerbys. I would care less if they showed up outside the White House or some place else. But, find this highly distasteful.

It's one thing for some kids in their parents basement to do all this from behind a computer screen, but when they show up at GZ and go out harrassing victims and their families, it can't be tolerated. I know that some of the truthers that edit on Wikipedia are some of the hardcore folks. Banned user User:TruthSeeker1234 is one of them.

I have done what I can to keep those articles in check with Wikipedia policies of

It's not ordinary trolling we are dealing with, but rather some real hardcore folks. --Aude (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I'm not up on this whole thing. Can somebody explain to me exactly why MONGO quit? Which trolls do we allow too much? -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for MONGO, but he's been caught up in both the Encyclopedia Dramatica situation (including extensive attempts to "out" his real-life identity) as well as attacks from editors on the September 11 and related articles. It really has been unrelenting. A recent proposal in an ArbCom case to desysop him can't have done much for his morale either (note that this is not a criticism of the arbitrator; I opposed the proposal, but the arbs have jobs to do, too). Newyorkbrad 20:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware if

User:Morton devonshire and others. It's a combination of this and the ED situation that tests our patience. Wikipedia needs to be firm in enforcing such policies. MONGO was trying to do so, sometimes taking actions into his own hands, thinking it often takes too long for other admins to respond to ANI posts. Though, MONGO does make note of his actions on ANI for review by other admins. Other admins concurred with the block of Cplot, for example. With the User:Cplot situation, the trolling has been relentless and his socks need to be blocked on sight. This situation is frustrating me, as well as MONGO. --Aude (talk

) 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Seabhcan has anything to do with ED. Of course I speak from my own point of view, but I see the arbitration as mostly about Seabhcan's incivility. His opinions about who did 9/11 are peripheral, in my opinion. What he does off site is his own business, as Aude said above. A point I would add to Aude's about 9/11 "Truth" is the profit motive. Many of the conspiracist sites sell dvds and books, and solicit contributions. Granted we can't very well cite an article about a conspiracy theory without linking to the promoter's website, but these links and the google page rank that comes with them are an important part of some business models. I think that is a factor in some of the zeal to spread the "Truth." Tom Harrison Talk 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's really sad to see Mongo go, especially since this involves caving in to the demands of the cplot sockpuppets. Also, obviously the ED trolls were relentless in outing Mongo's identity. Some evidence suggests Mongo himself may have even been involved with the ED initiatives. And how can anyone cope with another outing the most intimate details of one's identity, when the one outing oneself is oneself. It's truly invasive. The Cplot sockpuppets were relentless too. They actually demanded Mongo and other admins try to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policies. Even worse these trollish sockpuppets expected Mongo to abide by those policies on certain occasions. It defies belief. The worst part is that now other admins will need to take up the slack: to try to enforce the opposite of WP policies to ensure that the articles related to 9/11 remain strictly Whitehouse propaganda. --AirlineToHeaven 03:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User warned about this behaviour and similar uncivil comments/personal attacks elsewhere. If it continues please nuke at will. --CBD 11:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just cplot again, and could be banned and reverted, but I though leaving this up as an illustration would be more useful (this is, in fact, mild for cplot).

Thatcher131

16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Irpen (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed tags regarding images which might not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In June 2006 User:Irpen was subject to a RfC regarding the improper removal of notice tags (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen), however he has continued doing with this behaviour: diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 (there are more diffs, but since the images have been deleted they are not visible: diff 4 diff 5 diff 6 diff 7 diff 8 diff 9 diff 10).

Regarding the latest incident, User:Irpen was cautioned by an administrator User:Robth who wrote: "This was not the proper way to handle that situation, and you know it. If you dispute the replaceability, add the disputed tag on the page and explain why (I have done this for the image in question). Please don't do this again." on User:Irpen's talk page (diff). User:Irpen has demonstrated a lack of willingness to observe Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and work together with others, for instance the heading written by User:Robth on User talk:Irpen was changed from "Please don't do this" to "unexplained RFU tag" (diff).

Usually vandalism results in blocks, with the length being increased each time. --Oden 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand is illustrated by the #Personal_attacks.2C_harassment.2C_baiting_and_pestering_by_user:Oden thread above. Unlike other users, the user above uses the image tag as a harassment tool. While overall image patrolling is a useful practice, user:Oden simply picks on users who had unrelated disagreements with him and digs through those user's entire upload history in order to harass them with tagging the images. The user also refuses to explain the tags at the talk page, a simple courtesy he was asked multiple times. I welcome more attention to the issue. --Irpen 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There does indeed seem to be some strange behaviour going on here [18] perhaps an admin needs to investigate this seriously

Giano

21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The same user who started that thread also started User_talk:Oden#Thanks. --Oden 22:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we see another falsehood here. Those threads where started by different people. --Irpen 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Both threads were started by User:Ghirlandajo. Am I missing something? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that both sides should calm down. While Oden's selective approach to tagging is not appropriate and inevitably leads to accusations of a personal vendetta, he should be encouraged to continue his RfU activities in an impartial way, like Carnildo and his OrphanBot do, giving the uploader time to find a free replacement and avoiding large-scale massacres of images. I urge Quadell, Irpen, and other people involved in the dispute to cool off and to stop accusing each other of vandalism. Your increasing hostility and aggression are not going to defuse the situation. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If this section is a suggestion that Irpen should be blocked, I strongly disagree. He has not continued removing tags since I asked him to stop, and blocking good contributors is a last resort. I do not think that the actions of any party in this disagreement require administrative intervention. --Robth^Talk 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that User:Irpen seems to demonstrate an attitude that he is above Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This thread should serve as a last warning, a user who has flouted the rules for five months should not be allowed to continue.

I have seen good contributions in this user's logs (which I have reviewed), however his interpersonal skills leave much to be desired. He also seems to harbour the view that any review of his contributions constitutes stalking, while any disagreement is a form of trolling. On November 30, 2006 User:Quadell wrote "This is what I've seen of Irpen. Insults, edit wars, and hostility" (diff). It pretty much sums it up so far. --Oden 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Quadell's statement is an accurate assessment of Irpen's behavior with regard to the recent fair use debates, but I do not think that blocking would be a productive action at this point. --Robth^Talk 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless WP:3RR or other policy has been violated, all parties should try to discuss the issues on relevant talk pages. Edit warring in the articles is annoying, but 'it takes two to tango', and as long as it's under 3RR it's not very serious. I tentativly support the non-delete tag till the consensus is reached, simply since undeleting image is more difficult then deleting it :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus here. If there is an ongoing discussion in search of concensus, the tag stays. If the tagger refuses to engage into discussion, tags an image, writes nothing at talk and leaves, this is not a discussion when the tag is stamped on top of the good-faith rationale. I asked the taggers to start discussing things many times to no avail.

Contrary to Oden's ascertion, I simply request my opponent to follow the policies, guidelines and common sense, not the other way around. His threats above are unimpressive as well as another undug edit not related to the matter. There is an abundance of opinions by many editors of Wikipedia about the attitudes of user Oden. I am not bringing them all here as we are discussing a narrow issue at hand. Questioning my ability to discuss the matter in good-faith disagreement would be found surprising by most of my opponents in many content disagreements.

I would like to thank Robth for the partial disagreeing regarding the suggested by Oden course of action. However, contrary to an opinion by Robth, I think the matters does need an investigation and an administrative intervention. Several users use tagging images as the way to harass editors with who they disagreed on unrelated matters. One thing is an overall image patrol, like the one done by the Orphanbot or users who go over images randomply, topically, alphabetically, etc. Quite another thing is picking on the contributors based on unrelated matters and dig through the months/years of their work looking for images to be tagged among those uploaded by these specific contributors. There is no other motive in this but harassment. WP:Harassment addresses the issue in detail. The evidence of aggressive and abusive stalking is abundant and this repugnant practice aimed needs continues. For evidence, see #Personal_attacks.2C_harassment.2C_baiting_and_pestering_by_user:Oden, User_talk:Oden#Stalking.2FReplaceable_fair_use_images, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok.

The issue was raised by many editors, especially in connection to Oden (talk · contribs) who right above brags about "reviewing" my entire contributions logs. I find being "reviewed" especially amusing. --Irpen 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that blocking User:Irpen will improve his behaviour either. However, I do believe that there is a need to press home the importance of not vandalising good-faith tags. It is serious when a editor places a tag in good faith, and User:Irpen removes it in apparent bad faith (childish behaviour that has been tolerated for too long). There is a need for a strong condemnation of this.

I also agree that some fair use images are arguably harder than others to replace, which is why a editor has the possibility of disputing the tag, instead of removing it. The involvement of an admin who decides whether or not to delete ensures that at least three editors have been involved in the discussion. Removing the tag disrupts this process, and disrupts Wikipedia. --Oden 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he did it again: diff. Apparently there's no need for

WP:V either.--Oden

00:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What? The article has 5 refs, which is quite OK for a starter article. Unless you want to add this template on all article without inline citations, this looks like

WP:POINT to me. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF)

00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think creating such a kind of entry while having a WP:ANI investigation going on borderlines on trolling and, worse yet, on stalking. Indeed, there is no other word to describe an editor picking another editor and stalking his contributions for many months or years exclusively with the aim to tag more and more images of his. And again, putting a no-source template (which incidentally goes to bottom and not to top) is clear-cut WP:POINT. I really hope that an uninvolved admin will intervene and sort this out. People like User:Truthseeker_85.5 got 1 month off for even less than that. Fair image patrol is one thing, deliberate trolling and disruption from Oden is another. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of the other Wikipedians recently most vocal about what has been described as a "jihad" against Fair Use images, and especially against the persons that have spoken out against the current enforcement practices removing nearly all Fair Use images of living persons, I have little doubt that Irpen has been targeted, as have I, for scrutiny of every image I've ever loaded to Wikipedia. While in the case of Oden, we were able to work through a FUR tagging exercise of dozens of images, seemingly reserved especially for those of of that publicly disagree with said policy enforcement, and in my case Oden in fact made a number of helpful suggestions, unlike most of his contemporaries, other users who share the same general viewpoints about "free" images attacked dozens of other images I've uploaded, and so far I've lost 32 of 35 images challenged. It's very, very clear that those of use who dispute the "jihad" are targeted for extended periods and forced to jump through hoops few others are, which a number of people have indicated is a violation of Wikipedia policy in and of itself. As long as the present enforcement policies remain in place, I will not load images of any kind to Wikipedia, and have asked others who have been attacked to consider the same. There is absolutely no doubt we are being targeted and stalked in these instances. Tvccs 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the comments above are good arguments for why there is no need to notify the uploader.

Images which can be fixed should be fixed without involving the uploader (I usually wait for the uploader to act before fixing missing rationales and try to make sure that orphanded fair use images haven't been orphaned by mistake).

If the image is missing a source then it might be necessary to contact the uploader. If the image is replaceable and the deleting admin comes to the same conclusion then the image should be deleted, and involving the uploader in such a case only causes alot of unnecessary aggrevation. --Oden 14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone please either severely warn or block

Looking through his contribs, I see plenty of legitimate edits. Can you provide diffs that show vandalism or OR insertion? | Mr. Darcy talk 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hardly call removing protection tags, references tags and inserting

WP:OR every since. semper fi — Moe

22:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't remotely look like OR to me. It's either a tiny edit war, or it's vandalism, but it's not OR. The only warnings issued to him since August came from you, which makes this less compelling to me. Can you explain to us non-wrestling fans what exactly the issue is? Those diffs don't make it clear to me. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot not everyone watches wrestling and would understand this :) The issue is of the

WP:OR because there have been no reliable sources for this claim outside that one comment on television one night, which can;t be taken seriously because of professional wrestling kayfabe. Vlh has been inserting this claim of the United States Championship since June, and has been reverted ever since, and no, his other messages on his talk page confirm that I wasn't the only one, and no I wasn't the only one reverting this, as other editors have reverted him too. semper fi — Moe

23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Woud someone for the love of god stop this editor please? He continues to revert without providing sources and this is really testing my patience, so someone would someone please? semper fi — Moe 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the details. I have issued a clear warning to this user with a request (or perhaps a demand) for sourcing info. If he continues to revert without providing a source, please post it here again and I or another admin will take appropriate action. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you semper fi — Moe 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh now blocked 48h for vandalizing two more articles after my question/warning. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The page Fly like a Raven is constantly being reverted to include rumored and unconfirmed information on a forthcoming album. The user who continues to do this is unregistered, and only an IP address appears in the history. I have reverted the page again, but please keep an eye on it, because I've reverted it several times and it still continues to be vandalized. Rhythmnation2004 02:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• The users 129.44.234.53 and 71.240.253.89 has now broken the three-revert policy by once again replacing the rumored information. I have reverted the article, once again, to remain neutral. I strongly request that an administrator step in and take care of this nonsense. The user 129.44.234.53 has also repeatedly reverted other pages in attempt to restore vandalism. This users IP should be blocked indefinetely. Rhythmnation2004 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, this I'm not too comfortable handling on my own yet. It looks like we have one vandal operating from the 193.113.200.* range whose IP address is changing every time s/he edits. (See this page history; User:193.113.200.231 was just blocked for vandalism as well.) What's the appropriate course of action? A very short-term block on the range? Just hold on and see if it stops? Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Pkulkarni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been handed a one-month ban for sock-puppetry continues to use strawman sockpuppets Shudra123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Hindushudra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given that he has expressed his intentions to continue trolling [28], dont you guys think that he should be perma banned?

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See a related discussion above on this page the ani section on "buddhism" and sockpuppetry. There is a big quagmire of sockpuppetry among a fringe group of self-professed "neo-Buddhists" from India (nevertheless the true spiritual head of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is not affiliated with this movement).Bakaman 23:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All three accounts have been blocked by other admins for sock puppetry. ···

e

00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He is avoiding his block by using a sock puppet account

Dalit Buddhist Movement ). Hkelkar

12:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Indianbuddhist as an obvious sock of Pkulkarni. I am also increasing his block to 2 months due to continued disruption. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, at the very least whenever a sockpuppet is found, Pkulkarni's block timer should be reset per policy, although if he creates enough, we should definitely consider an indefinite block or ban. --

desat

20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He has continued inserting unreferenced and disputed information after requests for several clarification were placed on his talk page by several editors. He is unresponsive to dialog and continues to insert unsourced information.

After his most recent edit I placed a {{

I agree with

Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam‎ and a made-up movie on Salman Khan's page. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me

20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw this name,

I, User:Cute 1 4 u wish to edit constructively. And please unblock Captin Fucko (talk · contribs), he was my friend.

No more spamming etc... User:Cute 1 4 u as --66.79.168.98 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Captin Fucko was blocked in June of 2006, but he will not be unblocked because of the choice of username. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 (talk · contribs) keeps on revealing the real name of Ekantik (talk · contribs) on talk:Sathya Sai Baba. User:Ekantik is a self-admitted sockpuppet of Gaurasundara (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ekantik.

User:Ekantik has requested SSS108 twice not to reveal his real name [30] [31]. I also warned SSS108 not to reveal a person’s real name [32]

In spite of this user:SSS108 continues to reveal user:Ekantik real name and has stated the intention of keep on doing this. See talk:Sathya Sai Baba. I had not a clue who user:Ekantik was before SSS108 stated his opinion about it.

User:SSS108 justifies his behavior by saying that his identity was revealed too by others. I admit that I

I suggest that user:SSS108 is warned. Andries 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As discussed in a prior ArbCom case, Andries is the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest website on the internet opposing Sathya Sai Baba ([33]). Andries directly promotes, endorses and publishes Ekantik's Anti-Sai writings (under his name of Sanjay Dadlani) on his Anti-Sai website. When ProEdits/Robert Priddy (another Anti-Sai Activist who is Andries friend) divulged the full name of Freelanceresearch, not once did he object or complain about the publishing of personal information. Andries is trying to suppress the fact that Anti-Sai Activists, who have a keen agenda against Sathya Sai Baba, are editing the article incognito.

Ekantik had every opportunity to choose usernames that would not identify him with the Sai Controversy. Unfortunately for him, he choose to use the name "Gaurasundara", which directly links him to the Sai Controversy because he uses that very same name on the internet (which he recently changed then re-changed on one of his blogs in an attempt to suppress this fact).

Before discovering his sockpuppetry, Ekantik was directly asked by Jossi if he considered himself a POV editor ([34]) and Ekantik said "no" ([35]). Needless to say, this response flies in the face of "Ekantik's" numerous blogs against Sathya Sai Baba and Sai Proponents (one even specifically attacking me and my edits here on Wikipedia) and thousands of highly defamatory, derogatory, sexually-explicit and grotesque accusations and comments against Sathya Sai Baba on various Yahoo Groups and forums.

Despite Ekantik's extra-Wikipedia online behavior and using a known name on Wikipedia that identifies him with Sai Controversy, he is attempting to suppress this information and portray himself as a neutral party who does not have a POV to push and that his interest in the Sathya Sai Baba article is innocent and without bias. Fortunately, his identity was discovered before he pushed forward his edits incognito. It is also important to point out that despite his self-professed neutrality, all of his edits revolve solely around the Sai Controversy.

If you would like for me to support all of my above comments, I am more than willing to create a page that highlights Ekantik's Anti-Sai Agenda against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet, along with a list of all his blogs, public claims about a prime participant in Paul Lewis' newspaper article against Sai Baba and a sampling of his unbelievably vitriolic accusations and comments against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. All I can say is that you won't believe your eyes when you compare his Wikipedia persona with his Anti-Sai persona on the internet. Needless to say, Andries defence of Ekantik is for a reason. He is attempting to suppress the fact that the most vocial opponent of Sathya Sai Baba is attempting to edit the article incognito. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any name of user:Freelanceresearch that I believe to be her real name. User:ProEdits did not reveal her real name but another internet user name. User:Freelanceresearch made her other internet username as mentioned by user:ProEdits quite clear by her behavior in Wikipedia. In contrast, I had not a clue who user:Ekantik was, though I am familiar with all the main internet proponents and detractors of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I told SSS108 that if he finds sockpuppets of the user, send them our way, but to not use the real names of editors unless they published it on Wikipedia before themselves. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few points: My sockpuppet is legitimate (see Sockpuppetry allegations). The name of my sockpuppet (Gaurasundara) is not connected with any Sai controversy because I do not use it in connection with said controversy. I use it in connection with matters of Hindu religion. As I have already discussed on the Sockpuppetry page, SSS108 is heavily biased in favour of Sathya Sai Baba and is also a noted defamer of critics and apostates of the Baba. He will (rightly) claim that I have a bias and make reference to extra-Wikipedia activites, but he fails to realise that extra-Wikipedia matters hardly figure in matters of article editing, especially since I am dedicated to NPOV and factual editing cleanup and maintenance in several other articles that I am involved. SSS108'S claims of bias refer to extra-Wikipedia matters and hasn't got a leg to stand on; my one edit see here on the Sathya Sai Baba page was a cleanup of POV, correction of bad grammar and removal of a defunct sentence.

Furthermore, it has been pointed out several times that SSS108 is using Wikipedia to carry on a personal battle in violation of

I have placed a {{

subst:Pinfo4|username}} template on SSS108's page. ekantiK ^talk

04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The user just announced that he left Wikipedia, arguing injustice. Is there merit in his complaints? If yes, does he deserve an official apology? That case is new to me, but it does seem to be in need of some scrutiny. --Striver 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is in the business of issuing Official Apologies. If BhaiSaab feels wronged, he should use the

dispute resolution processes which offer a number of ways to discuss the issue. He is free to leave too if he prefers that option. Weregerbil

18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab is about to be come under a year's banning from this proposed ArbCom decision. I think he's making rather valid points on his talk page though. (→Netscott) 18:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a kurt response, did you two tangle Aksi? (→Netscott) 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No. But I don't feel that we should be wasting more time on the Bhaisaab-Hkelkar case. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the response. (→Netscott) 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes we did tangle when Aksi warned me once for insinuating that Hkelkar is a sockpuppet of Subhash. I have not announced that I am leaving Wikipedia. I am being banned. Do I think it's not fair? Yes, but honestly who cares? Arbcom does not go back on its decisions as far I'm aware and there is nothing that can change their decision. And I do agree that there should be no more time wasted. I just wanted to share my perspective on my banning on my talk page. That is all. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As uninvolved users in this dispute, you may tend to feel sorry for him considering his emotional farewell before the "execution". But this case has passed through the scrutiny of numerous admins and the decisions have been approved by a majority of arbitrators. Please have faith that their decisions or review the case yourself if you are dissatisfied. --Srikeit 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the length of the evidence page, I feel the arbitrators have not scrutinized this case at all (and I would understand why they don't want to do all that reading). I presume they think my behavior is some sort of erratic response to nothing, and I also believe that they think that no one was aware of the sockpuppetry until close to the beginnings of the arbcom case. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

5 arbitrators voted. isnt it over?Bakaman 21:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say this Bhai, but if you're going to leave, then just leave. This marks the second deletion of your userpage in just over two weeks, and it seems to be more about getting attention for your cause than actually leaving. You are free to defend yourself, but these pretend departures are not the appropriate way. And, to be honest, I'm not convinced by your defense; anti-Semitic remarks are offensive, no matter who they are being directed at. It's unfortunate you do not realize that. -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of one's userpage is just that. Where did I say I'm leaving? If you take anti-Israel remarks as anti-Semitic, that's your problem. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about the actions of RoddyYoung (talk · contribs), who has posted a paragraph suggesting that a genocide is likely in Fiji in the articles Fiji, Frank Bainimarama and 2006 Fijian coup d'état without any supporting sources. I have removed his posts to these three articles. He posted the same or similar material on all three talk pages, and I tried to move the discussion to the one I thought most relevant (and which is also likely to be the highest traffic page at present), Talk:2006 Fijian coup d'état. He reposted some of the material at Talk:Fiji, and added a section on "Laws" to the Fiji article containing only the genocide law. I have now asked him three times to stop posting such material implying a future genocide and to restrict his posts to the Talk:2006 Fijian coup d'état page, but he has failed to comply.

I have asked for sources. His responses can be seen on my talk page User talk:gadfium#Genocide_Potential and at Talk:2006 Fijian coup d'état. His sources are to the Fijian law against genocide, to an Amnesty International report saying that law could be improved, and to a Radio New Zealand report on possible genocide in West Papua. None of these suggest that an upcoming genocide in Fiji is likely. I'd welcome some more eyes on the situation.-gadfium 01:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, someone vandalized the talk page of this article through a move. Then someone else attempted to fix the vandalism through another move to Palesitne Liberation Organization (a NON-talk page with a misspelt title). I tried to fix this mess myself but apparently things are so twisted up that I got a message saying that an admin needs to be asked to do the move of the proper talk page content to its proper place. Thanks to the admin taht sorts this out. Bwithh 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done it, since it didn't need an admin. Just needed to be moved through all the intermediate page moves done. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I reported on this once before [36]. If you want to read the completed consensus on it, it's here: [37] (last diff I found on the topic). Well, the guy is back and still sending me emails to join social/dating/contact networks by email. I'm getting sick of this. Can something be done about this? I've told him twice to stop.

I'm afraid I don't really see this as a matter for action on Wikipedia. Morwen - Talk 10:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to see how it isn't. The person in question is using the Wikipedia email function to spam. Swat, have you tried simply listing the person's email address in a spam filter? JoshuaZ 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not my reading of the note, particularly the previous report. It seems they have obtained this person's address, and are spamming them privately or are feeding their email address into dating sites as an "invite your friend" type feature. Morwen - Talk 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is a very interesting case. May I ask how often you are getting these emails? In your previous post you said 3 in a month, which doesn't sound like much. Also consider that the offender might not even be aware of what he's doing: sometimes social-network sites have people upload the address book from their email client, which can include everyone they've ever sent mail to. You might be one of hundreds or even thousands, who knows. It's also (sadly) possible that the user may have been the victim of a virus or trojan which harvested your address and is now being used for spam. Obviously it's upsetting you if you're posting here about it, so I'm trying to think of a good solution. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I got another one today, this one asks me for my birthday. The one yesterday asked me for my address. I've gotten 5 in the past month or so. And no, he's not been infected with a trojan because he's adding in a personalized message "Hello this is mohammed salim khan from dherai swat, pakistan", which fits in with he user pages. Morwen: I think it is a wikipedia problem, because he is using the email function on wikipedia to gain my response and then using it for unwanted personal contact. That's a huge potential loophole for phishers/scammers, to email editors here with a seemingly valid question, and then use the responding addresses and spam them.

Look, he's already got your email address, right? So if we ban him, and stop him from using the email facility, and indeed remove your email from the site, then he's still got your email address and can continue to spam you? I don't mean to seem unsympathetic here, but what sort of action do you expect us to take? If I am misunderstanding the situation, and you never replied to one, he doesn't have your address and is still sending these things through the wikipedia's "e-mail" function, then we may be able to do something. Morwen - Talk 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what action you're supposed to take. That's why I brought it up here, to get some sort of ideas. I can eventually get the spam filters to recognize his name and they'll block it out, but what's to stop him from doing it again through a different account? It's a policy issue that needs to be addressed because it's a potentially dangerous loophole. So I'm bringing it up here, because it's an incident, and it's something that requires administrator attention.

Do you want us to warn someone, block someone, delete something or protect something? If so, this is the right place for it. If not, then it needs to go to developers or possibly the community at large for discussion on what we want to ask the developers to do. Morwen - Talk 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Morwen, I'm here because I don't know what the policy is regarding out of wikipedia harrassment. I think that an official warning at the minimum is in order, though it's up to the administrators which user it would go to, because he has something like 8 user accounts (which I've posted about here before). If there's a way to disable the Special:emailuser function for his accounts, that's actually the best way. However, I'm asking here what the policy is. This is an incident. It requires administrator attention. Hence, here. (Note, I think it should go to the developers as well, but that doesn't preclude action here).

I think SWATJester has a valid point here; if people are phishing via Wikipedia email, in any form, then we have a problem. Just because we don't have a policy yet doesn't mean that we should pretend that it's not a problem if it happens. I don't know what the right answer is; it could range from "be careful who you respond to WP email from" as a user warning, to blocking or banning any WP account found to be doing this, with quite a range in between. But it's worth starting a policy discussion about. This is probably not the right place, but figuring out where the right place is, and asking if there's an informal consensus for doing something on a preliminary basis, are reasonable here. Georgewilliamherbert 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a way to change the e-mail function to hide people's e-mail addresses from one another? So I e-mail you, you can't see my e-mail address but you can click the e-mail link from my userpage to reply? This might be an issue for the Village Pump.

masterka

10:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl, please indefinitely block this idiot. There is a clear cut consensus. --Cat out 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting... whats keeping you? --Cat out 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, why the hesitation? He is asking for it... --Cat out 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to bait us. It's not big, it's not funny and it's not clever. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was actually requesting it formally. But very well.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Cool_Cat --Cat out

01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Cool Cat since he asked for it specifrically. I don't really know what this dispute is about, so if he's being sarcastic I am not really sure what effect he's going for, but when you ask to be indef blocked you should realize it just might happen. If he'd like to explain why he said something he didn't mean, I'm listening. --W.marsh 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's justified purely by the user requesting it. This request smacks of trying to make a

WP:POINT. --Sam Blanning^(talk)

01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we don't usually do requested blocks. Cool Cat was probably just letting off steam, and didn't really want to be blocked. Prodego ^talk 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a mind-reader, he said he wanted to be blocked. He can now say he didn't actually mean it, if he didn't. At any rate given the joke RFAr I think a block for disruption was coming soon anyway. --W.marsh 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not indefinite though, I think a 2 hour disruption block would be better considering that Cool Cat is a positive contributor. Prodego ^talk 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't get what's positive at all about this tantrum. He should really understand that he shouldn't have done this, apparently he's stubbornly waiting for me/another admin to blink. That may sound like I'm myself venturing close to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but I don't at all see blocking him as disrupting Wikipedia. If others disagree I respect that and will unblock. --W.marsh 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just a tantrum. You're blocked now, Cat, so, um, I guess "Mission accomplished". The big wiki keep on turning, Cool Cat keeps on burning. You know how to use the unblock request templates whenever you're ready if ever. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Cool Cat was upset at the lack of support for his position on the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl, where he eventually wrote:

"I am bailing out of this request. Too many trolls and/or members of the deletionism cabal. If Elaragirl's conduct is acceptable, please delete WP:CIVIL. --Cat out 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)"

and:

"Indefinitely block this idiot. This cool cat guy is only here for a malicious purpose. He should be annoyed harassed like no tomorrow as he has always been. (please check timestamps of evidence too) --Cat out 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)"

I'm sorry he feels that way, but the RfC itself may have been a violation of WP:POINT. I did participate in the RfC, so I am not an uninterested party. Still, I wish him well. --Kyoko 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat has been frustrated for the last couple of weeks because a number of Star Trek-related articles that he respects have been put up for AfD, and I believe in a couple of cases deleted. In the process he has crossed paths with User:Elaragirl, a self-described "very aggressive" user and emphatic deletionist (who is currently blocked for 24 hours in an unrelated matter, see discussion above thread "Block of User:Elaragirl") and they have certainly rubbed each other the wrong way. Cool Cat's RfC filing against Elaragirl earlier today received, one could say, less than unanimous support which seems to have upset Cool Cat further.

Cool Cat has been talking about leaving Wikipedia, temporarily or permanently, for a few days now and probably could use a little bit of a Wikibreak. One possibility that occurs to me is that he's sought out a block as a means of Wikibreak enforcement, which I know is not permitted, yet is probably harmless for a couple of days in this instance. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he's been unblocked by Bishonen. I don't really mind aside from the minor point that I'd like to at least have been asked about it first before my action was reversed, but whatever. Hopefully Cool Cat will have calmed down and come back. --W.marsh 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to post but got edit conflicted all over the place. I've unblocked because we're not supposed to block on request, just as admins aren't supposed to self-block. Please chill, Cat out. Bishonen | talk 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Eh, a single revert of an action is no big deal. Why should we own our admin actions any more than we own our edits? Looks like no harm done, at any rate. Friday (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He's an admin at Commons and is acting this way. Heh. -- Ned Scott 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling CC. -- Drini 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Bishonen's unblock and second Drini's comment. This looks like an exercise in

Maybe this case re User:Moby Dick added to CC's frustration. Whatever the real reason is i ask CC to cool down and take easy. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, now we have
  better things to do than to get involved in this dispute, does someone else want to deal with this? Titoxd^(?!?
  ) 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit count for Highfructosecornsyrup Edit count for Wikipediatrix

It seems my/our suspicions of this user being a sockpuppet were well founded, however the editor responsible was certainly a shock. Checkuser confirms the perp is definitely Wikipediatrix - and, to quote Essjay;

"The sock appears to have been a straw-man sock, and was used for double voting (albiet, opposite votes) in several AFDs. What to do with it should be left to the admins."

There are also disputes on various Scientology articles talk pages in which the sock has been used to directly breach

So, question is, where to from here. As a "involved party" I would appreciate input. No blocks have been issued at this time Glen 05:44, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

Er, double voting and breaches of SOCK are shocking and unacceptable for an editor who has been around so long. At the very least the sock should be indef'd and Wikipediatrix given a week block to prevent her from continuing this behaviour and to think about her actions seriously. At the least. pschemp | talk 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I mean yeah. That's completely unacceptable. What Pschemp said (I'm somewhat involved having welcomed the user and been the first editor to ask if the editor had previous experience and argued with the editor about deletion matters). I'm probably too involved to make the block. JoshuaZ 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(many edit conflicts) Well now, this is very bizarre. Of course block Highfructosecornsyrup indef. Beyond that I don't know what to do. So weird...

masterka

05:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The sock is blocked. I'd prefer to leave Wikipediatrix to a more experienced admin; my recommendation would be a short-term block per

WP:SOCK, and if everyone else here is conflicted, I'll do the block myself. | Mr. Darcy talk

06:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a short-term block, perhaps a week. --

desat

06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking over the user's history, a longer block might be needed, possibly more than a week (I'd suggest maybe two weeks). --

desat

06:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually usually the conservative one on block length, but I make a real distinction between disruption and outright deceit. Two weeks is the minimum block I would apply in this case. I think the block length should at least equal the length of time for the sock account, which would be about two weeks. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just in case no-one saw it, my reccomendations (which I gave immediately following the findings from Essjay being published) are here.[38]

T · C

 ] 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. I have asked Wikipediatrix what gives. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Having studied (thanks, in part, to the excellent articles we have here) the history of Scientology in detail, I'd like to know if there's any feasible way of framing someone in this way? yandman 08:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Wikipediatrix around in a lot of AfDs, and him using a sock puppet like this... doesn't make sense. Maybe there's something more to this? Maybe he knows this guy in real life and they were using the same internet connection at one point? I mean, really, it doesn't make sense. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second. 'Trix stopped editing on the 29th, and before then, CornSyrup made no edits to CoS related pages. The CoS edits on the fructose account are all after trix disappeared. What the f... is going on here? yandman 08:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - The sockpuppet didn't start editing until a week before Wikipediatrix stopped. There is little overlapping... I wonder if Wikipediatrix was planning to ditch her original account and get a new username for privacy, and voted opposite votes to disassociate the identities? If so, you guys have just taken a cannonball to that plan :-\ Milto LOL pia 10:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• FYI For a full summary of the articles, and all the individual diffs showing the pages common to both accounts see here Glen 11:14, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

I think the people questioning this are unfamiliar with how checkuser works so let me give you and example. Essjay's findings show that these two edits were made within minutes of each other using the exact same underlying IP address and no other users have used that IP address. There is no way this is more than one user, the IP isn't an open proxy.

• (cur) (last) 03:50, November 29, 2006 Wikipediatrix (Talk | contribs | block) (removed rant. this isn't a chat room.)
• (cur) (last) 03:41, November 29, 2006 Highfructosecornsyrup (Talk | contribs | block) (→List of Teletubbies episodes)

This, combined with the diffs Glen has listed are pretty damming. Plus, I've no reason to doubt the checkuser results. Additionally, the fact that Wikipediatrix stopped editing about the time the sock became really active is even more proof in my book. I've blocked for a week. pschemp | talk 14:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand how a checkuser works, however I believe that the pattern of editing here is closer to that of two people using the same computer than that of a user deliberately socking. See here. yandman 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, two people who used the same computer within 11 minutes of each other who also edited the exact same articles? Highly doubtful. pschemp | talk 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say possible myself... A lot of people have home networks and therefore several computers could appear as the same IP (a closed proxy).

However, I am not saying that this is the case - I am just a little bewildered by the fact that a previous good editor suddenly does all of this. It is a little bit strange is it not?

Has anyone actually emailed her to find out what she has to say?-Localzuk^(talk) 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it was strange except that it has happened before and more than once. Remember User:Jtkeifer for example. And then there was the guy who was vandalising under one account and reverting it under another. Anyone is welcome to email the user, and a message has been left on the talkpage. Should a plausible explanation be put forward, things can be reconsidered, nothing on the wiki is permanent. However, right now, I feel I've done what the situation warranted. pschemp | talk 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but she's been defending the articles against the CoS on a daily basis for over a year now, in fact she's one of the main causes behind Xenu being FA. Why would she suddenly switch sides? Maybe I'm assuming too much good faith, but I can't help smelling fish. Anyway, as you say, nothing's permanent. yandman 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just sent her an email. However, she's not edited for the last 10 days, so I don't know if she's anywhere near a computer. Maybe she's married Tom cruise... yandman 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately yandman, whilst I applaud your ability to continue to assume good faith it the most dire of circumstances and look for any rationale that could explain this, I must invoke

Here's the rub: This is the fucking perplexing thing about all this. It is directly because of Wikipediatrix that I am even here at all. She actually wrote the original article about my website that caused me to find Wikipedia. A website that parodies Scientology and Tom Cruise. When questions arose about merging the article, she defended it. Almost exactly a year to the day later, I am lodging the Checkuser request that gets her blocked But... (see my next post...) Glen 17:00, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

This is better than CSI! yandman 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A two-word question:   wireless router? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 16:44, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Yes, that is a good point but what speaks against it is that wikipediatrix diappears and HFCS appears. If she was being played you would expect both editors to be active during the same overall time frame. I have a few ideas but none worth repeating and none that speak to her blocks. --Justanother 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please look at the facts here: 1) They edited the same pages, and within minutes of each other. 2) Wikipediatrix stopped about the time that Syrup picked up, 3) There is no other activity from this IP, 4) Syrup immediately jumped into administrative level stuff. I know people don't want to believe she's capable of it, but gosh, to be a rather blunt: if it looks, feels, tastes and smells like sockpuppetry, it's probably sockpuppetry. The chances of this being a coincidence are about the chance you'll win the lottery today. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Undeniable. But why would someone spend two years fighting Al and terryeo and then suddenly turn into them? There's gotta be one heck of an explanation somewhere.

Thatcher131

17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Glen S above. A few people are tying themselves in knotts here trying to explain what is pretty clear to me. I think the burden is fairly on Wikipediatrix to explain the situation if we are wrong about the deception and sockpuppetry, and I highly doubt that we are. I still think a one week block is not long enough and would prefer to see it extended to two weeks, and even this seems like maybe not enough. This type of deliberate, willful deception is far more disruptive than your typical willy on wheels vandal, so my recommendation for a longer block is not for punative reasons, but to allow time for the damage caused to be undone and for the community to reflect upon this incident without having to worry that it is continuing. Note that I have had no interactions with either of these accounts, so there is no personal stake for me in my statements here. It is simply a reaction to the scope of the damage to people's trust in the community that behavior like this causes. I think perhaps an ArbCom case should be opened in this matter, but I will leave that decision to people more closely connected to the events. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The situation indeed is quite odd, but the editor has been asked for some sort of explanation, both on her talkpage and I father via e-mail. I would suggest that any further action be held in abeyance until we see whether she posts anything and what she has to say. Newyorkbrad 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

agree. Everything Fructose did was immediately reverted as blatant PoV, and everything trix did was accepted at the time. I agree that we've all been deceived and that an arbcom is definitely needed, but Wikipedia hasn't really been damaged, so there's little cause for alarm. Let's let this one play out. yandman 17:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Everything Fructose did was immediately reverted as blatant PoV, and everything trix did was accepted at the time." And what does that tell us. Cause I have to tell you, guys, she did much more credible work as Fructose than she did as Trix. And I don't think that comes from my POV as a Scientologist either. At least over the period I've been here and also her older edits that I have worked with. --Justanother 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we can wait for a response before extending the block. However, if we have no response by the time the one week block expires, I suggest and indef block until we at least get a response. As to the statement from Yandman regarding "Wikipedia hasn't really been damaged", I respectfully disagree. I repeat that these actions are far more damaging than a blatant serial vandal, and I can't see anyone arguing that that doesn't cause damage. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

what do you see as damaging? The edits by wikipediatrix? The edits by HFCS? Or something else? --Justanother 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Primarily the undermining of trust. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, true. But we never really know who we are dealing with and should govern ourselves accordingly. I wonder what precedent wikipedia has experienced for something like this. --Justanother 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No frakking way!!! This is surreal... There must be another explanation. Maybe she is on vacation and someone is using her computer? We absolutely need to hear what she has to say before we do anything permanent. Including the ban of HFCS. As far as I am concerned all that has been done thus far is that another rational editor of Scn arcticles has been banned for life. ---Slightlyright 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, nobody has been banned for life. Read the discussion more carefully. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)