Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive160

• DevilsSin666X (
  31415 (Review me!
  ) 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

just for future reference - what's offensive about it? --

Charlesknight

00:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably unnecessarily inflammatory towards religious folk who really have nothing better to do than get offended by certain numbers. --Cyde Weys 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree... I'm not religious, but I just blocked a "jesus", "DevilsSin666" is little better. Blocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Jesus is a common hispanic name. Trollderella 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Baby jesus" isn't, Trollderella. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde has the right explanation, but I'm not impressed by his personal attack: "... who really have nothing better to do than get offended ...". Wikipedia should have a

31415 (Review me!

) 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He has been, I fixed the block log. NPOV applies to articles, though

WP:NPA could be relevant. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute?

00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. BTW, I was referring to the username as being not-

31415 (Review me!

) 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't think a little oversight and discussion is a good idea? We are talking about indefinitely blocking an account, after all. That shouldn't just be automatic; you should expect discussion. --Cyde Weys 03:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't personally attacking anyone (my comments certainly weren't addressed to anyone in this thread). I'm just pissed off at hyper-religious folk in general who go insane over a simple number. --Cyde Weys 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Personbally, I wouldn't have blocked that user name indefinitely. Unless it is flagrantly offensive (such as

►

10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the tendancy to issue indefinate blocks as a first resort, even when policy advises against it, is disturbing. Trollderella 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have kept these linked sections under separate headings to preserve direct links. --

) 05:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

After Thebainer blocked Husnock for a month, Husnock unblocked himself six minutes later, and clained that Thebainer was abusing his admin powers. I don't know who's right or wrong here, since I'm not involved, but I definitely think this needs to be reviewed.

05:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A month? For what? Regardless, Husnock should not have unblocked himself. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

05:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see I've been a little slow in drafting my message - see the section immediately below this one. --

talk

) 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA

)

A short time ago I blocked

. Several editors and administrators, including myself, made an effort to reach an amicable end to a situation which clearly began with a string of misunderstandings and had snowballed from there. Husnock was resistant to efforts to peacefully resolve the dispute, but ultimately a resolution was reached and the community moved on, regarding the dispute as closed.

Recently Husnock has been further pursuing the matter by posting an message on his userpage in which he continued to maintain that the situation was something else than a misunderstanding, which is what the community had recognised the incident as. Even allowing Husnock some latitude to post a reasonable message stating his reasons for taking a wikibreak, this edit signalled to me an intention to pursue the dispute and retreat from the peaceful conclusion reached several days ago. After warning Husnock several times that I and several other members of the community consider this pursuit of the issue to constitute

replaced the message. As a result, I blocked Husnock as outlined above.

Husnock has now unblocked himself. I seek the advice of the community on this matter. --

) 05:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think an emergency desysopping is in order. Husnock has already left Wikipedia "under a cloud" (as they say), and I see no possible good, and great harm, if he is left with the bit. --Cyde Weys 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Hunsock apparently uploaded dozens, possibly hundreds, of copyvio images, giving them fake "public domain" tags. --Cyde Weys 05:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What are these images you speak of? -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The image list was made by User:Durin, I am one of the mediators trying to figure out what is going on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of military insignia from a number of different countries marked {{

NoRightsReserved}} claims that need cleanup. Jkelly

05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I suppose it has something to do with User:Husnock/Durinconcerns (redirected from User:Husnock/Durinharass). -- tariqabjotu 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not about to take Husnock's side on unblocking himself, I would like to ask a couple of questions to clarify.

1. If User A claims that User B made a death threat against them when they didn't, and the only response User B gets is that he should apologize (for something he did not do), do admins see it disruptive that someone takes a vast amount of offense at this?
2. The block on Husnock was for disruption. "Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia." Can someone tell me what exactly he did to make it difficult to contribute to Wikipedia with a message on his user page?
3. If several people consider something to be disruptive, yet others do not, is the fact that someone finds it disruptive enough to block them for a month? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite get question #1. Could you please clarify? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking what the parameter is for a death threat accusation. If someone accuses me of making a death threat when I didn't, I see that as disruptive. I see that as basically a very vicious form of attack and rules-gaming. If I get upset over this, and people are telling me I'm in the wrong for getting upset, I want to know if the act of being upset is disruptive, because this is what this is all about. Husnock didn't feel he had made a death threat and was vastly aggravated that no one appeared to care about his side of the story. His being upset lead to the message on his userpage that people appearantly feel is disruptive. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count

I'm kinda new to this husnock stuff, only running into him after nearly deciding not to upload a number of military badge images, before I realized the copyrights on the images we had was questionable... he's uploaded huge numbers of images with vague PD tags and from reading the history he's responded with a mixture of evasion, hostility, and implausibility to every question about the origins of the images. The images I asked him about have been available from a collectors website since the mid 90s.. After reviewing the recent history, I'm shocked that he hasn't been permbanned over the copyright issues alone, much less the other problems with hostile behavior. Regardless, self unblocking except in the case of obvious error or testing should simply not be performed. --Gmaxwell 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means, desysop him. Unblocking yourself in a dispute is basically slaying your own bit. I'm just wanting a clarification on WHY he was blocked in the first place, because the reasoning above basically reads "I blocked him because I didn't like the message on his userpage".--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if the block was warranted, but unblocking oneself is no good. He should have posted on the unblock mailing list or e-mail another admin if the block was not valid. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats my thought.. the more incorrect a block the easier to get it undone. So there is simply no reason to self-unblock... as a result a self-unblock is disturbing evidence of a lack of self-control which we shouldn't accept from any admin. --Gmaxwell 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, but is anyone going to answer my questions on the block or this disruption? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will - the 'disruption' was for a threat allegedly made by Husnock, which stated "I would be very careful telling a serving member of the military they cannot edit articles". Husnock didn't mean it, I believe, in the manner of "I have access to guns and could kill you if you stop me editing", he meant it along the line of "I am serving my country in real life and should get special dispensation". Neither sentiment is particularly admirable when expressed by an admin. Morwen took the first meaning to be the one Husnock meant. This was unfortunate, and Husnock was asked to clear this up and apologise for any percieved threat, which would have resolved the whole unfortunate mess.

Husnock, instead, threw a hissy fit on this board, trying to get Morwen censured for feeling intimidated (utterly unacceptable). Husnock then refused to apologise until he was asked to by about thirty different people - even if he truly meant it in the second way, an apology would have calmed things down. He then made one of the most evasive apologies I've seen outside of Japanese Prime Ministers, but Morwen accepted the apology, and all was right with the world. Until Husnock decided not just to let things lie, and decided to insist he was right all along ([1]). This was disruptive, and once again not good conduct. I think a month's block for this, however, was very excessive. But Husnock then decided to unblock himself, which is wheel-warring, and, unfortunately, I can only see this ending up at

►

10:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with

User:Proto for what it is worth. It's sad this whole situation got to this point over what was a simple misunderstanding that could have been diffused early on with a simple apology. It's even sadder that this is still being discussed when the last AN/I thread was left at a place where everyone could have just chalked it up to a misunderstanding and moved on. I will also say the Dan Rappaport message/Husnock login is a rather curious postscript to this whole thing and unfortunate because it didn't have to get to this point.--Isotope23

14:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Response from Husnock

Gang, what just happened on my user page is absolutely outrageous. Three to four days ago I left editing Wikipedia articles due to some serious issues with the site. I have stayed around only to answer talk page messages and participated in an AfD by invite. The issues which caused me to leave the site were a real world Wiki-staking incident where someone sent e-mails out into the real world trying to find out who I was and then sent a semi-threatening e-mal to my wife. The second incident involved a user stating I had threatened her and that she was in fear of her life. That was resolved but still disturbed me greatly. So, I departed editing Wikipedia articles and posting a statement as to the reasons. Bainer then arrives and removes these statements from my user page, in effect censoring what I ahd to say. I explained to him these were not personal attacks, but simply my stating why I had left. I also was confused why he removed the Wiki-stalking statement since that didn’t even reference an actual user, just an event that had taken place in the real world. I restore my user page, Bainer removes the material again and then proceeds to block me for an entire month. At this point, not only has he removed material from someone else’s user page but he has blocked another user which he was currently involved in a dispute with, clearly something no one should ever do. My user page is not making personal attacks, it is stating why I am leaving this site. For a user to remove this material and then block me when I had a problem with that is against everything we stand for here. And, P.S.- what is this business about uploading “fake” images? I’ve done no such thing and that is a baseless accusation. Someone who states such a thing without evidence should be doing an investigation as it won’t be impartial. P.s.- to Gaxwell, I answered your query as to where the images came from and gave you a name and phone number to verify this Whats the problem? -

Husnock

05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But why did you unblock yourself? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know not under what circumstances, atrocious or no, you were blocked, but this I do know: you are not to unblock yourself under any circumstances. It's not that hard to grasp. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the GMaxwell answer [2]. I have no idea why he would say such a mean thing, I answered his question with all civility. Yes, I probably shouldnt have unblocked myself but bainer should not have blocked me in the irst place as he was the other party in a dispute. The proper thing would have been to post here and let others deciede. I apolgize to the Wikipedia community for unblocking myself, I saw it as a self defense measure against someone who abused thier powers. -

Husnock

05:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the assertion that I was involved in a dispute with Husnock, people should be aware that I first encountered this matter on

talk

) 06:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my rudeness, but if your noble (no sarcasm intended) attempts at mediation have failed, then we must bring this issue back to the community (aka this board) to discuss alternate solutions. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Once thebainer engaged in revert warring on Husnock's user page, it was time to bring the issue to the community, because however noble his intent, he no longer had the veneer of a completely neutral third party. NoSeptember 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Largely irrelevant. If Husnock had reaosnable grounds to dispute the block, there are several ways of challenging it or requestign unblocking. Self-unblocking is not a good response. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume your comment here was mislocated. This part of the thread was about whether one should have support of the community or not before blocking. It was not about Husnock's reaction or his trend of bad behavior, which I think we all agree was improper. NoSeptember 12:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good grief ... blocks aside, looking through his uploads, there are a lot that are obviously tagged wrong or just out and out copyvios ... it's the "if it's on the internet, it must be free" thing. Image:Wesley.gif, Image:SavanFlag.gif, Image:GermanKnight.JPG --BigDT 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One of those examples is from 2005, before I even knew what I was doing and that is outside the issue we are discussing. if my image uploads are wrong, please fix them. Durin and I have alread buried the hatchet. -

Husnock

06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If administrators really weren't to unblock themselves under any circumstances whatsoever, the MediaWiki software would be configured to prevent them from doing so. A blocked administrator could unblock an IP address to remove an autoblock, but he/she would not be permitted to unblock his/her own username. That being said, it would seem that self-unblocking would be properly limited to truly extreme circumstances -- i.e. if one administrator uses a bot to frivolously block a large number of administrators, preventing unblocked administrators from responding to the situation, the blocked administrators may unblock themselves. Such a justification for self-unblocking does not seem to be present here. John254 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of good faith, let's not harp upon Husnock's unblocking of himself. He has already apologized. While I do not condone such a move, the unblocking is peripheral compared to other concerns. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the policy and, yes, everyone is right. I should not have unblocked myself. I formally apologize for this, I should have posted "unblock" to my page. If someone wants to reblock me, I will follow this course. However, in the policy it also syas that when you are in a dispute with someone you shouldnt block them to keep them quiet or to stablize your own version of a pge, etc. Prior to my reviewing the policy, I thought my self-unblock was justified as a response to an unfair block in the first place Apologies all around. Lets get back to the issue. Am I allowed to have my departure statement on the talk page? And, if not, why? -

Husnock

06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not if it disrupts the community and the building of the encyclopaedia, fails to assume good faith, or doesn't meet any other Wikipedia policy. No comment whether that is the case in this instance...

T • C

 ] 06:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-unblock is a nice trap door to detect people who are for whatever reason insufficiently qualified to continue holding adminship. As far as the good-by message.. there is a reason it's called a "right to vanish" and not a "right to salt the earth". --Gmaxwell 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, Your hostility with respect to copyright wasn't towards me, but rather it was towards Durin who asked you questions about the same images and you treated him with large amounts of hostility. I've looked into your claims more, but I'm simply having a hard to believing you: you somehow managed to upload the images in the same order/groupings that is used today on the website which claims to hold the copyright, while the archive.org history of the site makes it clear that the images were added over time and that the grouping evolved. Your claim that even if they images are the work of Mr. Ploessl that he has no copyright in them is incorrect (he can hold the copyright on the sketch of the images even if the underlying artwork is the PD work of the US Government). Furthermore, the number you provided me with is simply a generic number to a HR department. They don't know anything about CDs of images of emblems, nor are they authorized to give me any useful contact information for the name you mentioned.

I hadn't responded to you any further because you'd told me your version of events, so I had nothing more to say to you... and after reading the history of your interactions with Durin, I must say that I was afraid to say anything else. I'd like to assume good faith but a view of your recent history and your decision to unblock yourself (even after 'leaving') is making that rather difficult. --Gmaxwell 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Durin and I have made peace (I think), and the core of my upsetness was that during that dispute there was some real, very scary, wiki-stalking going on where my wife was getting strange e-mails threatening her. Its been resolved, but it would upset anyone. As far as these images to which you refer, I've already said I got them from our image database at

Husnock

06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that things are indeed more calm than recent history had caused me to believe. I don't want to think you are dishonest, and as you said.. you can only tell me what you know. It's also the case that most of the Federal Government does a terrible job with respect to keeping track of copyrights internally(recent conference on this subject). So it's not super helpful that when the guy at the website complained that you just reverted him :) [3]. It's possible that someone grabbed all those images off the fellows website and stuck them on a CD. I'll get to the bottom of it, and indeed I did call the number and confused them completely. I'll try again during the week and see if I have better luck. --Gmaxwell 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As Greg says, self-unblock is a nice trap door to snare admins who don't know better than to not unblock themselves. I'm sure a surprising number of admins would fall for it. It would have been better to bring the discussion about days old disruption here first, allowing Husnock and anyone else to discuss it before the block was made. Husnock has acted poorly for weeks, and thebainer did the community no favor by blocking first, talking later. NoSeptember 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He did talk first, which has caused Husnock to claim that he shouldn't have blocked as a 'party to a dispute'. Which way should it be? --Gmaxwell 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, I mean talk it out with the community, there was no cause for bainer to take the community's burden upon himself when there was no immediate urgency. They already engaged each other in a revert war on Husnock's user page. It was time for bainer to pass it on to others to avoid the appearance of a one on one dispute. Blocking an admin for a month without any open community discussion should raise a red flag almost every time. NoSeptember 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't want some insane person or admin-bot to block everyone, requiring developer intervention with madness in the meantime; automation means that the one becomes as strong as the many. You also do want a person who accidentally blocks himself to be able to undo it. —Centrx→talk • 06:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, if self-unblocking was really totally unacceptable, change Mediawiki to make it impossible. If it isn't, then don't start complaining about the principle, look into the circumstances. Personally I have tried several times to make an absolute declaration that WP:IAR does not apply to self-unblocking for blocks placed by other users, and it gets reverted. That means that the community believes it can be acceptable, in certain circumstances. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pray enlighten me as to what was really special about this occasion? The community trusts few of the users as administrators for a reason; that is they are expected to exercise good discretion and show understanding of the policies and the process. There is a very good reason why the policies and the guidelines exist. Husnock has demonstrated in a very exemplery way how admin accounts can be abused. This warrants an immediate de-sysop; unfortunately many of the stewards are either offline or idle. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about this particular occasion. Just commenting on the principle of self unblocking. The password sharing is another issue and it's pretty much unique in my experience for an admin account to have a password released. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing that gets me about all those conversation is that Husnock is claiming his right to leave a message explaining why he departed - thing is - he never departed and it seems to be using that position as a bit of a shield for leaving his message up. --

Charlesknight

10:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read his talk page, although he has 'left Wikipedia', he reserves the right to 'continue to answer questions on the talk page, vote in certain high profile AfDs, and revert vandalism against articles'.

►

10:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Which was added after I challenged him about the message but his responses are still coached in "I left because" which frames the debate in an entirely different manner to "and that's why I'm just semi-active". --

Charlesknight

10:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia-

My name is Dan Rappaport, I’m a Lieutenant Colonel attached to CENTCOM currently serving in the Middle East. In real life, I know who Husnock is and he is a pretty great guy. I’ve been on Wikipedia off and on over three years and I saw this conversation after hearing about it from Husnock. I had at first sent a strong worded letter to “Morwen” who started this thing by saying Husnock wanted to kill her. It was pretty sad that this was removed from your website as an “attack” when my point was to show to Morwen how ridiculous it was to state that a United States Naval officer, stationed in the Middle East, would want to kill her. Also, it was a slap against Husnock. The man is married and has a kid on the way. Why the fuck would he go to England to hurt some girl because she posted some crap about Star Trek? Right after all this, Husnock decides to leave this site but gets beat up even for that. His webpage is messed with, blocked from the site, and it seems the same people are showing up over and over again to run him down and say he’s wrong. Now, lets take a look at what’s happened in the last few weeks. My understanding is limited to what I can find, but here goes: 1) Husnock gets told by a guy named Durin that he’s been uploading bad images for months and he will be investigated and then he is asked to hand over addresses and phone numbers of everyone he’s talked too, including his dead grandmother or something like that. That same day, he learns that someone’s sending e-mails trying to find out who he is and then a week later his pregnant wife gets threatened when’s he overseas. Yeah, that would piss me off, too. 2) Okay, so the Durin affair ends and then he gets drawn into these articles about Star Trek. I took a look and it seems he came around about those. I don’t know your policies that well, but the whole point with that nonsense appeared to be references being called false and then, yeah, people got pretty mean with Husnock. I saw a couple of edits where he’s called names and one where he’s called crap. So, point 2, yeah that might piss me off too. 3)Now, here we are with this whole death threat bullshit. Husnock threatened no one. He told a punk kid in the UK that she had no right telling a United States armed forces member that he couldn’t edit this site. Good for him. The girl then posts for anyone to see that Husnock threatened her life and she now fears him. News flash since folks don’t know, that drew real world attention and Husnock was talked to by some authorities, including NCIS. After all, a citizen of the United Kingdom posted on a public website that a U.S. Naval Officer had threatened to kill her. Maybe you all don’t see how serious that is but I do and, you bet, that would ROYALLY piss me if it happened to me. 4) Last we come to Husnock leaving. He says he’s leaving, he tries, but again gets beat up since he came back to vote on one of your pages and then someone screws with his webpage. He tries to stop them, gets blocked, and then here we are all, beating him about it, going back to the death threat issue, and saying things about those stupid images, half of which I think Husnock deleted from your site. So, where do we stand? I think you guys have treated this fine man like total shit. But, hey this is a website, not real life, and I talked to Husnock at lunchtime he was cool with everything. He knows this is not real, do most of you? He is gone now, he really is not coming back. I just wanted to stop in and share my thoughts. I hope everyone is proud of themselves because you really have run him off for good. That’s my two cents. God Bless the USA. -Dan

P.S.: Husnock gave me his account password so I could post this letter since half the ip addresses in Dubai are blocked by this site. You guys should really do something about that. No one can log on or create a new account. -Dan

I haven't followed Husnock issue but something should be done re Dubai IPs. I don't know about Dubai ranges so if there are people who know about that, please take some action. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If the above is true, this is outrageous. Husnock, you and only you were given access to admin privileges, because it was believed that you could be trusted with the privileges. You were sysopped, your friends were not. You should know that as an admin, you should be very careful with giving others access to your account. Even if you believe they can be trusted, you are still giving them access to an admin account. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the above is true. The account isnt compromised since I can change the password and I am leaving anyway. Please consider this as part of the conversation on the issue. It isn't vandalism and it isnt trolling. Its just someone wanting to post; I was kind of shocked to see the letter reverted in less than a minute. Also, the Dubai ip thing really needs to be looked at. Noone can create an account from an American computer system right now as there are so many ip blocksthat it makes it impossible. Thank you everyone. -

Husnock

11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you can change the password. You have given another person access to your sysop-privileged account. That is very serious. You are constantly doing something wrong and then covering up with some lamehearted excuse. You apologized for Morwen's feelings about your statement, but you only begrudgingly expressed something of an apology for the statement itself. You unblocked yourself, which is a grave abuse of admin privilege, and again gave something of an apology for what you shouldn't have done in the first place, and which you should have known not to do. Now this. What's next? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I complained about the intimidating tone of

WP:AN

at 10:45. NCIS must be really efficient, or perhaps you are distorting the order of events as well as leaving personal abuse against me?

By the way, yes, we have a serious issue here if an the password to a (supposedly) inactive admin account is known by another person. Morwen - Talk 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Giving away your password to a supposedly inactive admin account, which for an account that left a week ago, has made a heck of a lot of edits and blanking of the warnings on the account's talk page, is the final straw. This account needs to be desysopped immediately.

►

12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The account is compromised at the user level (leaving aside, the story as presented makes makes no sense at all. Why has Husnock given his friend Dan the password as he seems to be either sitting beside him or is in direct contact with him and could have posted the material himself) and should be desyopped straight away. We wouldn't want any "accidents". --

Charlesknight

12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm already asking on IRC. No active stewards though, it seems... – Chacor 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him on the grounds that his account is compromised. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Still useless right now because he could easily do what he did to get in trouble the first time. – Chacor 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note on

►

12:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the kind of way most Lt. Colonels I have met ever talked...something just seems a tad bit off here, folks.--MONGO 12:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All I have ever met is an Australian Naval Captain and an Australian Naval Commander, but I would have to agree with you. Viridae^Talk 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock has requested unblocking. As I am involved, I won't handle the request, so could an uninvolved admin please do so? I think it is Very Bad Faith Indeed to insinuate any remote possibility that this Lt Col is an imaginary character Husnock has made up to say what he likes with yet another excuse - 'he' didn't say these things.

►

12:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's ample precedent for blocking a compromised sysop account (see, for example, HolyRomanEmperor). It is because there could be two people using the account that it has been blocked. Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

HRE was not a sysop. NoSeptember 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Gah, you're right. My point stands though--we've blocked compromised accounts before. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, quite. Also, it is interesting that

User:Husnock said about this chap on December 13, that "I have never heard of this person but I do know there are CENTCOM offices in Dubai", and now they are good friends? Morwen - Talk

12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an easy way to find this out: a check of the IP Husnock edits from. He claims to be editing from Dubai, so his IP should be consistent with that. If they resolve to e.g. New Zealand or Greece (to name two examples), something is fishy. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that a checkuser won't out his IP address. If the Arbitration Committee or a steward needs the information it can be supplied to them (of course, most arbs have checkuser themselves). Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we definitely did have some abuse left on my talk page by a .ae address, so I don't know what that is supposed to demonstrate. Morwen - Talk 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this all looks bent to me. --

Charlesknight

12:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You fear sockpuppetry? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if Sockpupperty is the right word but even with AGF hanging over my head - I find the constant changes in story ("never seen this IP before" to "we have no idea who that IP could be" to "actually it's my good friend Dan") , the swift changes between Husnock, "dan" and then back to Husnock and all the other bits of the story odd to say the least. Would it be straining AGF too much to say that I would not find it a surprising turn of events to find out that "Dan" does not and has ever existed? --

Charlesknight

13:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP address that left the message on Morwen's talk page is a very active one, as most of the traffic from Americans in Dubai routes through that IP address (nb, I just undid my block a few days early), and so probably most Americans editing in Dubai would resolve to that address, as it is a shared IP address. That won't, unfortunately, prove anything.

►

13:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been brought to us on the #wikimedia-stewards channel. We won't desysop anyone unless the admin permissions will be abused. I don't know the previous accidents with the user Husnock, and my personal feelings on this are that nothing bad happened, since his admin powers haven't been abused. Since Dubai is blocked, this was (not the only one, but it was) a way to overcome the ban. In any case - please move this request to your local Arbitration Committee. Once again - if Husnock or his friend will abuse their admin privilages, please contact us - we'll desysop him for precaution right away. Datrio 12:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we begin a formal ArbCom request now? That may be best. – Chacor 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to wait. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there have been a series of issues and lack of successful dispute resolution to justify a case starting whenever someone wants to start one. NoSeptember 12:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual, the procedures that the Stewards follow here are correct and appropriate. There is no immediate emergency that calls for bypassing ArbCom. ArbCom can act fast if they needed to (with an injunction if necessary). NoSeptember 12:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone even read my letter? Does this website have any kind of understanding? Yes, I am a real person and yes Husnock gave me his password so I could post my letter. If anyone wants my e-mail address Ill try and find some way of getting it you so you can see I'm flesh and blood. I was trying to help Husnock. He is now kicked off your webpage forever? What kind of a website is this. -D. Rappaport, CENTCOM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.22 (talk • contribs)

Note that the above IP, which resolves to the UAE, was also used by General Tojo. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The above IP is used by just about every American in the UAE, so that proves nothing, I'm afriad.

►

13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it proves that they apparently have

nothing better to do at CENTCOM ;) Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot}

from 1984. 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Guys, this is low Wikidrama and needs to be curtailed before it gets any more absurd. Husnock's made it pretty clear he doesn't want to be a sysop any more, so he should just make the usual statement on his Talk so we can get the sysop bit disabled, it's then up to him whether he leaves or stays around. It's be a shame ot lose him but clearly RL is too much right now so a Wikivacation looks like a great idea; he can reapply on return to normality (whatever that is). I don't feel we're doing Husnock or ourselves any favours right now. I don't think we should burn his boats for him, he's obviously been a good contributor in the past, let's just quetly walk away shall we? Guy (Help!) 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  I would agree, but where did Husnock say this? I haven't seen him volunteering to give up his sysop status. Also, he already went on a Wiki-vacation five days ago when you last suggested it. This is Husnock on his vacation.

  ►

  13:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There certainly seems to have been a lack of proportion/judgement from a number of those involved in these events, particularly given the self-identification of one as a senior company grade and one as a field grade officer. A holiday and/or a new start seems like a good idea to clear the air. David Underdown 13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Much of this reads like a comedy of errors, but there is also consistently a deeper issue. I can see Husnock being offended at the idea that he meant to harm someone... but consider his failure to understand how his threat (and it WAS a threat, of something) could be taken that way short-sighted. I can see Husnock's desire to 'clear his name'... but think that continuing to grouse about it on his user page, after everyone had agreed he didn't intend a death threat, was petty and vindictive. I can see Husnock feeling that edit warring on his user page and a one month block were inappropriate (indeed, I agree)... but can only see it as a failure of good sense to then unblock himself. I can imagine that Husnock claimed to 'not know' Dan Rappaport to avoid accusations of meat-puppetry... but giving out his password even to this 'close RL friend' was incomprehensibly unwise. I understand Husnock not knowing all the intricacies of copyright... but not his failure to drop everything and review/resolve any potential violations when the first were pointed out. I can come up with reasonable / non-malicious motivations for all these things... but a solid and trustworthy admin this is not. --CBD 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

So, what is going on now? These is talk of taking it to

14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if someone thinks Husnock needs to be desysopped, they will start an ArbCom case request. Otherwise, once any account compromise issues are resolved, Husnock will be unblocked and be free to proceed as normal. NoSeptember 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Giving out your admins password is really bad judgement, it does not matter if you trust the person, the community decides who is trusted with admin powers. Out of line. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The community decides who is trusted with admin powers, but the community (including admins) cannot desysop. That has to be done by stewards, who generally only act in an emergency or on instruction from a wikipedia's ArbCom. Sadly, it looks like this whole case will now have to go to ArbCom, even if Husnock voluntarily gives up his admin bit. There are several important issues here that I, for one, would like to see ArbCom rule on. Also, I think that Husnock, even if he doesn't seem to be listening to the concerns of the community, might react better if ArbCom ended up saying that he was wrong to do many of the things that he did. So the only question now is whether anyone is going to file an ArbCom case? Can uninvolved, third-party observers file an ArbCom case because they want the issues resolved at that level, or does it have to be the partioes involved that file the case? Carcharoth 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally it would be one of the people involved. I'm pondering raising it myself, although that I wasn't directly involved in any of this recent actual blocking/unblocking drama/wheel-warring drama. Should I do this or should I leave it to one of the users who tried to talk to him? It really is a shame it got to this stage. Morwen - Talk 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The best solution would probably be for Husnock to request de-sysoping, be unblocked, leave as he intended, and then come back when/if he wishes to. Failing that an ArbCom case seems the only option and thus I have been drafting one - even though I am a largely uninvolved party. --CBD 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to finish that off and then pass to me and we can submit it jointly, perhaps? I find your characterizations of the sitatuion above, and on Wednesday, close enough to the situation as I see it that this seems sensible. Morwen - Talk 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can file a case. If someone else doesn't do it, I probably will. (edit conflcit, CBD is working on one) The shear number of disruptive discussions he has been involved with recently, over image deletions, Star Trek articles and his attacks on Durin for "outing" his personal info (when Durin merely pointed out that his name tag was legible on his self-portrait) have convinced me he does not have the temperment to be an admin. Giving out his password (or sockpuppetry, whichever is the case) is just the last straw.

Thatcher131

16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

16:27, 18 December 2006 Jon Harald Søby (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Husnock@enwiki from sysop to (none)

Desysopping performed. — Werdna talk 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that Husnock has been de-sysoped I am going to unblock so that he may take part in the arbitration case... though that actually may not be needed unless he wishes to contest the de-sysoping. --CBD 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He does not need to be unblocked to participate in arbitration. A blocked user may email statements, etc. to the arbitration committee's mailing list, to any arbitrator, or to any arbitration clerk, and they will be added to the case history. Unblocking him should be decided upon based on an estimation of his likelihood to cause further disruption, and not to defend any purported right he has to participate in arbitration (as he has none: nobody has a guaranteed right to participate in an arbitration case). Kelly Martin (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A valid argument but... already did it. Further, I was not invoking some 'right' or rule in citing 'so he can participate in the ArbCom case', but rather noting my own motivation. The 'rule' for unblocking is simply the fact that the preventative purpose of the block no longer exists... Husnock's admin abilities are gone and therefor the danger of them being used by someone who has not been authorized to have them is now nil. He was earlier blocked for 'disruption', but that was IMO a questionable case and notably not restored by any admin even though Husnock had removed the block himself. As to hypothetical future disruption... I go with 'assume good faith' and deal with it IF it happens. --CBD 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether this Colonel is a real person or not, the entire issue boils down to the fact that an admin account's password has been compromised. That account must be indefinitely blocked and the admin bit removed immediately. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

CamelCommodore

CamelCommodore (talk · contribs)

Anyone like to look into the possibility that

13:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. Judging by that edit, that is. Perhaps a checkuser? Or is that really required now?. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be hard/impossible to prove conclusively just read the above discussions most of the US personnel in the region have access through a common IP address Gnangarra 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he is a "retired US air force officer", then he won't be coming from .ae. this is a rather odd third edit, though. Morwen - Talk 15:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem to be the same type of personallity. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I offer this dif for consideration [5], the user does seem to be hinting at some improper covert purpose. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but there are alot of people with hidden agenda's, different personalities from my perspective. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It could easily be someone who is trying to get someone else in trouble, mind. Morwen - Talk 17:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever this guy is, he just posted a talk page message on my talk page after I made my Arb Com statement. I dont know who this is and I told him to stay the hell out of this. -

19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

hum he must have just been hanging around all day. I've excluded most of the points - most occur in a certain time period - guess when that is... --

20:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend CheckUser.

Deletion!

20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indef blocked CamelCommodore as a trolling-only account. After doing so, I saw this checkuser report from Dmcdevit.

Thatcher131

21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was going to indef block CC, but Thatcher131 beat me to it. This if taken as 'truthful' would make the account a disruptive sockpuppet of Husnock... and if taken as falsehood would make the account a disruptive impersonator of Husnock. This situation has gotten so bizarre that I won't even try to guess and just leave determination of which to any checkuser... but either way someone needing to be blocked. --CBD 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly vandalizing Lesbian. Geoffrey Spear 18:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for vandalism issues next time. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cariso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dfenu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kotvar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All sockpuppets of

19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I say 99.5% chance of sockpuppetry, especially given comments like [6]. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A edit war with sockpuppets and anons over Weffriddles it's on AFD now, parties creating templates to insert information back (see also {{weffriddles}} history) and users trying to find new ways to sneak in. Sprotected for now, may want to look there once in a while. That's the incident I?m reporting. Coming back to you fred. -- Drini 19:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

75.41.208.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is pretty spamtacular, we're having trouble keeping up. Can we get a short block? 192.75.48.150 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would point you to

register

...

Even though the editor wasn't properly warned, they're obviously only interested in adding links. 31 hour block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, everyone is able to leave a message at

WP:AIV, not just registered users. So in the future, you can leave your message there for a faster response. Prodego ^talk

20:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sure enough; the protection is just on page moves. I saw the "unprotect" tab and jumped to a confusion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently indefinite blocked

20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why his opinion about what the 'good stuff' is is relevant to this. Trollderella 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I rejected his unblock request and another admin also agreed on his userpage. Looks like a simple sleeper troll. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you had any question if that user was really a troll...[7] I have protected that users page. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some repeat vandals. could someone please block them? thank you.

User talk:72.78.153.9
User talk:63.206.176.66
User talk:62.6.163.129
User talk:74.111.53.236

Ilikefood 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

None of those vandalized after being given a final warning. Please report to

WP:AIV in the future (also, for reference, please sign your comments, so that it's easier to see when they last got a warning). -Patstuart^talk|edits

21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You want

WP:AIV. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I simply could not find somewhere to report vandalism to an arcticle. I am not a user myself so I am not sure exactly what to do.

The article "Genetic Fingerprinting" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_testing

One line reads "The excess DNA probe is then washed off your dick. An X-ray film placed next to your mother detects the radioactive pattern"

I am pretty sure that is wrong

cheers -L

80.5.188.163 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go fix that. In the future, you can remove incorrect information yourself, just by editing the page. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Already got it :) Patstuart^talk|edits 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nehpetskenawi (talk · contribs) has been vandalising numerous pages. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Try

WP:AIV in the future. -Patstuart^talk|edits

23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Derek Smart article is in a sorry state of rampant edit warring which lead to the semiprotection of it and its talk page too.

.

I kindly request the admins to mediate and offer a acceptable solution to this long running (>13 months) edit war. I would also request for a checkuser to be performed on Mael-Num and Supreme_Cmdr and WarHawkSP to see if there is any violation of the blocks placed under WarhawkSP and SC.Kerr avon 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I mirror Kerr avon's stated concerns. Except the check user is much more complicated. Besides the 3 usernames, there are also anonymous IP addresses that have recently appeared editing the Derek Smart article and it's talk page. They all purport the same viewpoint, share writing styles (mostly) showing uncanny similarities to recently blocked WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr, and always agree with each other. The IP addresses are 63.28.69.164 and 63.44.66.100, which are both Fort Lauderdale IP Addresses, where Smart lives and runs his business. Also, it should be noted that these violations may fall under
  WP:Auto policy because it is likely the person is Derek Smart himself. --Jeff
  02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: I don't believe Mael-Num is a sockpuppet. Supreme_Cmdr/WarHawkSP and the IP Addresses are. Mael-num has a distinct writing style, but there are still issues that need some oversight over at the derek smart article.--Jeff 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned as well. I'm concerned that there is organized off-wiki attempt to push a POV on this article that removes cited sources. As mentioned above on this page, WarHawkSP and Supreme Cmdr have been single purpose accounts blocked from editing due to this. There have been numerous more single purpose accounts and now a rash of anon edits. Checkuser is inconclusive, but did not rule out the possibility that these are socks. I mentioned above, this edit war does not appear to show signs of slowing down soon, and I believe it will likely continue until everyone is 3RR blocked, or it goes to ArbCom. We absolutely need some administrator intervention. Users are misquoting policy, especially BLP to remove cited, reliable material. This is a major problem.

03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is beyond tiresome. I believe this page needs full protection until all parties can form some sort of agreements. --InShaneee 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm working with Mael-Num to try to keep him civil and try to find a reasonable solution to this. I guess you could call it informal mediation. However, I do think this case would be good for a formal mediation attempt, which I have neither the time nor the interest for conducting myself (not to mention I'm not AMA). I agree with InShaneee. This page needs to be full protected, a mediation needs to be conducted, administrator oversight towards those who continue to be uncivil needs to be enforced with short blocks, and hopefully this can be fixed without the time and frustration of an ArbCom case. Unfortunately, I think that it will end up coming to that otherwise. For further reference, see the cross conversation on my

05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Screw it, I'll go ahead and do a full mediation on this. I posted on the talk page. Got nothing else going on anyway. Hopefully this will at the very least determine who is willing to help advance the article, and who is not.
  ^{On Belay!}
  05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fully protected. It's getting hard to keep track of all the

12:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting a moderate length block on WarHawkSP: after agreeing to mediation, and after the article was protected, WarHawkSP is now deleting comments off the user talk that disagree with his position. He cites WP:BLP as his validation, and calls it vandalism, but the comments he deleted were a) opinion and not subject to libel, b) nothing that would even be considered a personal attack if you were to subsitute a wikipedia editors name in, and c) directly related to the validity of inclusion of a link in the article, which is why the page is protected in the first place.

WarHawk is a single purpose account, that has been blocked for 3RR on this account. It's inconclusive as to whether he is a sockpuppet or not. I'm requesting a block length of 48 hours so that further talk page discussion can go on undisrupted by him.

01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anything? Hello?

06:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swatjester, looking at the talk page there appears to be a reasonable enough discussion about

Addhoc

22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, reverting someone's opinion on a talk page is considered bad taste, and to do so while WP:BITING them by declaring them to be vandals, and this is a continuation of his prior behavior on the page which is full of personal attacks and incivility (not that there hasn't been that on all sides). It's one thing to be incivil, it's another to be incivil, remove someone's valid talk point opinions, and then call them vandals over it.

^{On Belay!}

09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Arbitration has been filed on this topic.

03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am posting this in order to solve the problem of overload of edits by uncooperative editors on the NLP article. I believe a helpful warning to stop editors making ridiculous amounts of edits in a day will help. And if it is deemed that meatpuppets or sockpuppets are an issue, then take the appropriate action. The NLP article [8] seems to have been under attack from either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of user Comaze. User Comaze runs a company (Comaze.com) in Australia promoting strategic ties with NLP companies as is in evidence on his userpage [9][ http://www.comaze.com/links.html][ http://www.comaze.com/biography.html]. The activities involve pushing for the same POV (deletion of relevant views on the talkpage using the same language [10]). They have also been removing relevant scientific views from the article on a regular basis. This also involves removing criticisms from the opening thus creating an unrepresentative opening [11] [12][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=93542877&oldid=93534538]. The strategy seems to be one of confusion and they have made a vast amount of undiscussed edits over the past few days. They also seem to be resisting efforts to calm down in a quite uncivil way [13]. Comaze seems to be using the anonymous editors: 210.50.221.248 and 58.178.102.143 as meatpuppets or sockpuppets which both seem to be Australian IPs according to an IP check, or are using the same editing pattern as Comaze [14]. They seem to be only editing on the NLP article and have arrived only recently to support Comazes promotional pov. The situation makes it impossible to edit constructively on the article and indeed the evidence shows Comaze and related suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets to be highly uncooperative. The incivility and uncooperative editing seems to have pushed an editor away already and I am pretty much sick of it also. A well placed warning may well prove to be a good solution but its all up to you. Thanks. AlanBarnet 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In reply, compare the article now with a version from few weeks ago I think you'll find the current one is of much higher standard. As AB states I have collaborated with the other editors including

Comaze

07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More information; Comaze is requesting collaboration with allegedly banned sockpuppet Vanilla Flavius: [15] who I suspect also comes from Australia. This in addition to the overdose of edits (that involve compromising the integrity of the article) over the past few days is going to make reasonable discussion or editing impossible. AlanBarnet 08:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. I that editor to email me to to make suggestions on how to make the article more critical (as in objective/wikipedian). While this editor was banned for incivility (including for defamatory remarks directed on me and for personal attacking the mentors). He did make some well-research critical contributions to the article in the past. I really don't think the collaboration of the article over the last few weeks has "involve[d] compromising the integrity of the article". As I said it has improved and has sparked additional research. I'm trying to extend good faith here. --

Comaze

09:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am user 58 and 210, an independent editor to Comaze. There is no checkuser evidence nor edit-style evidence to assert otherwise. I've been editing at wikipedia since early 2005. I had a user account but got sick of wikistalking. User:AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came straight to the NLP article when he joined wikipedia and began pasting edits from banned users back into the article; edits that were originally both beligerant and known to be fraudulent [16] [17] [18]. He claims he just coincidentally grabs these from the history tab and often cites his opinion as fact (and hence "neutral"), and when he gets angry his edits are phrased in the superlative degree, as can be witnessed above. His edits are remarkably similar to the banned editor User:HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and related sockpuppets in that he removes tags without discussion [19] [20] and engineers politics on talk pages in the same way as HeadleyDown [21] [22]]. Recently, other banned editors (64.46.47.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) have turned up at the article [23]. It is quite plausible to surmise that AlanBarnet is somehow connected with them. HeadleyDown and his 20 user sockuppet farm has been known to orchestrate complex sockpuppet scenarios. I feel it is worth investigating users involved in this incident so we can get to the bottom of the growing problem. 58.178.193.158 09:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

58 and all. I arrived using the IP 88.106.13.232 [24]. I promptly got myself an account so that I could cooperate with other editors on verifying the sources on the NLP article. I found no cooperation at all. Just resistance to direct quotes and Comaze and other IP numbers adding lots of argument to promote NLP or to negate science views. AlanBarnet 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear AB. Please read

WP:CABAL#There_is_only_a_cabal_if_you_want_there_to_be_one. 58.178.199.62

04:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello this is Fainites, the only editor currently on the blighted NLP page not yet accused of sockpuppetry although probably now about to be accused of smugness. 1)There is problem with substantial undiscussed edits being put in over a short space of time because it upsets other editors. However, this partly arises because half the editors are on the other side of the world to the other half so everybody is on different timescales. However, Comaze has always been amenable to discussion, consensus and changes to edits as far as I can see and alot of the edits on that occasion filled in stubs giving everybody something to work on. 2) There is a problem with bad temper and assumptions of bad faith leading to ill thought out reversions to much older versions resulting in alot of hard work on sources and verification being removed. One recent example of both these problems together was the removal by Comaze of the second half of the Research Reviews section at 12.09 on 13.12.06 to the NLP Science article and the subsequent reversion to a much older form by AlanBarnet losing agreed edits and leaving the whole section a mess of half sentances, non sequiteurs and duplications. However, on a positive note, AlanBarnet agreed to put back the more recent edited version and when I sorted out the duplications and whatnots, the removal of the research has not been repeated. So there is hope. 3)Everybody appears to agree that sources need to to be verified. This involves alot of work as there are still past inaccuracies in references and POV statements hanging around in the article. However, the bad temper and accusations and large undiscussed edits not only slow work down but have just frightened off a valuable new editor who was a science researcher and very adept at hunting down and verifying scientific sources and quotes. 4)I think in the context of this article it is unwise for AlanBarnet to put in old negative views from old disputed versions from banned editors, with references, stating it has all been checked and verified but not providing evidence of what the source states at the time. It was inevitable that this would lead to accusations of sockpuppetry, whether they are justified or not. It would be better to assess the source afresh and agree an addition based on that with other editors. 5) alot of good collaborative work has gone on recently. Lets try and keep it that way. Fainites 14:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Having compared the version from December 1 with the current version, it seems to me very much as if Comaze and a few others are promoting rather than documenting the concept. The article becomes more promotional with each batch of edits, and the fundamental fact that NLP is essentially a cult with no scientific validity is more and more obscured. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that something has no scientific validity does not make it a cult. That's a seperate question. If you have any verifiable evidence that NLP is a cult, please come and put it in, in the section that already contains reputable views to the same effect. As for promo, the section marked 'views of supporters in various disciplines' is empty and has been for a while, whilst the sections marked 'research', 'views of critics' and 'mental health' are full of nothing but criticism and views to the effect that there is no scientific basis to NLP. The article needs watching to ensure it is not taken over by either camp. Fainites 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things. Firstly, NLP is fundamentally a seminar and consulting based personal development field (and it is definitely unclear whether it is also a cult, a psychocult, a good idea, a bad idea, a pseudoscience, a protoscience, a dangerous practice, therapeutic magic, or anything else). Secondly,

there is no cabal of editors in either camp. Please treat editors as individuals. Have fun. 58.178.199.62

23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Guy. Thanks for your input. I've been editing on various articles I know something about or have access to sources such as journalism articles and various historical and geographical areas. I've been removing any argumentative phrasing (usually very little) from those articles and found no resistance at all. I spent a lot of time having to remove a massive amount of argumentative and overblown phrasing from the NLP article during the end of Nov and early Dec. I met nothing but resistance from Comaze and other numbers who scream bloody murder over the simple NPOV correction. They're still making a massive amount of edits per day. I don't see how anyone can conduct proper cooperative or rigorous verifications in such a way. I'm pretty much done with it. I have WPjournalism articles to edit with editors who are willing to collaborate and I know I'll get cooperation. I really hope things can be resolved on the NLP article. AlanBarnet 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I din't mean to imply that there were existing camps now on the site but there clearly have been in the past and may well be again. It sems to be a subject about which feelings run high.Fainites 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy pointed me to the conflict of interest policy. I have read it and agree with it in principle. It does suggest that editors should dislose their interests where there may be a conflict. My interests are written on my talk page. And aim to base my edits on reliable, verifiable literature. The current editors all know that I am a student of NLP. I am also a student of cognitive science and computer science with an interest in psychology. That does not stop me from editing on the cognitive science or computer science articles. Nonetheless, I will hold myself to a higher standard for verifiability, and reliability of evidence. While being an student in the field is not required, it can help. I intend help write a balanced article by collaborating with the other editors who have different views to arrive at a balanced article. Keep in mind that I have gone through mediation, arbitration and mentorship and have learnt alot about wikipedia policy. I have read the conflict of interest article and will be more critical in my writing on those articles especially where there may be a conflict. --

02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could someone please have a look at

03:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur, will the first admin to see this please block immediately. Generally these reports go to WP:AIV but this one shouldn't wait. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Handled. Deizio talk 03:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy work, Deizio.

IronDuke

03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In the last two days, I've seen a number of vandals, mostly IP addresses, working on a Chuck Norris theme, e.g. Chuck Norris and the Kennedy assassination. Here are a few I logged -- 69.92.64.100 (talk · contribs) -- 67.42.163.59 (talk · contribs) -- 168.103.129.39 (talk · contribs) -- Theamigo (talk · contribs) - the IP's don't seem to fit a pattern, so maybe it's just co-incidence and not a new trend. I slightly wondered if Stephen Colbert was up to something --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 08:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whois on the ips says they're all from Idaho, so they do fit a pattern. It's probably some random kid who's a year and a half late on the Chuck Norris facts fad. I blocked the username as a vandal only account, not really much else to do here. - Bobet 12:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:ALM scientist keeps vandalizing the Holiest sites in Islam article. This user deletes sourced material without any good reason time AND TIME AGAIN! Please help!!!!

16 Dec: [25] 18 Dec: [26] 18 Dec: [27] Chesdovi 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the user about it yet? I see no such attempt on either of your talk pages or the article talk pages, please look at

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1. A sufi poet
   Moinuddin Chishti as holiest site [28]
2. That castle in Germany Neuschwanstein Castle as Islam holiest spot [29]
3. Many funny like comments "Jewish soldiers at the Buraq Wall, the third holiest Islamic site in Jerusalem, itself the third holiest city in Islam, being on the third planet in the solar system"[30]
4. Another edit says "Less than 100 meters from the holiest site in Islam, opposite the Grand Mosque in Mecca, is a surprising culinary offering: a Kentucky Fried Chicken fast-food restaurant" [31]
5. Another edit says "Hindi couplets"/poetry as holiest site in Islam [32]. It also say a poet
   Amir Khusro
   as holiest site in Islam.
6. Pseudoperipteral as Islam holiest site [33]

All of the above were your additions and i left you the last warning on your talkpage and now you are here trolling and lying? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all the sites listed above, except one, are legitimate. I added this material and ALM just deletes what he doesn't like. He also led the campaign for the pages deletion, totally unacceptable! I will take HighInBC's advice, and if he offends another time I will ask that he be blocked. Chesdovi 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please follow HighInBC's advice and stop this edit warring. Also, please refrain from adding nonsense next time as you are an established editor. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It was my response the ALM's "trolling". At least Thestick found it humorous. Chesdovi 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm! Do you understand what we mean by

WP:TROLL? ALM was reverting your above trolling in fact. So please stop that and be carefull of what you are editing next time. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®}

18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He's got a 48 hour break now. I would gladly have made it longer but it's a first offense. Durova^Charge! 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just clicked random page, up came

01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha. I read the above topic but it made no specific reference to what the problem was before I posted. Yikes. Deizio talk 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The image was deleted while you were trying to track it down; hence, the magic trick. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Silly me - I just realized this means that image was on every page, for seven minutes, that uses the Harvard citation template, which should be quite a few articles. Truly over the top. Sandy (Talk) 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap. Deizio talk 02:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The only templates on Dogfights are {{for|close-range aerial combat|Dogfight}} and {{US-tv-prog-stub}}. Deizio talk 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it was {{For}}. Sandy (Talk) 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, diff [34]. Google [35] Deizio talk 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see 3QTFUN-5, I saw 3QTFUN-4 , which was a double whammy. Sandy (Talk) 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When protecting high-risk templates, such as {{

) 03:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to revert this vandalism. --NE2 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

These two users recently launched quite a big move campaign without any discussions or any provided reasons, please see contributions of RobotF (talk • contribs) and RobotQ (talk • contribs). Please closely examine, these users names are not very differ from each other, second the newest "contributions" of 19d. of both users are targeting specific area, even more - these moves were made by rotation – when RobotF stopped his moving campaign at 11:34, RobotQ started his at 11:40. Please advice, do we need to proceed with check user procedures, because it is likely that these accounts are managed by one particular person. Really needing an advice from experienced contributors. Thanks. M.K. 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't they be immediately blocked under

WP:USERNAME? -Amarkov ^blah_edits

15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Multiple undiscussed page moves and misleading usernames, very fishy behaviour indeed. Both blocked. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response. But maybe we should also try to identify is it the same person. Because now he/she or they can create new account and misconduct again. So is it worth to place a query for check user? M.K. 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Checkuser can't be used for stuff like this. The accounts are blocked now. If more pop up, we can block them. We don't need Checkuser. --Deskbanana 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty obvious M.K. Similar usernames or robotnames (laughing). Similar articles being moved (Russia/Lithuania). What else? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And similar timing too M.K. 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock will take care of the person's IP, and that is all checkuser would do for us. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand it was only block to an account. You suggesting that IP was blocked as well? M.K. 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins have the option Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from when blocking an account. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I like bolded text. M.K. 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See

14:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm on it. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• OK, done. Anyone who's feeling warm and fluffy can go along and have a quiet chat with the user. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please check this song's page? I went in to add a movie reference in that section, thought I was fixing something, but further look showed me that someone at 147.10.240.73 did some massive changes that are all incorrect this morning. I moved it back to the december 7 version and then added the reference, but if someone else could check it for any other errors that would probably be good.

Please take a look at this IP's edit history. He is constantly putting in unsourced POV wherever he sees fit and even removes large portions of text. The IP talk page has several warnings. Can we get this guy blocked from further edits? --Unreal128

I also noticed while going through the edits he is spamming it with commercial links or childish remarks. Look at his edit on the Ayutthaya Kingdom. --Unreal128

User has been indef-blocked, it seems, by

16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not leave J Di a message on their talk page and discuss it with them? A Train ^{take the} 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's general practice for most admins to note indefblocks here for other admins to review. I happened to come across this one. No idea why J Di did not do so. – Chacor 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the practice and understand your concern completely, but I still don't see why a public callout here is preferable to bringing the matter directly to Tasc, J Di. A Train ^{take the} 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, he didn't block for death threats, only "threats". Tasc was extremely uncivil and deserves a two week break, maybe even a month, but I don't support an indef for telling someone to "fuck off". The indef should be shortened. pschemp | talk 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, "I'll fucking kill you" is a death threat to me... – Chacor 16:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. It was in the edit summary, not the diff where I was looking. Hmm. Well I think the initial bock was a bit harsh and might have precipitated this behaviour. If tasc apologizes, his indef should be removed though. pschemp | talk 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

agreed with pschemp. The original one week block was a bit excessive, even if a block was warranted. However, I could definitely see a 3-4 week block, perhaps even with a talk page lock to prevent that kind of nonsense. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree w/ pschemp and Pat (i.e. a month). HOwever, he should apologize and understand that comments like this got no place here. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would we invite this person to keep editing here? Jkelly 17:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well unless he apologizes, I don't think we should. But if he does, a second chance is warranted. pschemp | talk 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've seen this guy revert war on several templates, and I've seen him be uncivil to another user about one. He had the block coming; he's been warned enough about his incivility on other pages by other users. He chose to continue. Because of that, I felt a one week block was justified. I'm not going to blame anything on the first block because how a person behaves is up to them. I'm not going to try and stop anybody from unblocking him if there's some sort of agreement to do so, but I'm also not going to support it.

17:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about unblocking him, rather shortening the block if he apologizes. If not, then it should be left. pschemp | talk 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How long, exactly?

J Di ^talk

18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think one month is enough to make him rethink his conduct and apologise. If behavioural problems persist, the block should be extended to indefinite. Let's see what others think. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really that happy with shortening the block at all, but if that's what everybody wants, then I want an apology first. Somebody's going to have to unprotect his user talk page if that's what's happening.

J Di ^talk

18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The user posted "I'll fucking kill you"[36], an indef block is warrented, easily, without hesitation. In my opinion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion may be flawed. I interacted with Tasc when he edited Russian wikipedia and saw no incivility from him there. I did not follow his edits in English wikipedia closely, but saw him repeatedly removing vandalism from Russia and other pages. I suppose, if he apologises for his angry outburst, he should be given a chance to reform. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This certainly warrants an indef block.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus on that one; telling an admin to fuck off, and that if he communicates again with an another "fuck you" with death threats, I do not think he should be here any longer on WP. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Piotrus and Zscout on this one. Death threats bad. The block should be indefinite. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

While agreeing that death threats are bad, I don't see why the fact that it was an admin is relevant. Trollderella 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Good call
  J Di. I'd unprotect the talk page though, and agree with J Di shortening the block if an apology is granted. -- Samir धर्म
  07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tasc already had three civility warnings on his talk page (I did not count inside the archives) when he began the exchange at Template talk:LGBT that earned him his fourth. This is also not counting the civility warning by J Di at 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) on the template talk page. So the civility warning that Tasc flamed in response to was the second one regarding this particular situation. The whole incident began out of Tasc's decision to revert war instead of seek consensus, behavior for which Tasc had been blocked at least five times previously (plus one earlier civility block). In light of the earlier civility block and two directly related civility warnings, after demonstrated disregard for consensus, I do not think that the week-long block was excessive. Upon viewing the block log and noting that so many previous shorter blocks had failed to get the point across, a week sounds like a very reasonable next step. I also don't think that apology for a death threat should reduce the block. If indefinite blocks are given for anything, what is more serious than a death threat? — coelacan talk — 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot that I need to point out that I am the one who Tasc origninally began incivility toward on the template talk page, in case this constitutes a conflict of interest. — coelacan talk — 19:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So many previous shorter blocks? I have no personal interest in this case, I don't know Tasc and had never heard the name before reading this thread. But I think it worth pointing out that before the incident described here, Tasc's bloc log consisted in tutti, since March 2006, of three 3RR blocks plus one 24-hour block for edit warring, plus one--count 'em--one 48-hour block for "incivility, removing tags". This, which was also his latest previous block, was logged in May 2006. Tasc has been blocked for incivility once since joining Wikipedia. His block log has been clean from May to December. Bishonen | talk 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Objection

Wait a second, I don't like to see this. Tasc is being very rude and angry, yes, I don't like that, OK, but please focus on the timestamps here:
18:10, JDil: Remain

. You won't be warned again.
18:14, Tasc: Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page.
18:15, JDil: You've been blocked for a week.
18:17, Tasc: Go fuck yourself, idiot.
18:19, JDil: Your block has been extended to two weeks.
18:22 Tasc: What part of "Fuck off" don't you understand? (This is the one with the edit sum "one more signature on my talk page and I'll fucking kill you")
18:23, JDil: You have been indefinitely blocked for making threats.

• Etcetera. From civility warning to indefinite block in 13 minutes. I have to feel sorry for the guy without the power in this exchange. That's not to accuse JDil of deliberate baiting--I'm sure he was simply angry himself, too--but those admin responses are just much too quick. I would ask any admin issuing warnings to not do it with a machine gun, but give the user a real chance to cool down between bursts--to make pauses. This escalates much too fast.
• Secondly, no, I don't agree that "I'll fucking kill you" is a death threat. OK, "I'll kill you" is a death threat, but with "fucking" in there, it's not, it's just an expression of anger. It's a technicaldeath threat, but hands up, anybody who's actually scared by it. Heck, I scare real easy, and even I'm not frightened.
• Thirdly, I don't like to see an indefinitely blocked user with a fully protected talkpage. That means a full gag. Tasc has not specified a valid e-mail address, and now that he's blocked, it's too late, he has no way of doing it; in other words he has no means of e-mailing JDil or anybody else to argue, or to apologize. The page has remained protected for a day and a half; if the user is ever going to cool down, he probably has; I appeal to JDil to unprotect and invite himto apologize for his angry outbursts. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Bish, since you asked me to comment, here goes: I disagree with you about there being an appreciable difference between saying "I'll kill you" and "I'll fuckin kill you." It's possible this explanation may be applicable here, but it nonetheless sounds equally threatening to me. El_C 10:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I want point out that the 18:10 civility warning was not the first one in this incident, it was the first one on tasc's talk page. See my comments above "Objections" for the details. And consider that "I'll kill you, motherfucker" is also a common expression of anger, but the intent of the statement still rings clear. Whether the expletive is inserted at the end or in the middle of the sentence is merely a linguistic curiosity. — coelacan talk — 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this escalated very quickly, and the block for a week because Tasc said "Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page," was perhaps provocative. I would support a short block but not an indefinite one, unless Tasc has been a general nuisance and was heading toward an indefblock for other reasons. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, Tasc has been "a general nuisance and was heading toward an indefblock for other reasons." RfAr/Israel-Lebanon reads:

3.1) Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans

. Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC) ^{(bold is my emphasis)}

El_C 10:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Israel-Lebanon conflict is a different matter, I daresay. While death threats are bad and certainly merit an indef block, I believe that blocking one's opponent for a week for "Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page" was a sort of baiting and did not conform to our blocking policy. When you are young and feel powerless in a dispute, you tend to use very strong language. I advise to leave the indef block in force but to unprotect the talk page. Then we'll be able to see whether Tasc regrets his unacceptable behaviour. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block tasc for that comment alone, and I wouldn't block anybody over something so trivial unless they'd already been uncivil towards other people. The comment he left was uncivil, and he had already been warned for his incivility on other pages. Do we not block for incivility anymore?

J Di ^talk

17:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes we do, but we also give people a chance to apologize and we don't jump to indef so quickly either. I'm unprotecting the page for the moment. We'll see what he does. pschemp | talk 18:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page unprotected

Tasc's response, from User talk:Tasc:

I can communicate in civil manner, when I'm addressed politely. But I refuse to communicate normally in response to:

• unjustified warnings
• vandalising of my talk page
• repetitive use of terrible, highly unpleasant colours on my talk page after being told not to do so.

I assume that quietly and indefinitely banning an active editor with almost 8 thousands edits for threats could do only inexperienced admin and failure to report my case only supports opinion that user wasn't sure about his actions. I reckon that for the majority of editors it can be clear (well, may be after reviewing all diffs of our discussion) that it wasn't a threat, but rather a figure of speech. --Tasc 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I copied that verbatim. — coelacan talk — 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So, he believes that he shouldn't have been warned for incivility, someone was vandalizing his talk page (when?), and he finds J Di's signature to be aesthetically unsound, therefore he was justified to "refuse to communicate normally in response". — coelacan talk — 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is his talk page. If he wants to blank it or format it, he is allowed. pschemp | talk 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I've suggested anything to the contrary. — coelacan talk — 19:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've asked User:132.73.80.117 to join the discussion here. — coelacan talk — 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is that IP and why do we care? If its Tasc I hope you aren't suggesting he evade his block with an IP sock. pschemp | talk 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is Tasc and that he has already evaded his block. — coelacan talk — 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then I suggest you go visit RFCU rather than make disingenuous suggestions you know are against policy. pschemp | talk 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather suggested to read

WP:SOCK carefully. below nutshell. I can confirm that User:tasc is using this ip. --132.73.80.117

22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Or should you be the one doing so?

WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy. While I'm pleased that your talk page was unprotected, I do not condone your use of the IP to circumvent the block and can no longer support a full unblock. – Chacor

12:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, fully support indef block. just few lines above. was that supposed to mean that you did support unblock? very confusing.

Let me also add more citation: considered uncool unless you have a good reason – can assure you that I do have a very good reason. multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort so? this ip is troublemaking? If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. Didn't I do so? If someone wants to block an ip - go ahead. just check contribution and point out what this anonymous editor did wrong. --132.73.80.117 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well something has ensued and Tasc has claimed he wasn't making a death threat. I recommend the community evaluate his responses. pschemp | talk 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If he makes a formal apology to the person he attacked, I'd suggest giving him a one week block. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposing a formal community ban on Tasc

Given this user's unrepentance, and repeated block evasion with that IP address used above, I cannot imagine this user is really here to work in the wiki spirit co-operatively to introduce good content. As Tasc still refuses to apologise, and in fact seems to be continuing to be incivil, I hereby ask for comments about a possible formal community ban on this user. – Chacor 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am formally oppose to the proposed indefinite ban. We need more than a single incivility fit to permablock a productive editor with the 8K edits. Give him 2 weeks block doubled if avoiding Alex Bakharev 08:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with a community ban, but, considering his behaviour, I think he should be given at least a month long block.--Aldux 17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My two cents, if I'm welcome to give them: 1-2 months. He said, "I'm gonna fucking kill you" like 8 times, and is not the slightest bit repentant. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The donation header source code (siteNoticeValue = ...) seems to be breaking XML parsing of MediaWiki pages. All Javascript scripts using XMLHttpRequest fail. Is this affecting anyone else? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-16 11:44Z

, I thought I would raise the matter here, as my intervention on the user's talk page has seemingly failed to produce any real response.

If my suspicions about this account being a sockpuppet of Ottawaman turn out to be unfounded, I will be the first to apologise. Meantime, I propose a community ban of Canuckster, and as speedy as possible a resolution of the sockpuppet question. --

Guinnog

08:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree on all counts, my attempts to support Sarah have not worked either, it seems, as he persists... – Chacor 08:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the suggestion of a community ban, as this is blatant trolling.

T • C

 ] 08:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, this is harrassment, and it's pretty obvious he's a sock. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of his discourse has been bordering on legal threats. (Throwing around the words "libel" & "slander".) An indef block might be in order. ---J.S ^(T/C) 08:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for informational purposes, a checkuser has been run; a conclusion of sockpuppetry is probable based on the technical evidence. Essjay (Talk) 09:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've indef. blocked him. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think a block would be in order even if he is not a sock. This is just obvious harassment. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think it'd be good to establish concensus for a community-based block/ban, as a failsafe just in case. Hence, I urge people to keep giving input as to the merits of a community ban or block.

T • C

 ] 09:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support the block per harrasment reasons. Viridae^Talk 09:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support indef block, clear trolling -- Samir धर्म 09:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this person's behavior shows a resemblence to Hollow Wilerding/Eternal Equinox/Velten: he has some kind of obsession with Michael Ignatieff - he probably thinks that he can somehow "own" that article by edit warring, attacks, etc. Furthermore, Ottawaman claimed to "quit" [37] [38], but since this has now been disproven above, I think it is highly likely that he will (at least attempt to) come back under a new identity and begin this whole cycle over again.

On the other hand, however, I'm not exactly sure if a community ban is necessarily needed at this point. Since I noticed that the vast majority of this person's edits are to

09:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i could support that, but then there would be no raison d'etre for this person. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support community ban. Durova^Charge! 14:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I would prefer a community ban over restricted editing. Eternal Equinox at least tried to improve articles. Ottawaman, on the other hand, has shown a singular focus on smearing Michael Ignatieff. Some of his accounts have even been used for vandalism (eg [39]). I don't believe his contributions this far justify allowing him to edit at all and I don't think that he will honor any restrictions anyway.

22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but have contributed to the Ignatieff article for the past while and watched the article closely even longer (I have an interest in human rights and humanitarian law). For the longest time these sockpuppets (Ottawaman / Neutralizer / 64.229.*.* / 67.71.*.* / 70.48.*.* / Etc) often "contributed" badly written POV edits on the article and bullied other editors with accusations of "sanitization" or being "PAID PRO-IGGY ORGANIZERS" when balance was attempted in content. The sockpuppets were easily identified by their editing style: pov plus multiple reverts with capitalized accusations such as "REVERTING PRO-IGGY EDITS!!". Some edits contributed by these puppets were, as Sarah points out, clearly smears, such as the instance where some ridiculous content about "Ignatieff" popping up in the "Yahoo searches" for "pornography" was added[40]; this was not mere vandalism, each of the above sock puppets contributed to the discussion attempting to feign consensus to have the content added. On another occasion, a story was fabricated on Wikinews and used as a source to add content about Ignatieff's private life, including his divorce and children. Outrageously, one editor (Joel Bastedo) who attempted to stop the smear was accused of working on the Ignatieff campaign! [41] This sort of thing continued for months until Sarah had the courage to do something about the abuse and she has apparently suffered accordingly. I commend her for that. This sort of conduct really undermines the credibility and useability of wikipedia; it must be dealt with effectively. I can't see how a simple edit restriction would do the trick. - Finnegans wake 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The above comments do not address the edits actually made by Canuckster at the Ignatieff article; Perhaps the discussion could address these edits which are not disputed as to origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Ignatieff&action=history (cur) (last) 15:15, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 15:01, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 14:59, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 14:46, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 14:46, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) m (added another citation) (cur) (last) 14:35, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 14:34, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Condoning Torture) (cur) (last) 14:19, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) m (→The lesser evil approach) (cur) (last) 14:18, 16 December 2006 Canuckster (Talk | contribs) (→The lesser evil approach)

I personally think they are very well cited additions to the article. TomBlackstonez 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And I smell a sock. – Chacor 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

and I smell ad hominem deflection by a biased [42]party. 65.95.150.180 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever this User's "crime", from what I have read it has been blown totally out of all proportion. he appears to have been banned for some considerable time. Yet overall he has done sterling work on Wikipedia. It appears the controversy into which he pitched himself has gone. Is it not time to restore him to some sort of probation status? Chelsea Tory 12:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned for legal threats, reviewed here at the time. Sterling work is open to question, many of his edits (and especially comments) were highly biased and gave excessive weight to minority views, and he edited several articles on which he had a conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had a look at about 20 different pages regarding this. It would seem that if anyone had a very clear conflict of political interest here it was you. You have some sort of irritant with these people and are clearly opposed to them. I therefore think you should not be leading the comments on this. As you say, "at the time", but it apears from what I have read he was not personally in a position to threaten anyone, so presumably he was warning others. Surely that sort of thing should be taken in the spirit it is offered? In any case it was all a long time ago. He who is without sin throw the first stone. Chelsea Tory 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• No. The problem here was that Sussexman and a bunch of other anonymous IPs started making legal threats against myself and other users without any attempt to play by the Wikipedia policy. I recieved a solicitors letter and was labelled as 'scum' by a small core of this users assosciates, something which I did not enjoy. Like it or not the Sussexman situation appears to cause a great deal of malicious trolling, something which I (and I'm sure a good deal of others who were involved in this situation) can well do without--Edchilvers 12:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone care to check Chelsea Tory's IP to see if it matches Sussexman's? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting edit history. I see why you asked. --

Donald Albury

15:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It won't. Is that a legitimate response to a legitimate request? It is childish. Chelsea Tory 10:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser says definately probable. Essjay (Talk) 10:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that sufficient to get Chelsea Tory blocked? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Definitely probable"? That's a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think? —

(❝?!❞)

17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really, if you have much experience with checkuser. Checkuser is not a science, it is a matter of interpreting results, and in this case, the results are solidly within the range of "probable." There are cases where they are borderline probable, and cases where they are not. Essjay (Talk) 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand Earle's bafflement, but I also understand what Essjay is trying to say. The problem lies in explaining the degree of certainty, which if not expressed well can lead to confusion. Perhaps explaining the level of confidence as "more than probable" or "probable, tending to definite" -- or using a numerical grdation from 0 to 4 -- one of these may convey the degree of certainty here better. Just a suggestion. -- llywrch 06:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have

something like that for use on RFCU, but I didn't really think saying that it was most certainly probable would be such a big deal... Essjay (Talk)

00:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages used for password swapping??

I just deleted the talk page of LilSWIMMY lol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (see Special:Undelete/User_talk:LilSWIMMY_lol), which only consisted of notes like "My friend just got on her username is Cindy1234 and her password is 123456abc". The user has no other contributions. This is obviously not what talk pages are for, but is there anything else we can or need to do here other than delete this page? Kusma (討論) 22:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, assuming you haven't already, you could block all of the accounts listed under the "Public accounts" section of the

blocking policy. —bbatsell ¿?

23:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I could only log in to one of the claimed accounts and have blocked it. Kusma (討論) 09:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You logged into someone else's account? I know you did it to test whether the password was real, but still, that feels wrong somehow... Carcharoth 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I got punished by an autoblock on myself. Anyway, blocking without even attempting to log in to verify that it is a public account would have been worse, I think. Kusma (討論) 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked 70.48.205.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for making legal threats on quite a few user pages, see Special:Contributions/70.48.205.239. Posting this notice for review. --Trödel 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This IP posted on the talkpages of almost all of the active ArbCom members, and I suspect it might be Canuckster himself (or at best, a meatpuppet). Any thoughts? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

IPs should not be blocked indefinitely, unless they're open proxies. I suggest Trödel shortens the block to a week, or something similarly effective but temporary - otherwise somebody else probably will. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty basic—a different person is going to have this IP tomorrow. Where can we put this information in big, glowing letters for the several admins who appear to have little understanding of Internet technology or Wikipedia blocking policy? —Centrx→talk • 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the policy re IP's figured I could always reduce it - and will - just want to get some more feedback first. I know my IP is leased for 6 months, so a 1-3 mo block does not seem to be out of line, IMHO. --Trödel 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Id say a 1 m block would be more than enough to seee if this user is a serios conributor to WP or not--Light current 00:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be a waste of effort on your part and liable to failure. It would make more sense to just block it right the first time. Use

whois; most IPs on Wikipedia are dynamic. —Centrx→talk

 • 01:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, actually, it's pretty basic that a significant number of IPs are statically assigned, or only semi-dynamically (that is, they stay the same for months on end). I've had the same IP address now for months, so if I was anonymously posting all sorts of threats and harassment and you only blocked me for a week, I could easily continue it again the next week. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is Ottawaman/Canuckster/etc. However, he uses dynamic Bell Sympatico IPs and comes straight back with a new IP soon after being blocked. For this reason, I've always tried to use short blocks. I think even a week long block will have collateral damage.

Sarah Ewart

00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He can just disconnect his modem and get a new IP, possibly right away. You would need to block 70.48.204.0/22 to be effective. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he just used a completely different IP address, so we may have a problem here, or he may be utilizing open proxies now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me more like false accusations and uncivil behavior by Ewart followed by abusive cover-up activities by her supporters. Why were her false accusations archived and protected? Even she herself could not provide evidence to support them? TomBlackstonez 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,here's the personal attack comments that were archived.

"I must say that I agree with Guinnog that the downside completely outweighs any minor positive contributions Ottawaman might make. If he was going to become a productive editor, I think he would have done so by now. He has shown here and on Wikinews that he has no interest in following policies and simply has an anti-American, anti-Ignatieff agenda to push. An interesting block log [104] and edits from the same ISP [105]. Sarah Ewart 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - - I'd like to note that the vicious attack above was entirely unprovoked. Sarah said she would gladly unprotect my user space. She did not. She said above "And I'm warning him now that this is his last chance"; now she says she does not want to give another chance; she accuses me of having an "anti-american agenda" which is a blatant lie and she makes all kinds of other crazy accusations. The anti-american slur is particularly libelous and, these days, a potentially harmful accusation to make. I did say that Ignatieff's allegiance to the US should have been in his article but at most I am anti-Bush foreign policy. Perhaps Sarah thinks Cindy Sheehan is also anti-american. It is shameful that here on Wikipedia I am having to defend my political opinions in this way. I came to this noticeboard to ask for help with the userspace protection issue. That has been settled by an admin. who unprotected the space. I then tried to remove this incident report that I placed here but was told I could not. If Sarah (or anyone else) wishes to be making ongoing and false accusations I am willing to engage in dispute resolution but I do not think this is the place. In the meantime I hope her supporters here will encourage her not to continue with the libelous namecalling. Canuckster 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - I didn't unprotect your pages because you didn't actually ask me until after I had gone offline and when I came back and received your message, it had already been done. I never said I would "gladly unprotect [your] user space". What I said was I would have if you'd bothered to ask me. Please stop twisting my words. As for whether you get a second chance, I'm leaving that in the hands of the community. As for you being anti-American, the evidence is in your edits. Sarah Ewart 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - Please show us my "anti-american" edits. I'll call that bluff. Canuckster 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - I've no interest whatsoever in what you want and I'm not going to be trawling through the contribs of your various accounts for diffs. You've wasted more than enough time over the last six months and I'm not wasting anymore on you. The edits made by your various sock puppets have indicated a deliberate intent to smear Michael Ignatieff and a decided anti-American slant, something which contributed to you being community banned from Wikinews. Sarah Ewart 03:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)" TomBlackstonez 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from putting "new user" on his userpage and talkpage, these are User:TomBlackstonez's first edits. Newyorkbrad 19:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, pointed that out above. Bloody socks. – Chacor 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

ad hominem deflections aren't helpful to the discussion guys. 65.95.150.180 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Recently a

06:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This user's

T

07:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, the above editor has persuaded me to leave this offer to unblock on

T

09:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why this username is deemed offensive though? It simply denotes that the user is jewish...? Viridae^Talk 09:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. I mentioned ANI thread to the blocking admin. I have no opinion and no problem w/ anyone unblocking User:Jewish, though please look further down this tread, first.--

T

19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:U prohibits usernames dealing with "religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs". I would assume that it was blocked under this section. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!)

20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That prohibition is because wearing such a username might be taken as claiming to be "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which would be blasphemous to their believers. Claiming to be "Jewish", "Muslim", "Christian", or "Buddhist" does not commit such an offense, and should not be prohibited for that reason. – SAJordan talk_contribs 02:54, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Please note that some other usernames beginning with "Jewish" — JewishKaveman, Jewishgenius, Jewisharific — have been used and remain unblocked. Other such names have existed, some offensive (due to the rest of the name), some not. Why is the single unattached word "Jewish" now so controversial? Are all these "Christian" usernames blocked, or all these "Muslim" usernames, or all these "Buddhist" usernames? There's no username block on User:Christian or User:Muslim or User:Buddhist. So what's wrong with being User:Jewish? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 20:27, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC).

This brings up an issue which I believe needs addressing. Blocking users with usernames that could be deemed offensive (excluding trolls) happens very frequently and at the judgement of of the blocking administrator only. I believe (and I have been guilty of this myself) that far too often, a potentially useful user with a username that is deemed mildy offensive is blocked without warning within seconds or miutes of registering. Indeed, with some of the obscurely offensive usernames that get reported to

usernameblock

}} template be added. If this proposal gains some momentum/support, I ask that someone with skills mock up an appropriate template to fit the above. It would also be good to approach one or more of the bot owners with bots that currently complete tasks similar to that which I have outlined and ask them if they would be willing to add this task to their bot. (once again - none come to mind, but I am sure someone will think of some)

To expand on the "whats deemed offensive" issue. We need to establish some sort of consensus as to how far we take the potentially offensive boundaries.

WP:USERNAME rules like non-commercial or non-latin characters (for example) should be blocked for having an offensive username, even if they are encouraged to change it and don't. However as current policy precludes "Inflammatory usernames" we need to work out some sort of system to determine what exactly is inflamatroy and what is being over-sensitive or rigidly enforcing the rules for no good purpose. Viridae^Talk

08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I second this. The indef-blocks with no prior warning have a bite-like effect and are unnecessary in most cases. I'd also extend that to other criteria such as the non-Latin characters one (that rule will need to be reviewed soon anyway, once we have wikimedia-wide single usernames). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Any figures on the "very frequently"? Last time I did any looking into this the number of blocks based on username over a 24 hour period was less then 1% of all accounts created. I didn't look further to exclude the very obviously offensive, but I would guess that the borderline cases were a small fraction of that. --pgk 10:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the BITE issue;

WP:USERNAME already says but should be emphasized: Co-operative contributors should normally just be made aware of our policy via a post on their talk page. Voluntary changes (via Wikipedia:Changing username) are preferred: users from other countries and/or age groups may make mistakes about choosing names -- immediate blocking or listing on RfC could scare off new users acting in good faith. —Quarl ^(talk

) 2006-12-18 10:11Z

Not sure I entirely agree, without reference to this precise case: Immediately reverting a new users edits may scare someone off, a bite like effect, if that edit is unsourced rumour in a

WP:BITE isn't a call to look the other way. To my mind immedidate (i.e. point of creation) blocking in many cases is preferable to blocking after an edit or two, provided the situation is explained and creation of a new username simple, then it isn't the rather emotive "Biting", but good housekeeping. --pgk

10:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think immediate blocking to be in order, because I think it quite probable that a user so encumbered upon his initial attempt to contribute (under an account) to the project will not readily appreciate why his account has been blocked and will be unlikely to return. Except in such cases as a username is plainly inflammatory and disruptive (e.g.,

WP:RfC#NAME should be in order, and surely a constructive editor will straightaway change his username upon the community's expressing a preference for such change. Joe

19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"upon his initial attempt to contribute (under an account) ..." and how is that not true of reverting the unsubstantiated, potentially libelous rumour they add to an article?

WP:BITE isn't a permission for new accounts to ignore policy, or a call for us to walk on egg shells. Yes we need to be sensible and proportionate, but lets not lose sight of the project and its purpose. There are 1000s upon 1000s of usernames created everyday. A small amount of those get blocked as blatantly inappropriate usernames a very small number of those are arguably borderline cases. My own experience has been those I've queried a blocking of (those which seem at worst borderline), often the blocking admin has quite a different take on the name to my view and so doesn't even see it as borderline. Context of creation is also important, we have for instance one user who mass creates socks created relating to WTC, anti-jewish etc. etc. so a name which normally may be borderline might be merely caught up in the middle of such a session etc. --pgk

13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There actually is a User:Christian, which doesn't seem to have caused any controversy. (Of course, in that case "Christian" actually does seem to be the guy's real first name.) If "Christian" is acceptable as a username, why not "Jewish"? I don't really like the whole "offensive usernames" business where admins take it on themselves to decide the inherently subjective issue of which usernames might possibly offend somebody. *Dan T.* 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between Jewish and Christian is that Christian is a first name, and that this user Christian probably had no religious connotations with his name. What I wonder though is what will happen to a User:Osama, which is a common Arab name. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm all for blocking users based on usernames that are offensive (e.g., User:Nigger, even though it might be a self-identified black, User:God, or even User:Osama), perhaps we ought to give a rehash on whether we want to block any user with a religious part of their username unless the editor is patently editing against that perceived bias. For example, I believe User:Allah was around to push anti-Muslim propaganda. But if User:Jewish is indeed Jewish, then he/she should not be blocked. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree w/ Pat here. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I did not comment on this particular block of this particular account, but merely on the semantical perspective of a point raised by Dtobias. I have no opinion on this particular issue. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, I did a brief survey once and found some interesting history behind some well-known names: User:Carcharoth#Test. Carcharoth 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what we need to do is place the "Your username must not contain" section of the signup page above the form for entering username/password and add a message saying that accounts with inappropriate usernames will be blocked indefinitely without warning. (Looks like that's one for the devs). As it stands, it barely shows up on the 1024 * 768 screen without scrolling. MER-C 10:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in case anyone's interested, the user has since gotten a new account, Kahanechai (talk · contribs). I am guessing that they're the same person based on the contributions. Khoikhoi 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)n

I was among those who asked him to consider changing the name, but I didn't expect it would end up like this. BTW,

Kach and Kahane Chai is an unacceptable choice because it is a terrorist org. ←Humus sapiens ^ну?

06:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for. ... You may get it." – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:53, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).

What's that supposed to mean? Someone is knowingly making a clearly bad choice on their own will but you seem to assign blame onto others. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

When i first left a note to this user re his username back in May i did so not because of the word Jewish but because that would have caused trouble to NPOV (i.e. Names that give the impression that you intend to cause trouble). Since that time, User:Jewish has been editing w/o bias. I don't see why he got to be blocked. We had User:Islamist who was blocked not because of his username but because of being a sockpuppet. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with username User:Jewish: IMHO (my POV!) it may look like the user speaks for all Jews. JewishKaveman is free of this impression. And Christian is a regular name of course. It seems we are given a choice between confusing or offensive username. It does not have to be either. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

it may look like the user speaks for all Jews. to who exactly? This isn't the Simple English Wiki. If wiki is to make assumptions about reader intelligence at that level, we'd get nothing done. I think what is really at the core here is certain activist admins busily spreading their political views around Wiki have a problem with anyone writing anything which might potentially disagree with their party line, yet appearing to come from the same community. This is a straight up grossly irresponsible abuse of admin powers, and stinks of special treatment.89.100.52.30 19:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was a user with a history of great edits that I thought were helping and constructing wikipedia. A short message to starblind saying I thought a block of a previous user might of been a bit harsh and he decides block me without reason. I then post a message on his talk page and he refuses to respond. I want my good history and credibility back. I won't ever edit wikipedia again unless I get my user back. I can't have whenever I make progress being blocked as a sockpuppet. It just is counter productive. If I didn't know better I would think starblind is trying to stop anyone with apposing views gain a reputation to become administrator. User:Starblindy. Please respond with your comments.--12.16.126.98 13:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that you only have twenty edits. Your block was in accordance with our username policy. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note 2 of those were creating articles. I hold to the point that no one has ever confused we with anyone else. Am I expected to go through every user and try and come up with an original username. Also he sights me being a sockpuppet of Enknowed or something. Is asking him for an explanation of why he blocked a user all of a sudden proof of being a sockpuppet with no other evidence.--12.16.126.98 13:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat that you were quite rightly blocked. Your username is way too similar to that of User:Starblind. Could you please explain your relation to Enknowed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He is mentioned in your block log. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All i see is that the block was unjust. There is no proof of sockpuppeting and no prior notice at User:Starblindy re his username. Has anyone informed this user about all that? It is the blocking admin User:Starblind who should answer those questions. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A notice on Starblindy's talk page about the username might indeed have been appropriate, but that does not make the block unjust. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A new user with a name confusingly similar to an admin shows up out of the blue at the admin's talk page to complain about the block of a sock puppeteer. I may be missing something here, but why is that an unjust block? Starblindy, if you are reading this and honestly want to contribute in a positive way, just make a new name and get on with life. BigDT 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and having a look at this user contribs nothing tells us that he hasn't been contributing in a positive way. Again, nobody told him anything about his username. So how come the blocking admin got to the conclusion that this user is a sock of User:Enknowed (compare those w/ Enknowed's contribs)? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So if User:FayssalFy or User:Szvesty, who has 20 contributions posts on your page a complaint about the block of a known sockpuppet, you wouldn't block him? BigDT 14:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Although ... on further review, the Enknowed socks from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Nobby Norton were all from Australia IPs. User:12.16.126.98 is from Massachusetts. So I don't know ... politely informing the user along with the block that he should choose a new name would have probably been a good idea ... but it's distinctly possible given the different contributions and locations, he is not a sock. BigDT 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a position to tell, but I assume that this message might have something to do with the block. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see guys. This edit is the only one that tells alot. I didn't see it actually. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look I just wanted to say that it is painfully obvious to all that have looked into it that I am not a sockpuppet of Enknowed. It isn't fair to damage my reputation by making random claims. I asked a question (I'm sorry I didn't make this clear above) about a certain user and I was fairly pleased with starblind's response. However that in no way should make me a sockpuppet that get's no explanation. A nice a message somewhere saying that it was because my username and had nothing to do with my edits, would of been nice and much well recieved. It seems to me that my reputation has been damaged. Is this what administrators do?? You ask a question about one of their blocks give a nice answer then block you almost immediatly as a sockpuppet of the user you were asking about?? It points out my comment to starblind in the first place, he blocked Enknowed for being a sockpuppet too. It seems if you don't love a user it is easy enough to claim he is a sockpuppet. I remember reading about the case, and starblind or another user saying that though the edits were close together after Silentbob got blocked and thus his ip that he could of run down to the library and started vandelising wikipedia around 30 mins after his block (this dosn't seem probable too me). It just seems to me that it has become way too easy for admins to say someone is a sockpuppet of another user without any evidence, except weak links. This was my complaint in the first place. Block a user for reasons not for weak sockpuppet links!!! Instead of starblind getting this point, instead he blocks me for (in part) being a sockpuppet. Well I am sorry for trying to make a constructive point about wikipedia. BTW look at his response to my comment he then gives a nice response without any indication of the impending block on me. It just dosn't seem fair, and those 20 edits were fairly big (including 2 article creations) and I don't really feel like wasting more of my time creating a reputation. This may be the end of the line for this user.--151.204.56.2 23:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have calmed down a bit though I still believe I was wrongly done by, but I have a new humorus username TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy I hope this doesn't upset anyone and I will recieve no more problems from administrators. If I am blocked again for being a sockpuppet of Enknowed as I will be making very obvious that I am the same user as starblindy, who according to starblind is the same user as Enknowed, well lets just saying stuff will happen. If there is a problem with this username POST A COMMENT WHILE BLOCKING OR BEFORE SAYING WHY!!!--TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for the User name. Choose one which doesn't include another User's ID. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, there exist User:A, User:B, User:C, User:D, ... and User:Z. If no other username can be chosen which includes any of these, we'll have a very limited set of editors. The above user has just been given an impossible task. Incidentally, based on three of those names, you should also (to be utterly consistent) block and change your username.... though to what you could change it, I can't guess. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 08:11, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps this list will make the point more clearly. How many variations of "Zoe" are there? Should all the other "Zoe"s be blocked because their IDs include yours? Should your ID be blocked because it includes "Zo" (#1 in the list), adding only the single letter "e" at the end? By the rule you enunciated, yes. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:17, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Near the close of the last post by 'TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy', the statement is made "If I am blocked again for being a sockpuppet...well lets just saying stuff will happen". This is definitely a threat and should be taken into account in dealing with this editor, in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the "stuff" that "will happen", doesn't it? The sun will rise in the east? Not much threat in that. Starblindy will start behaving himself, or simply go away forever? Not much threat there either. If TWFKAS were to spend the rest of his life in a catatonic trance and do nothing whatsoever, stuff would still happen. I state this with no threatening intention at all, in case that needs to be said.

What I consider a more serious issue is whether someone who can't distinguish between "Formerly" and "Formally" is really up to editing an encyclopedia. But there doesn't seem to be any policy about literacy requirements. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:17, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Reset Indent.

I wonder how many of us remember the process to create an account. if our first choice of name fails, and only then, we get this message:

BEGINS Registering a free account takes only a few seconds, and has many benefits.

Simply choose a username and password and click "create account". All usernames must begin with a capitalized letter. Do not use an e-mail address as your username. You are not required to share your e-mail address, but providing one is the only way to retrieve a forgotten password. Your username must not contain:

   * offensive, confusing, random or unreadable text or characters
   * names of celebrities, notable world figures or events, or known Wikipedians
   * words like "bot" or "script" that refer to automated editing processes
   * titles like "admin" or "sysop" that imply authority on Wikipedia 

For more information about which usernames are acceptable on Wikipedia, see our username policy.

Notes:

   * You must have cookies enabled to log in to Wikipedia.
   * Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; see the pros and cons of using your real name.
   * Do not use your e-mail address as your username. It will be very visible, and make you a target of spammers.
   * Find out more about logging in. 

ENDS

The salient part is names of celebrities, notable world figures or events, or known Wikipedians. I suppose that means that one should not then choose a prefix or a suffix of one's rejected user name, but it really ios not clear. We have plenty of registered unknown wilipedians. I place myself in that category!

If the user name registers without a hitch I assume no such message appears.

So, ignoring totally any accusations of sock puppetry for Star... what shoudl he have done in the first case, assuming his registration went through straight away? Under those circumstances a block (etc) does seem unfair and cliquey.

If we ignore the individual for the moment, surely the process is incorrect. My user ID, for example. Timtrent. What if someome registers Timothytrent? Fiddle Faddle 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We should never ignore the individual. I can't think of names off the top of my head (someone can help me out here), but we've had a number of editors with very similar usernames over the years. In general, where those editors have both been useful, productive members of the community, we leave them be. Coincidences happen, after all.

On the other hand, in this case, Starblindy went and posted a critical message on Starblind's talk page as his eleventh edit. Even if this were an innocent coincidence, it would be darned confusing to have Starblind and Starblindy arguing back and forth. There's a near-infinite number of possible usernames out there; it's not that difficult to choose another one. (And to choose one that isn't making a point.)

Let me turn your last question around. How would you feel if a new editor named Timothytrent showed up at your user page and started criticising your actions? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm. We got 4 problems here Fiddle. First,

illustrating a point. Fourth, in this thread, he made threats and has refused to change his username so far. I explained to him many time that there are TRILLIONS. We are still being patient though waiting for his cooperation. I hope it is clear. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®}

14:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important, in this and any case, to ignore the user until there is a true reason to investigate properly and with the correct tools. The reason is because the user's actions and the user's name must be considered different things. Thus the user's actions dictate whether a block (etc) is appropriate, and the user's name identifies that user as a unique editor unless proven otherwise.

Taking the question about a user with a similar id to mine arriving at my talk page, or anywhere I have edited, the first reaction is mild perplexity. The correct next reaction is

the assumption of good faith

.

There is nothing to stop me from questioning that user politely, and nothing to stop me from asking fellow editors for their thoughts, but, unless and until proven otherwise, I believe that editor has the right to an id similar to mine. I must assukme, because those are the guidelines withun which we work, that there was no malicious intent. That other editor has as much right to question me and my actions as I have to question them and their actions.

I would not exaclty "like" another editor to exist who might seem to be me, but my likes and dislikes must have nothing to do with this. While this all sounds very altruistic, I should point out that it is. Wikipedia is based on altruism and trust until the trust is betrayed. Fiddle Faddle 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the only one defending his case at first. This means that

WP:AGF was in action. I don't know if you had read the thread below already. What should be done now in your opinion? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®}

14:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read the thread in detail, yes. I see that there are issues, but cannot be clear if they were caused by assumption, or are real. I am not an admin and do not have access to the admin toolset.

I am concerned that the admin who made the initial block is the one with a similar username. I am not accusing that admin of anything, please let us be clear on that. I simply see it as not best practice to block yourself someone with whom you are in disgareement. My first thoughts were I that admin, would be to ask my fellow admins for a review of my actions, and present my reasons.

The remainder hangs upon that review. I believe until proven otherwise, that the user must be considered innocent and good faith assumed. Thus, if the block is rescinded, all else must go as well. That block should be viewed as a causative element to the rest of the behaviour by the user. I agree that this behaviour was not of the best, but I can also see that they coudl feel agrieved at an unjustified block.

If the initial block is upheld then the user's behaviour should be examined, as should the subsequent block on the humorous user name. That block seemed to me to be rather hastier than desirable. It was humour, rather than malice if we assume good faith.

From a non admin's perspective this user does not appear to be a sock puppet. Assuming good faith can be hard when there is a user of few edits who makes a complaint to an admin about a sock puppetry blocking. But we should also look atthe quality of that user's edits (I have not done so) as well as the quantity.

When things blow up like this it is important to be seen to be even handed and open minded. This means that, whiel actions must be taken fast to protect wikipedia from an assumed malicious user, those actions must be open to scrutiny and documented well. These look less than well documented, and more like a battle in which the user is the underdog. Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is worth bearing in mind that choosing a username is an action. That username wasn't given to him by his parents at birth; it was a deliberate choice made by this person. Coupled with some of his other behaviour, it is difficult to sustain any further assumption of good faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but often usernames are fashioned from experiences and interests without regard to the context in which they are being used; for instance, someone who really really liked Tom Jones music might want 'LoveTJMusic' as a username - it's not fate, but it's influenced by things so outside the context of Wikipedia that it might as well be considered fate in some cases. Nonetheless, it is a choice and inflexibility flexibility on the part of an editor in altering a username something that should be expected of a good-faith contributor. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not disgaree with you, and yet I still see separate compartments here. A username is a username. It is a unique key valu einthe database and distinguishes one person from another. It may not be desirable that his user is is one character different from another user, but it is not "unlawful"

The other actions must be considered as other actions. As they show up here, in this page, silly impotent posturing threat or not, they do not look to me to be blockable offences. Fiddle Faddle 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I swear this will be the last thing I'll say on the subject: in regards to impartiality, if Starblindy registers a new name XOPOPOREHRITRIX and three months down the line finds XOPOPOREHRITRIXTER has registered an account and who contacts XOPOPOREHRITRIX in XOPOPOREHRITRIXTER's 5th edit to make a comment about a user that it is unlikely XOPOPOREHRITRIXTER (being a new user) would have had contact with I will do my utmost as a wikipedia administrator to protect XOPOPOREHRITRIX from impersonation. Cheers. Syrthiss 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

the user ID is a key to the database. The edit histories etc are different. If in stead the user used a nickname to look "the same as another user, that would be true impersonation. Let is say I altered "Fiddle faddle" to show up as "Syrthiss", and started to post where you post and to look as like you as I can. That is impersonation. Fiddle Faddle 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That would also be impersonation. As would if I piped my signature to Fiddle Faddla and posted to articles you edited. AGF is a very very good thing, and its noble that you can continue to AGF in Starblindy / TWFKAS...but AGF isn't intended to be Assume Good Faith Beyond A Preponderance Of Suspicious Circumstances (AGFBAPSC). Syrthiss 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Noble? No. Pragmatic. Were I an admin I imagine fondly that I would have tools to investigate a suspicious circumstance which I would investigate while assuming good faith (in other words, silently) until I reached a conclusion (either no action and remain silent, or action and rationale for action). That is fair and reasonable. The circumstances are, at best, unusual. But I would also want to make the work I had done totally transparent when and if I chose to take blocking or banning action. The respinsibilities of an admin are far greater than any apparent priviliges, and they are to show beyond doubt that their actions are like Caesar's wife is meant to be. I am making no slurs, casting no aspersions; this comment is for all who are admins whether part of this mini saga or not. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle. I don't know why neither you nor the user in question could consult Wikipedia:RFCU. This is time consuming. You are arguing and repeating ourselves for a long time now. Being blocked or not, having User:Starblind and User:Starblindy editing both wikipedia or arguing Vs eachother. It's COMMON SENSE! Now, is User:Starblindy's willing to change his username or not? If yes, welcome. If not there nothing we can do! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is simple. I find it strange that the guidelines are not applied with uniformity. But, since you know that I will leave the topic alone. Please don't do the capital letters thing. It is not common sense one way or the other, and using capitals does not make it so. Please do not take lack of a further reply as agreeing with you, I have said my piece and have not seen any reason to alter my thinking. I think the user behaved in a foolish manner, but that is the sole conclusion I can draw from what is in front of me. I understand your very human reaction to the behaviour, but that very humanity is a weakness when dissecting an issue like this. Fiddle Faddle 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the caps but it's common sense and that's been argued by to all admins involved. I don't see why we should let this user edit w/ an account so similar to another user and especially that he doesn't want to cooperate. Wikipedia needs people who are willing to do compromises and not a user who wants to illustrate a point. The compromise offered from our part is that he still can edit w/ another username regardless of his prior indef block. That's a compromise Fiddle. Are we looking for a solution? Yes. So that's the one. The ball is in his camp. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

After inserting images that have continually been removed per consensus and having them removed yet again,

14:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are absolutely right, Miracleimpulse is trolling, I removed the comment as being utterly unhelpful to anyone (least of all Miracleimpulse). Guy (Help!) 14:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll wait and see if your comment has any effect on him at all. If this continues I'm going to open an Arbcom.--Isotope23 14:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• And I will be right there with you. Enough is enough. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have ocassionally seen the arbitrators decline to review "righteous community bans" (I think "righteous" is Fred's terminology.) Do we really need to bother them about this? (Or maybe we want to toss a softball so the newbies can get some batting practice.)

Thatcher131

15:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Those interested may also look at Talk:American Greetings and Talk:Hallmark Cards for issues involving this user, as well as several prior threads on this board. Newyorkbrad 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My impression from the

IfD circus was that Miracleimpulse already had an ArbCom case [43] that was being re-opened. --Kralizec! (talk

) 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that was a

RfM I had originally requested on the Sweetest Day article (after a couple failed RfCs) that was going to be reopened by the mediator, but was closed when User:Miracleimpulse was blocked for the IfD disruption. The original mediation ended in what appeared to be a consensus; just not a consensus that User:Miracleimpulse agreed with. Re-opening the MfD at this point wouldn't be helpful because this has gone well beyond a content dispute.--Isotope23

16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support an indef block. This Single Purpose Account has been nothing but disruptive. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for some time with interest. I want to point out some things I've noticed.

1. I've noticed multiple "NPOV" disputes on this article. I need someone to explain to me how factual information, photographs, and related newspaper articles going as far back as 1921 can have a "point of view" attached to them. If the facts about a specific issue are condemning, then they are condemning. It IS NOT a point of view issue just because someone pointed it out. Point of view as it relates to photos and newspaper articles from eighty years ago is not relative, as the photographers and journalists responsible for the photos and articles are not currently editing Wikipedia.

2. There were multiple complaints about the quality of some of the uploaded images. I noticed that the images were replaced with higher resolution scans as requested by multiple users, and subsequently deleted without a trace or a debate. Can someone explain?

3. Certain users on here have entirely too much time on their hands. Edits get reverted sometimes within MINUTES of their occurance. It does, in fact, makes someone wonder if there are people on wikipedia who do this for a living. Who exactly sits in front of their computer and mashes f5 while looking at an article about such a seemingly insignificant holiday? People with stake in said holiday, thats who.

4. User: Miracleimpulse's information seems completely factual. I don't understand why factual and highly relevant information would be removed from the supported topic in an encyclopedia article. Is it really possible to have "too much" information about something? He seems to be the only supporter of facts editing this article. I haven't yet witnessed a single person disputing his content, only his format. I see multiple users supporting the removal of content, and only one supporting the addition of content. Why? There is absolutely no reason to delete the content unless you have something to suppress. Suppression of information is not permitted on Wikipedia. A small group of editors is talking about arbcom-ing someone for posting facts. It's not right, and its not the spirit of free information upon which Wikipedia is based. Stop focusing on the syntax and format and start focusing on the information in question.

What is going on here?

68.60.17.31 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, this exact same message was posted to Talk: Sweetest Day by Meisterchef (talk · contribs) [44]. This was Meister's only edit. The IP who posted here only has one other edit from in September [45], which was to correct a spelling error by Eyetomhas (talk · contribs), who's only edit was also in support of Miracleimpulse. Not sure if these are socks, but Miracleimpulse does have a known history of using multiple account on other online forums (see unanswered concern expressed at User talk:Miracleimpulse#Multiple accounts?. Not a dog 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody mind asking User:ATren to stop following me around, please? With no previous comments on User talk:MONGO ([46]) it is beyond the bounds of coincidence that he popped up there shortly after I made a comment to MONGO. It's getting a bit tiresome. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the controversy around him, it's not entirely impossible. I have his talk page on my watchlist for some reason. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO has never, as far as I can see, interacted with ATren, anywhere. As far as I can see this passes the

duck test :-) Guy (Help!

) 15:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You did allude to your dispute with ATren, and he responded about it. I don't see where the stalking comes in there. Frankly, Guy, you've really no grounds of complaint. WP:STALK is about systematic targeting of someone's edits to revert or undermine them. It doesn't ban someone using 'User contributions' and responding to an analysis they disagree with. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that you have any beef with me here, of course... Perhaps I should just make a new thread and ask that all my little friends post their trolls in a separate section, that might be simpler all round. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go again - if you want people to go away and shut up and leave you in peace, the best way is to apologise for your mistake, not to repeatedly call them trolls. Have you read anything on the social psychology of roles? PS: I note you didn't actually contradict me that this is not a case of Wikistalking. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since numerous admins pointed out independently that the mistake was yours, I await your apology with baited breath. Oh, wait, I forgot - Fys is never wrong, even when in a minority of one. How foolish of me to forget. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. Does JzG attack *everybody* that politely disagrees with him? Fresheneesz 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

When he alludes that I am a "POV pushing troll" on another admin's talk page (even though he didn't reference me by name, anyone who saw his vote page knew who he was talking about) I am going to defend myself. Is that stalking? JzG continues to go around complaining to other admins about this "POV pushing troll" who is "stalking him", but he's the one who continues to tell blatant lies about our long-standing dispute. Why is he bringing me up here in a completely unrelated discussion?

See, it's like this: if I don't defend myself against JzG's accusations, then it looks like I'm guilty. Then, fast forward a month when JzG asks MONGO or some other admin for help with the dispute: of course, that admin might remember JzG's unchallenged version of events, and (s)he comes on the scene with a preconceived notion that I'm still "POV pushing" or "stalking JzG". The fact that a respected admin (and friend) has called me a POV pushing troll (and now a stalker) will inevitably color their interactions with me from the start.

For a casual editor like myself, I have no choice but to defend my reputation in the face of groundless accusations from a respected admin.

Now, I've tirelessly documented my reasoning in voting against JzG - I've provided at least a dozen diffs to support my case. JzG has not only repeatedly insisted on his version of events which is entirely contradicted by my evidence, but he has also not provided one single diff to prove his assertions about me. Am I to keep my mouth shut and allow him to spread lies about me (yes, lies - look at my evidence) to all his admin friends? ATren 15:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think my point is proven, thanks. Oh - over there is a small spot which I think might be a blood spatter from the horse, you might go and beat that just in case. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What point? That I watch your edits to make sure you don't spread lies about me? Guilty as charged! ATren 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy, you did refer to ATren (unnecessarily) on Mongo's talk page before ATren showed up there. But ATren could have stayed out of it, and is taking his attempts to contact/irritate/influence you to fairly drastic levels (I note that over half of his last 200 edits are about you in some way). However, Guy, it might be better not to provide any further temptation, and just ignore his provocation, if you view it as that. If he is a troll, don't feed him. If he is not a troll, then ignore it or file an RFC.

►

16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proto, I am defending my reputation. He continues to insinuate that I am a POV pushing troll, and I have to defend myself against that completely groundless accusation. What do I do here? Do I ignore it and watch my reputation get tarnished in the admin community, or address it and risk being called a stalker? I choose the latter, but for a casual user like myself trying to defend himself against an admin spreading lies, it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't". You will note that most of my so-called "trolling" and "stalking" is me defending myself when JzG misrepresented the dispute on AN/I or elsewhere. ATren 16:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, serves me right for conducting a breaching experiment :-) Still and all, there is no doubt but that he is following me around, and it's somewhat trying. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that you were trying to bait me? If you want me to stop "following you around", then stop spreading lies about me. ATren 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I forgot that you are allowed to "lie" about me (i.e. present your version of events, which I dispute and have told you so numerous times) but not vice-versa. I'll try to remember that. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, "my version" happens to be the truth, backed by diffs. For example, you continue to deny it was a "mediation", despite the fact that you yourself called it a "mediation process" at the time. This is a blatant, provable lie by you, and it implies that I am lying, which I am not as the diff clearly shows. This is the type of thing I am fighting against - casual remarks by a respected admin that completely misrepresent the dispute and serve to taint my reputation by implying that I'm a POV-pushing, lying troll.

And now, we find out that you've apparently been intentionally baiting me in an attempt to get a stalking charge against me. So not only have you lied to others about this dispute, not only have you called me a POV pusher without a shred of evidence, not only have you accused me of lying when I tried set the record straight, you are now (apparently) intentionally starting threads like this one solely for the purpose of

proving that I am a troll or stalker. Now, given all that, I find it very ironic that you are now requesting that I leave you alone. ATren

19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How about you both try and leave each other alone? Do it for me, and for Christmas, and, darn it, for the children. Just give it a try, go and do something constructive. Guy, you particularly should know better than to get drawn in.

►

22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Love to - just ask him to stop following me around, will you? ;-) Guy (Help!) 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

... and yet, his very next edit is this bucket of lies - I guess he's still conducting his "breaching experiment"? ATren 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, will both of you just stop pointing fingers at each other? This dispute is both ridiculous and childish. Continue on, and you guys won't be "protecting your reputation." You will have none left to protect. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have indicated, I have no choice. As long as JzG continues to call me a POV pushing troll to all his admin friends, I'm forced to defend myself. What can I do? What would you do? This is not a random, nobody editor spouting off on his talk page; this is a well-known and well-liked admin broadcasting "ATren is a POV pushing troll" on AN/I and other admins' talk pages. I can't just ignore it. ATren 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your attempts to protect your honor are only serving to lose it. If I were you, I would just shut up (really). Believe me, I've been spat on enough to know what you are talking about. If you aren't a POV-pushing troll as JzG alleges (and I don't condone said accusations unless they are true), then your record will speak for itself. Your continuous attempts to protect yourself using more and more hysterical (pardon the word) means are only embarrassing yourself. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, if I don't answer the charges, others will just take JzG's word for it. See, I'm in a no-win situation: if I ignore his charges, others take his word at face value and I'm labelled a POV pushing troll; if I don't ignore it, I'm a stalker. Damned if I do, damned if I don't, so I might as well go down defending myself. ATren 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What you two seem to be doing now is engaging into a fight to have the last word, a game you two should have stopped playing in kindergarten. Please, for the sake of God and sanity, STOP. I don't care who called whom names, this "yeah, I did it, but he started it first" farcical exchange stops here. ATren, I don't care whether JzG called you a "POV-pushing troll" or not. Wikipedia editors are smart enough not to buy accusations unless they are proven. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, may I suggest an

dispute resolution? This isn't something that administrators have to deal with, since it is so minor (if not fallacious already). --²¹⁰physicq (c

) 04:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As I am engaged in a

21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster issue

Big problem here

I had the following pasted on my talk page. If we believe this user or not is up to you guys; perhaps we want to be more cautious, or, instead outright block the user if the sockpuppetry is dead obvious. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart has blocked 4 or more people who work or live at this hospital calling us all sokpuppets? So some of us can't use our user names anymore. Please look at the topics I just tried to contribute to; it looks like my associate, Canuckster, has been railroaded. 67.71.123.25 14:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pat:

15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't privvy to the previous discussion. Like I said, if it's obvious,

WP:DFTT. -Patstuart^talk|edits

15:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster issue is over

He decided that the conflict had,as Chacor said, gone too far with range blocks being employed. He never was banned as a vandal you know; because he never did vandalize..he just wanted to clear his name. But anyway; that's it. There'll be no more contact from him but I really do think you should remove those accusations Sarah made about him having an anti-american agenda. That was really a false statement that should not be in the permanent record. Good bye. Leaf06 04:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone has posted an obscence photo on today's FA and its talk page, as mentioned before on other FA. KP Botany 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If includeonly didn't remove the template from image links, it would be a lot easier to find and fix these. Someone care to file a bug report? I'll vote it up. --NE2 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Still no technical way of preventing this except to protect all templates linked on FAs yet, then? – Chacor 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is - run a checkuser on the account and block the sockpuppets (which I have done). Image uploads don't work for newly registered accounts, so the best way to combat this is to get the accounts before they vandalize. Raul654 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One, that's not a technical solution, and two, that does nothing to stop sleeper socks. The template vandalism to the FA the other day was done by sleeper sock accounts old enough to upload images. So the answer Chacor, is no, not yet. pschemp | talk 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the infamous penis vandal that keeps continuing to add his obscenities around the wiki?? - and I assume, on rotating IPs.

He must be hard to block if he keeps finding new IP ranges to use. Perhaps people could comment out his image with: [[Image:Test.jpg|60px]]<!---[[Image:Penislarge.jpg|60px]]--> so they don't appear in the template. That way, we can at least stop him for now. --

20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to just fully protect all relevant templates for the duration of the featured article's presence on the main page? Does anyone have any data about how much legitimate template editing actually occurs then? JoshuaZ 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion I don't think anyone would mind... the question is finding an admin with the initiative to do all the protection/unprotection this would entail. --W.marsh 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I might oppose certain articles being on the main page if I knew I wouldn't be able to improve any of the templates they use while they are there. --NE2 21:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The featured articles review page has a listing of what article is going to be on the main page each day a couple of weeks in advance. If this is an area of interest for you, you can improve the templates for FA's a couple of days before they will be on the main page, which would not only be consistent with stopping the vandalism, but would make sure the most people saw them with the improvements you introduced. :) Newyorkbrad 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If I was an admin, I would probably temporarily protect the templates as [[edit:sysop=move:sysop]] for the duration of the FA, and then unprotect them after it was off the main page. Seems a good enough solution, and would probably stem this 'user' from doing his obscene vandalism. --

20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If a category was created and these templates placed into it, and the community agreed, I would work on it a bit in the mornings. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I come across as a little rude about this, but this has been going on for, I think, over a month, and is happening almost daily, and I've seen it must be 7 long drawn out discussions on WP:AN. This is reminding me of the group from

Life of Brian where their friend is in a fight to the death, and they decide to set up a committee to investigate. Would someone just protect the lousy templates and run a check user? Most of the templates are the same for every article (e.g., transcludes on transclusions). -Patstuart^talk|edits

23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your right, this requires immediate discussion, table a motion! (kidding) HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What was there today was beyond the average penis of the last few weeks. Hoping some kind admin will protect all the templates makes no sense: something has to be done. Sandy (Talk) 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I still don't 'get' what the problem is. Sometimes it sounds like people are complaining about offensive images getting onto the main page itself through an overlooked template... which would seem like it should be easy to prevent by just going through the templates listed when you click 'edit' and protecting each / unprotecting the next day. There can't be too many templates used in those little 'article of the day' blurbs. Other times it sounds like the offensive images are on the featured article itself... which just sounds like normal vandalism that we have always had and handled by reverting, blocking, and protecting the page for short periods if needed. Presumably there has to be more to it, but I've read three of these 'something must be done' threads now and still haven't seen anyone spell out exactly what the problem is. Like... citing the template that was vandalized? The username that did it? Also, why aren't people just reverting this stuff? If a vandal has access to DO it then every user on Wikipedia has access to UNdo it. Each time it seems like multiple people complain about seeing the image... why didn't the first person get rid of it so that the others wouldn't? In short... I don't 'get' it. --CBD 11:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • CBD, in the amount of time you spent writing this post you could have done the research yourself and found out exactly what is going wrong. But since you didn't do it, I'll do it for you. For two weeks now we've had some image vandalism on our featured articles. They place images inside of noincludes in templates used on the articles. This takes awhile to figure out and remove from the article. In the meanwhile, hundreds of people are seeing disgusting and vile images and turning off a good proportion of them from Wikipedia. This is a huge problem, and it isn't nearly your "run-of-the-mill" vandalism. --Cyde Weys 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiEN-l thread. – Chacor 11:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I guess I must type alot faster than you do Cyde... because I'd already spent considerably longer than it took to write that searching for details... as I'd have thought was clear in my original message. Thanks for the info and Chacor for the link. --CBD 12:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting: on today's vandalism (thread below), I mentioned specific templates and users. I guess you didn't read the entire page. Why didn't I do something about it? I did. I notified administrators that vandalism had broken through, and a template had been missed. Sandy (Talk) 13:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• After some searching I found this edit (see, a specific example) which apparently created the vandalism complained about above. This would not have appeared on the Main page and thus must be different than other complaints about vandalism there in another section below. The vandalism to this template was reverted, restored by another username, and reverted again within minutes before the template was protected. Seems like normal 'article of the day' vandal fighting to me except that we actually protected the template and left it that way... which we normally wouldn't do if the vandalism were on the page directly. This page used seven templates, five of which have been protected for a long time, one of which was vandalized, and one of which was (and still is) only semi-protected... but the vandal apparently overlooked. It took me all of a minute to check the protection status of those templates. If people really don't understand how to track vandalism in templates (which doesn't seem the case here as it WAS reverted quickly) then we could easily have protected the handful of templates used on this page. However, there is nothing preventing the same images being placed directly on the page and restored by multiple accounts in the same way. The only 'twist' to this seems to be that it may be a little more difficult to locate the vandalism for people who aren't very familiar with how templates work. If the problem is really as bad as people say (though in this case the offensive image was present for a grand total of 12 minutes and 11 seconds) then temporary protection as 'SOP' seems like an easy enough solution. --CBD 13:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen of this, it is vandalism of templates within templates, and sometimes something involving vandalism involving redirects pointing at templates (I won't go into details in case copycat vandals are reading this thread). Tracking down templates within templates is a bit more time-consuming, and as for the length of time: 12 minutes and 11 seconds is far too long. Huge numbers of people will view the page in that time. I would like to see all vandalism of main page articles reverted within a minute or less. As for specific examples, I have one involving templates on the talk page of the main page: [47], [48] , [49] (note the deceptive edit summaries), which is discussed here. Previous discussions on the main page vandalism (there are lots of these discussion) include this and this. Carcharoth 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

13 minutes? That's hundreds of pageviews, hundreds of people who's first exposure to Wikipedia might have been an extremely offensive page. I kind of like to think we should project a better image to newcomers. The mainpage FA is vandalized on average for 2+ hours of its time on the main page, not even counting template vandalism, which does take a lot longer to fix. --W.marsh 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to revert this vandalism. --NE2 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Geeze, "The username that did it? Also, why aren't people just reverting this stuff?" Like I wouldn't if I could have figured it out? It should be pretty obvious now that with vandal patrols and the like, the reason people aren't just reverting it, like most simply vandalism to the FA, which often gets RV in the same minute it is created, is that it's not simple vandalism. Over the course of this vandal, Wikipedia has probably exposed thousands of potential users to offensive pornography, and these users will warn their friends not to use Wikipedia, to keep their children off of Wikipedia, yet it's been going on for weeks. Wikipedia also needs to apologize on its Main Page for not taking this seriously from day one. KP Botany 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:LSLM was blocked for personal attacks [50]. Then User:70.156.143.221 makes similar arguments and claims to be User:LSLM while LSLM was blocked. I reported it [51]. An admin warned 70.156.143.221 [52]. Later, LSLM was blocked for violation of 3rr rule [53]. And User:65.11.163.243 has made similar arguments to LSLM while LSLM's block hasnt expired. [54]. Then, after the block has expired, LSLM has returned and signed 65.11.163.243 's comments. [55] [56]. I also whois'ed 70.156.143.221 and 65.11.163.243. They got same locations...Lukas19 15:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:65.12.123.110 which has same location with User:70.156.143.221 and User:65.11.163.243 has made this obvious vandalism. [57] LSLM did vandalize before and was warned and reported [58]. I should have added this to vandalism board but I think an admin should look to this user. He was blocked already two times before. And I reported him for personal attacks again [59] Lukas19 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note 2: Also note his RFI report [60]. Other suspected puppet ip addresses are listed there. Lukas19 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention to this guy. He is always making false accusations. Just follow him a little bit in the white people's page. I and others are tired of his conduct. Follow also the quantity of problems he has already had with many users. He should be banned from this site. Veritas et Severitas 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No admin looking into this? Lukas19 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the Burlington, Vermont article, 75.69.65.217 believes I've treated them unfairly by twice removing an external link that they added, and the user went so far as to telephone me at home just now. Could another administrator or three please take a look and offer their opinion(s)?

Atlant 23:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-admin opinion here, but a lot of those links should be trimmed as per

WP:EL. Personally, I would only keep "Official Site of the City of Burlington", the WikiVermont (though it is not loading), and the "Maps and aerial photos". -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done}

00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How did they get your phone number? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not edit Wikipedia anonymously, and my user page has more than enough information to make it possible for anyone to quickly be in direct contact with me. But in the interest of openness of the decision-making process, discussions about Wikipedia content should be conducted right here on Wikipedia, in full view of everyone, especially if they are regarding (or verging on) those things I'm doing in my capacity as an administrator.

Atlant 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User Atlant has been informed that this link is NOT chatspam and is includable under WP:EL Section 4., "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

He has pointed out Section 10., "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." under "Links to Avoid". Since the link is none of these things, the rule does not apply. Since Atlant is aware of this, and has threatened me with a violation of [WP:NPA] for critizing his arbitrary decision, I have no other choice than to refer to this action as abuse and vandalism.

"Content disputes are never vandalism, and I'd suggest you not label them as such unless you want to risk running afoul of WP:NPA" -- Atlant

75.69.65.217 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What was the purpose of calling him at home, other than harrassment and confrontation? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for harassment. That kind of shit we do not need. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here where I don't belong, but this calling someone at home is so inappropriate, I would think a 6 month block would be the best course of action, seeing as it's a direct allocation non-static IP. That's my opinion, and sorry if I'm wrong. -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry gang, but I've got a whole range of IP's to play with. If user Atlant does not wish to be called, he should not list his number. This started as an attempt to sincerely improve the wiki. Since Jzg (aka Guy) told me "fuck process" on his talk page, then we'll play that way. So, Mr. 6 month block, go for it, we'll play this game all week. Or, we can go back to being gentlemen. Your Choice. It's a shame wiki Admins ruin it for everyone by playing God, removing and blocking without discussion or concencus.—66.252.244.140 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The decision to call him was yours and only yours, and the responsibility for it falls squarely on you. Whether he has listed it is immaterial. You grabbed an opportunity you should never have grabbed. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at

JChap2007

01:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the decision to call was mine and mine alone, I was civil, he was nasty and Zoe, what I wanted to to by calling him, was avoid this whole discussion. There was no harrassment, he was called once.66.252.244.140 01:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That one time was one time too many. This qualifies as wikistalking, no matter how civil your intentions were. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it harassment if the person in question makes their contact information available? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it takes someone else to search for that information and use it. It takes someone else to make the phone call. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is harassment if an editor, especially one that is having a dispute with the receiving end of the call, actually calls the number. -²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)-

... a number which is not listed on the user page (i.e., took an in depth search to find). -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy that. Thanks for the explainer. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So, it's ok to block my IP for disputing an admin, and ok for another admin to tell me he "is a rouge and fuck process" (that's a quote) but not okay for me to call a publically listed telephone and submit a concern privately and civilly? Nah. We aren't even dicussing the merits of the inclusion of the link anymore. Now, this is about the egos of the Admins. I think you'll find me to be most tenacious.66.252.245.98 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in our fine article on

JChap2007

02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't the link be put on the spam blacklist? save us a lot of legwork. --

Charlesknight

12:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure this incident rises to meet the criterion "widespread spamming by multiple users". Regardless, if folks think this is the right thing to do, I'll gladly propose that link for addition to the blacklist. -- Atlant 20:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Atlant is very interested in proposing these addresses for blacklist. His ego is on the line. This all began when I posted one line of text as a link to the Burlington, Vermont article that led to a Burlington news resource. Thus far, Atlant has made up stories about me, accused me of wikilawyering, harrassment and blown this waaay out of proportion. Yes, you have a problem child here alright, but it isn't me. Now, instead of banning me and all the other people who use my IP, could we just go back to discussing whether the link belongs on the article page? This is getting absurd. I can keep coming back no matter how many times I get banned, but I have no doubt the others who use the IP's would appriciate some civility and a resolution. I have not vandalized, used foul language nor disrupted any article on wiki. KR 66.252.245.106 22:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now even my responses here are being removed with a wrming not remove information. Well, I don't want my information here, it is mine, it is private. Next person who lists my personal IP's and posts them gets a call from my lawyer. I'm sick of meaningless "wiki process". This ends now. Am I clear? KR 66.252.245.106 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The above IP had been blocked per

WP:NLT.—Ryūlóng (竜龍

) 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked several IPs that have been vandalizing the article, he just keeps coming back with more. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the range he uses is 66.252.240.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), at least with most of the IPs. We can probably block that and not have to deal with him for a day or so.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ban, Ban, Ban.....is that all you folks do? Try talking to me like a human. Oh, Zoe, quit lying to these people. There is no vandalism to the Burlington article, never was. Simply an addd and relevant link. KR 66.252.242.32 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole business of some editor being annoyed and diligent enough to dig up your telephone number to call you at home frankly scares me a lot - enough to consider changing my username and subsequently disappearing, frankly. There should be consequences for that action, severe enough to be a deterrent ... though it likely just shows how naive I am about the world, that I should expect being called at home by editors. (I have not been called - I do not want to be - and there are some BEANS, unfortunately) --70.110.135.24 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We cannot get your phone number through knowledge of your IP address. We only know your internet provider.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I am logged out, Ryulong. --70.110.135.24 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

From another user, I'm worried it would only inflame this user further if we did anything like call the ISP. Just

WP:RBI; we don't want someone really stalking an admin of ours (i.e., dropping in on them). -Patstuart^talk|edits

00:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How interesting, KR! In the 22 minute phone conversation we just had (upon you calling me at home again), you didn't mention any of what you have recently said here on the Administrator's Noticeboard. But I see you're still busy trying to catch flies with vinegar, so I think I'll just stay clear of it for a while. But please, don't contact me again outside of the encyclopedia.

Atlant 00:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

---

IP addresses used by this user so far:

• 75.69.65.217 (Original)
• 66.252.242.150 (Evading block)
• 66.252.244.140 (Evading block)
• 66.252.244.150 (Evading block)
• 66.252.245.20 (Evading block)
• 66.252.245.98 (Evading block)
• 66.252.247.25 (Evading block)

Atlant 12:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a photograph of the Prime Minister of Canada. It has been listed since December 13, 2006 and no admin has addressed it. During the time that it has been listed, I have had to engage in several page reverts to keep the image excluded until the copyright can be resolved. Please expedite this review or protect the image page so these conflicting editors cannot continue to remove the copyright notice. Alan.ca 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright has been established already. It is currently in the realm of crown copyright, and therefore rightfully ours to use. Permission was given from the copyright holder already. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission is not enough, it needs to be licensed freely per

WP:FUC. This man is living and a free image could be reasonably created (FUC #1). Hbdragon88

23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See commons:Category:Stephen Harper, and my comment here about this particular image. Jkelly 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The House of the Commons is a government organization with permissions held by the public. The problem is that Alan.ca has been perpetrating this edit war over an outdated page because of the basis Herman is supposedly the only copyright holder although I can't find my way to that page from the Parliament's site.

This how I got to Stephen Harper's biography where it clearly states "© House of Commons"

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "Members of Parliament (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

OR

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "The Canadian Ministry (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

Also there is an email from Stephen Harper's contact email approving of this distribution as well. But Alan.ca is going ahead with no confirmation that this is not acceptable when other people have confirmed that this is acceptable. ViriiK 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it couldn't be

fair use. However, the PMO wrote that the image is their's and that it is freely-licensed, so it should still be usable unless someone has evidence that the Prime Minister of Canada is lying to us. --Arctic Gnome

00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If this email is forwarded to the permissions list, it should clear any problems. – Chacor 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, it should be pointed out for any that are unaware that the Canadian brand of Crown Copyright is not valid to release images under that copyright for use on Wikipedia. See

►

10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above, the fatuous revert war over tagging of the image, and the fact that the original website shows that the photographer has copyright anyway, I'm going to delete the image. There are so many free alternatives that warring over one with ambiguous copyright status makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on, this is just over the top - we NEED a new policy. Is someone working on it? Sandy (Talk) 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but what are you referring to? Cbrown1023 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Same thing as this higher up refers to, I'm guessing. – Chacor 01:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. We don't actually need a policy here, just some admins willing to do template protection. It seems most everyone agrees it is needed. pschemp | talk 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(after 2 edit conflicts) Where have you been for the last two weeks :-) The vandal attacking the templates and images associated with the main page featured article. The one that is there today is beyond description. Has no one yet found the source? All of the main page article templates are not protected. Is this the source of the problem? If so, it hasn't been protected yet. {{Harvard citation}} It was up for several minutes. Even I don't want to keep coming to the main page if I'm going to see that, and I'm not a newbie. This is going too far. I've seen what the main page template vandal has done for two weeks, this is going too far, no one should have to see that, and there should be a practice in place now of protecting EVERY template and image on the main page FA. Sandy (Talk) 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to click on and read the main page FA any more after this morning's encounter. When I first read about it, I started avoiding the articles, then I assumed it had been cleaned up. At this point, I must assume the vandal is doing exactly what he/she hopes to accomplish: turning users off of Wikipedia by the hundreds. I would have never come back if that was my first encounter. KP Botany 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Today's image was far beyond anything I'd seen up 'til now - I won't be working to help revert vandalism on the main page anymore, because a global policy needs to be put in place. Sandy (Talk) 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know; it was just disgusting and I have deleted it. Just disgusting. Anyway, we just need to be more certain that we protect templates on articles linked from the Main Page. However, there are other articles besides Today's Featured Article linked from the Main Page, and so this could get quite difficult (not that difficult is a barrier to doing what's necessary).-- tariqabjotu 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What was it? o__O --Masamage 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For admins doing the necessary protections, note {{mprotected2}} and Category:Protected pages associated with Main Page articles. -- tariqabjotu 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tariqabjotu - the kind, tireless protector of templates, but something more global needs to be done. I hope that was the one. -Sandy (Talk) 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be easier to

01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add these images to the image blacklist? pschemp | talk 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I might point out that this has also been discussed here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and, finally, here. Just wanna point out that we need to do something and not just talk about it. Although I think I might have missed some. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's been discussed just about every day since Dec 5 main page, Down syndrome. And yet, today, the most disgusting yet was up for at least several minutes that I saw. Sandy (Talk) 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from the template history, it looks like it was up for seven minutes. Sandy (Talk) 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Pat, and others, please... give us some credit here. Everyone has been trying their best to prevent this stuff from happening. No one notices when we prevent a vandal from introducing this type of vandalism to a page, but when it begins to happen, suddenly it's why aren't you all doing anything? Things have been done, but no one's perfect; things sometimes get overlooked. Note how several templates were protected by Pilotguy (talk · contribs) just prior to the 00:00 (UTC) switch. I double-checked later on to ensure all templates were protected. However, the common ones such as the ones vandalized today were overlooked by both me and him. But, no... that's not doing something; we're just sitting around letting people add shock images to pages because we find it funny. Seriously, discussing (and implementing) new ideas for trying to prevent this is in fact a worthwhile exercise. However, the stop talking and start doing something attitude with no indication as to what that do something is contributes nothing to the discussion and serves only as a slap in the face for all the people who are doing their best (which comes down to just about all of us). -- tariqabjotu 09:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Stupid question - why are new/unregistered users allowed to edit templates at all? I understand why they're allowed to edit articles, but templates? | Mr. Darcy talk 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not always new/unregistered users. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Many have been sleeper socks with accounts old enough to skirt restrictions. pschemp | talk 02:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto what Sandy said above. I practically choked on my tea when I loaded up the FA this morning. This issue needs to be resolved before it escalates into even more ... unpleasant things like goatse or tubgirl. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've posted to the mailing list about this, asking for suggestions. Maybe some of those who read the list but don't use ANI will throw in helpful comments. – Chacor 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really a whole lot we can do beyond being more careful. If we need to put all the articles associated with the Main Page on lockdown completely, the terrorists have won. -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(many edit conflicts) Is there a list out there of the next FAs to be on the main page, in sequence?

masterka

02:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2006. – Chacor 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Only TOFAs up to December 24 have been chosen? Is Raul on vacation? -- tariqabjotu 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he's around - he usually runs that tight. Sandy (Talk) 02:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest a new policy- any sufficiently drastic mainpage vandalism should result in automatic checkusering of whoever does it and notes should be sent to the ISPs. Let's make this cost the vandals some time and effort. JoshuaZ 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think protecting rather than substituting is the way to go here because {{mprotected2}} adds a category which lists all the affected templates and is helpful when its time to unprotect. Subst'ing doesn't create any central log and is more likely to get forgotten. While its nice to ask the mailing list for info, I think this is a serious enough problem that we need to start hashing out a solution now. pschemp | talk 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

can anyone protect

Template:Tl lists a bunch of templates transcluded onto it, but has almost no code (I'm very confused). And yes, PLEASE contact said ISP's. Patstuart^talk|edits

02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See {{For}} - has THASF (talk · contribs) been taken care of? Sandy (Talk) 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

21:46, December 18, 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs) blocked "THASF (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism only) - Pschemp got him. :) Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the image list to blacklist: [61] Images not work-safe; explicit. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Sandy (Talk) 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

After an admin has taken note of these images to blacklist, please delete my post above. Sandy (Talk) 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All this talk brings up two good points: templates should be more strictly semi-protected, and semi-protection should be edit-based not time-based. No one with less than 50 edits should be able to edit semi-protected articles. After all, even our semi-protection policy is fairly strict, so I don't see one negative to making it edit-based (or both). --

) 02:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't mention how due to

WP:BEANS, but it should be simple enough for vandals to get around a 50 edit semi-protection restriction. In fact, getting around it would probably be even faster than getting around the time-based semi-protection. Perhaps a protection mode could be made that would not only protect the article, but present a version of the article with templates included as they were at the time of protection to the reader. This way we wouldn't have to worry about forgetting one little template transcluded by another which is referred to be a redirect on an FA. --Philosophus ^T

07:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"High risk" templates are fully protected. I think the requirements for a template being "high risk" need to be broadened. If it's used on the main page, it's high risk. If it's used on hundreds of pages, it's high risk. If it's been penis vandalised, or very similar in use and function to a template that has, it's high risk.

►

10:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Go bug the WMF-paid devs. Where the hell are non-vandalized versions? That's the real solution to this problem. They were announced at Wikimania, but I really haven't seen any progress made on them since. --Cyde Weys 11:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another developer thingy we should have to make vandalism of this type easier to spot and to revert is

WP:RBI the vandal, checkuser and block his proxies, and hope he goes away. Kusma (討論)

12:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming in late to the conversation and there's a lot of it scattered around so forgive me if any of these have already been suggested:

1. A bot that produced a list of the the templates transcluded into the main page, the templates transcluded into those templates, etc., etc. would be a good idea. It seems that most of the problem now comes from humans trying to track down a heirachy of transclusions, something a bot could do faster and better. I'm not talking about a bot with admin rights, just something to produce a list that some dedicated admins can go round and protect.
2. Per Renesis - although it would be easy to evade a protection based on x number of edits, combining it with the time limit would increase the effort required to create a vandalism account. If as a vandal, I have to do 150 mainspace edits to get three vandal accounts for tomorrow, I'm at least going to have to spend some time thinking (and I might hit puberty in the meantime).
3. Create a fully subst'ed version of the current main page as soon as it gos up (or before), save it and then revert it. That gives us a safe copy to revert to while we track down any vandalised templates, rather than leaving the main page in a state until we can find out which template of a template of a template we missed. Yomangani^talk 12:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a bot for the first item above. Go to the Main page. Click edit. Scroll down. A list of all transcluded pages is displayed. It doesn't break it into a tree structure, but it lists everything which goes into making the page. Cyde above claimed that the problem was on the featured articles, but you are now back to saying the Main page... if it is the latter then it would seem simplest to check the particular section the vandalism is in. If there is a penis in the 'picture of the day' you go to that page, click edit, and check the handful of transclusions which are listed. --CBD 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you see something I don't, that only shows one level of transclusions, which means protecting sublevels involves clicking on the link of each template, hitting edit, clicking on the link of each template, hitting edit, clicking on ... until you reach the end of the tree. Repeat until all templates are protected and hope you haven't missed any (you can always check by repeating the process). Wait 24 hours, unprotect all the templates that don't feature on the new mainpage items...hmmm...probably best to get a list of all those on yesterday's list and then compare them one by one with today's, excluding those that were already protected beforehand. Doesn't look that simple to me, and the fact that templates have been missed every day would suggest it isn't. Yomangani^talk 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cite an example of a 'sub template' which is carried up to the Main page, but not listed when you click 'edit' there. I cannot find any. My recollection is that the list goes down several levels (to the point that you will rarely encounter transclusion so deep as to not be displayed). So far as I know the 15 transclusions listed are the ONLY ones used... and of those only four change on a daily basis and thus might introduce new sub-templates. Nor have I been able to locate any actual examples of vandalism to templates appearing on the Main page. Most of the complaints have centered around the 'article of the day', but I checked that and for the past week it has introduced no new sub-templates. Thus I'm not sure if there really is a 'vandalism on the main page' problem. There IS an issue with vandalism on the article of the day itself... but not that I can see on the blurb for such which is displayed on the main page. HAS vandalism been appearing on the Main page? Specifically where and when? --CBD 13:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I shall eat humble pie (although if the recursion of template listing is limited to x levels it is perhaps more of a hinderance than a help, as you still need to check through all the links to make sure there is nothing transcluded beyond x levels). I still think the minimum mainspace edits coupled with the time limit would be a good idea though - the time limit only deters the spur of the moment vandal,whereas a minimum mainspace edit count would at least involve more effort on their part. You'd have to be a very sad individual to run up 50 edits a day just so you could put a nasty image on an article for a few minutes. Yomangani^talk 15:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Could do both... three days AND 50 edits. --CBD 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Running up 50 edits by using a bot or AWB-type system would be trivial. With the current setup, it would be simple to do this in a way which would be completely undetectable as a bot. I could without too much difficulty write a proof of concept which would be able to register an account, make over 50 edits, and then automatically find unprotected important templates, upload images, and add them. This system could be embedded in a worm to create a botnet which would make it impossible to stop by IP-blocking. If all FA-transcluded templates were fully-protected, then the vandalism could be done to templates on other main-page-linked templates, or to articles linked to from main-page-linked articles. I think that

WP:BEANS has a tendency to make people overly complacent about these issues. Of course, I might be overestimating the abilities and resources of the vandals. A 50-edit restriction would probably deter human-run attacks. --Philosophus ^T

04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Per a request above
  Template:DYK needs to be protected to prevent it being used to vandalize the Main page, but Template:DYKbox does not. People need to understand how templates work, identify the actual problem (which I'm not even sure exists as nobody has cited a specific diff/example), and address that directly. --CBD
  13:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting again. I reported two specific templates involved in today's vandalism, and gave a site showing the images inserted. If this isn't helpful, I should probably stop trying to contribute - but since today's vandalism was up for seven minutes unnoticed (click the link above if you want to see how vile it was), it certainly seemed to be worth raising the issue where admins would take action. Sandy (Talk) 13:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I looked at the 'harvard citation' and 'for' links you cited and can see that they were vandalized... but not that they were transcluded onto the main page. What are we trying to do here? Keep offensive images off the Main page? If so then protecting 'DYKbox', 'harvard citation', and 'for' does nothing to accomplish that. Thus, I am getting the sense that there really isn't a problem with the main page itself and we should really be talking about vandalism to the 'article of the day'. Correct? If so, that is an age old problem that could only be completely prevented by protecting the article itself and all content transcluded onto it. Which is against the longstanding tradition of that article being editable to draw in new users. As some people have more trouble locating vandalism in templates and the new users we are trying to draw aren't going to know about/understand templates it might be reasonable to protect all templates used on the article... but that isn't going to prevent offensive images being added. They can always do it directly on the page... or on a completely different template which they then add to the page. We'd have to lock down everything related to that page for the day (either by protection or 'stable versions' when those are implemented) to completely prevent this. --CBD 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think you are right that we are talking about the article of the day, not the main page itself. It is an old problem, and yes, they can always add it directly to the page, but when done directly, it's likely that will be reverted in a matter of seconds. In the past few weeks, the template vandalism has often lasted 5 minutes or more, causes many more users to attempt to contact Wikipedia about it, and turns away from Wikipedia however many other users that we don't even know about. Vandalism that lasts a matter of 10 times (or more) longer than typical article-of-the-day vandalism is indeed a problem we need to fix now. --
        talk
        ) 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, what we are talking about is articles linked to from the main page, CBD, most often the main page FA. While it's easy to say "just revert it!", but it's obviously not that simple to anyone who actually works on the main page FAs. I know from experience it takes 4-10 minutes to actually find the vandalized template and revert the vandalism... since they do it in such a way that you have to look at each template's code. Discussion of protecting those templates in advance is ongoing. --W.marsh 18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Some tips for tracking and reverting vandalism to templates more quickly:

1. Get the smallest applicable list of transcluded pages you can. If the vandalism is in a particular section of the page then edit just that section... below the edit window there will be a list of items transcluded for that section only. In most cases this will be only one or two. Note that you can also click on those links to go to the template... I use the popups script, popup the history from those links, get a preview of suspect edits in that history, and go from there... can usually find the problem in just a few seconds without ever leaving the original page (article of the day in this case).
2. Familiarize yourself with the permanently protected 'high risk' templates. In most cases these cover all but a very few of the templates transcluded onto a page. If you exclude those it's alot easier.
3. Look (or search) for '{{' to find the template which is located at the exact point in the text where the vandalism is appearing. That's the vandalized template. Sometimes difficult with infoboxes and the like if they are 'stacked' atop each other, but you can usually get in the ballpark.
4. Don't look at the template code - look at its page history. If there are no edits to the template that day then you have the wrong one. If there ARE edits you can quickly get diffs and see what was added... if it is an image inside 'includeonly' tags then that's likely it.

• • Obviously this would still take longer than just looking at the history and reverting back to a clean version, but it can still be done very quickly. --CBD 20:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to revert this vandalism. --NE2 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not create a static version of the main page every day(nothing transluced, all raw wikicode)? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think CBD is right though. I haven't seen any vandalism on the main page itself, and I use that pretty much constantly throughout the day. The vandalism is occurring on the featured article. It is a static version of the featured article you are after, I suspect, but that would negate the "let anyone edit" thing. I think we just need more people watching the featured article and its templates. Carcharoth 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think HighInBC means a page that just uses no templates, i.e. everything is substituted in (subst:). It could be unprotected, and the templates could be too, but sneaky template vandalism would be impossible, unless someone added the template they vandalized, then it would be easilly reverted. Coincidentally I had just proposed something like this. --W.marsh 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively creating a static version, saving it and then reverting back to the dynamic version would allow anybody to edit but give a "safe" version to roll back to if any sneaky vandalism did occur. You could then hunt down the offending tranclusion without having it on the page while you did so. You wouldn't then need to reconvert the static page back to a dynamic page the next day (which you would have to do with a purely static version unless no useful edits were made during the day it was featured). Yomangani^talk 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess, this just all seems like a tremendous ammount of work to add for admins just so we can get the 5-10 beneficial edits from IPs on the main page FA each day... which only ammount to 10-11% of edits by IP editors (the others are all vandalism). --W.marsh 19:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the sentiment, but again, it's not IP vandals - now it's sleeper accounts. Sandy (Talk) 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy (and anyone else who cares). I know you've contributed at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection, but we need more respected people in one place to echo we need change. There's no more "waiting for data" to be done (not to mention that various evidence that might help make decisions, such as server logs/user browsing patterns, will never be available); Wikipedia's reputation continues to be at stake, and too many people who love Wikipedia take dogmatic positions that actually hurt the project. I keep telling myself to leave the issue alone—"most people don't care"—but I can't. Something must change regarding TFA editability. It's not "giving into vandals". It's a business decision to address a fact of life for a high-traffic web site and article. (Does one not buy home insurance because it's "giving into fires"?) –Outriggr § 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Kengir uprising, Main page Dec 20

It doesn't look like all the templates and images are protected; am I missing something? Sandy (Talk) 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Which ones are not protected? -- tariqabjotu 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

About images... is there really an advantage to protecting images? Vandals could just as easily upload their own and add it to the article. -- tariqabjotu 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

{{mprotected2}} update

For those admins tackling this issue, they may want to note that {{mprotected2}} has been updated to allow the name of the article with which the template is associated to be added as a parameter (i.e. {{mprotected2|name of associated article}}). That would make it easier to find out the reason for the template's protection and when it is safe for the template to be unprotected. -- tariqabjotu 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Selena Main page Dec 21

I was just checking the category (Protected pages associated with Main Page articles) to see if all templates had been protected for today, and found that not all are listed in the category. I can't add the category on protected templates, as I'm not an admin - I'll begin adding editprotected comments, unless someone gets to them first. Sandy (Talk) 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba, which already had an ArbCom remedy, appears to have reignited, this time between SSS108 and Ekantik. Discussion has spilled over trom the article discussion page onto my talk. Accusation of sockpuppetry abound. I'm hoping that someone with either some background knowledge in the ArbCom case, or a heck of a lot of time, can untangle the mess. Thanks, BanyanTree 07:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected for now. I can investigate per the arbitration case tonight after work. There is also a pending complaint at

Thatcher131

12:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The root cause of the pending complaint at

WP:AE was a request for clarification that I submitted months ago that was ignored by the arbcom. I re-submitted it. Andries

17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded extensively here, and placed the article on 1RR parole. Any editor who makes more than one content reversion per day (excepting obvious vandalism) may be blocked for up to 24 hours per offense. It seems like the best way to stop the edit war while allowing work on the article (which is a mess) to continue.

Thatcher131

05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have received the following e-mail from

). I've removed the e-mail addresses for privacy reasons.

from Titanicprincess <address removed>

to Aecis <address removed>
date Dec 18, 2006 11:29 PM
subject Wikipedia e-mail
mailed-by wikimedia.org

May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38. It is a school IP and it is shared by multiple users. Its a home school. Me and my seven brothers and sisters are home schooled, the [email protected] email is my uncle, he very smart with computers!!! We are supposed to use Wikipedia and the internet for educational purposes.


We just want to start over and start a new leaf!! On the weekends we edit Wikipedia and surf the internet. That Bobabiba character is my older sister, I told my mom that she is causing trouble on the internet durning school time (8:30-5:00), my mom "banned" her from using the internet.



May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38.

Thank you,


and happy Holidays,

God Bless

Since I was not involved in the discussion about Bobabobabo, I'm deferring this to the Admins' Noticeboard. What should be done? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. Besides the sockpuppetry, this is sufficient reason for a block. Kusma (討論) 12:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the status-quo. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See the similar section on AN. Do not unblock. :) Syrthiss 12:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this is another hoax email that's going round. I'd

talk

12:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the image of the decent christian homeschooled girl in the above e-mail incompatible with calling someone a "GOD DAMN" child. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me, unblock it if you feel so inclined and watch the user but it seems probable to me. I strongly suggest unblock. Last time I spoke out on an issue like this though I got blocked as a sockpuppet of the user I was supporting. So I will take the risk. Unblock I think and don't make links to attitudes and school people can act in different ways. -- TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy Currently:--151.204.56.2 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See

pride? skulk? exaltation? plague?) of admins to whom Titanicprincess has emailed appeals. - BanyanTree

14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

An admonishment of admins? ;) Syrthiss 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the term for a gathering of admins was 'cabal'. --

Donald Albury

15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were known as a scourge or a kaleidoscope. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The term you are looking for is "bucket" as in "mop-and-�". HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, I'm not an admin, but may I put my suggestion forward on how to deal with this user? I don't know if this would work or not, but it might be possible:

1. Request a checkuser on our ... rather unconvincing ... friend,
2. Do a WHOIS on her IP,
3. Report her for network abuse.

Any ideas? Cheers,

31415 (Review me!

) 19:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history here, it looks like a Checkuser was already done and beyond that the request came from an IP, so I'm not sure what that would accomplish. The IP resolves to Roadrunner ISP and it's been my experience they are not exactly helpful when it comes to abuse investigations...--Isotope23 19:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if they're not going to be helpful, we can just ban that ISP from Wikipedia.

31415 (Review me!

) 20:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP is already indef blocked...that is why this person is emailing admins.--Isotope23 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but I mean the ISP (Roadrunner ISP) instead of IP. That is probably a rather drastic step, however. There's no harm in making an abuse report however, in the meantime (or is there)?

31415 (Review me!

) 20:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes... that is a hugely drastic step. Roadrunner is a big, big, ISP and that would effect a whole lot of people not involved with this. If someone wants to make an abuse report on this particular IP they are welcome to... just don't expect much from Roadrunner...--Isotope23 21:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Content copied from User talk:Schneelocke

Block of 72.177.68.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hello Schneelocke. I have received a few emails from a person who claims to be using this IP address. It has been blocked indefinitely and perhaps rightly so. However, the girl seems to be pleading not to block the IP indefinitely as she uses Wikipedia for school-projects and other assignments. In case you agree, can we unblock the IP for a temporary period, giving her time to register a username and then blocking it with an anon-access block preventing further account creation? That way, she can edit using the account, while her sister (who she claims has been trolling) cannot. Can we work this out, please? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was about to leave a message about this myself. I'm not sure if you're aware, but we never block IP's indefinitely especially if they're dynamic, unless in exceptional circumstances. Thanks, -- 

talk

) 14:59, 19 December 2006

I do not think that this IP is dynamic. See the block log. However, the edits of Titanicprincess were not disruptive. In case the administrator agrees, I can create an account for her and then send her the password. The IP can be blocked indefinitely with an anon-access block w/ preventing account creation. HTH — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Although, this was disruptive – [62]. Still, let us try giving her a uh... last chance

for that matter. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}}

15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For the hopefully last time...

<large>DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. DO NOT UNBLOCK THIS IP. JUST DON'T. ANYONE WHO THINKS TO UNBLOCK THE IP: JUST DON'T. IF YOU REALLY REALLY FEEL LIKE UNBLOCKING THE IP, CHECK WITH DMMCDEVIT AND THEN DON'T.</large> Syrthiss 15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, okay. If you insist. But, I really don't see any problem in sending a password to a registered account, which can be blocked the very instant it is abused. They would not be able to use the IP again for registering new usernames or editing anonymously for that matter. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 15:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The e-mail was obviously a shopping expedition. If the block weren't already permanent I would have extended it. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to edit to do school asignments, only read. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. This one has been lying, conniving, and harassing our users and admins for months. DO NOT UNBLOCK. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate threads on this at

G5. The original blocks on the IP that she requests unblocking were blocks for disruption, and then when that IP was checked, upwards of 70 accounts of all the same edits were found. We have determined that this is Bobabobabo's home IP address, and every other address that she has been using afterwards are open proxies. For any information relating to Bobabobabo or this IP can be seen at User:Interrobamf/Bobabobabo.—Ryūlóng (竜龍

) 22:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bobabo has basically never done anything except create problems, and there's absolutely no reason to believe anything she says considering her past history. Ryulong could tell you more about it, but I just want to throw in my two cents and say her IP should not be unblocked, ever. It's not like it

Danny Lilithborne

23:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Danny. She does

help us out, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍

) 04:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional persons who have received email from Titanicprincess

• Received 19 December (a yahoo email address) and have blocked the sender via my email client. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Several emails over a period. Told politely no action possible or desirable. --
  Guinnog
  04:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I am really upset now after having my first account suspended for suspect reasons as discussed above under User:Starblindy I conceded that though the reasons were not all valid and my reputation had take a severe attack, I would change my name and continue. Now another admin Zoe feels the need to throw his weight around. Lets go through inappropriate usernames section of

.

1) Names that can be confused with other contributors - look if anyone thinks that a signiture TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy is the same as Andrew Lenahan Starblind has got problems, I see no way a below average user could get confused.

2) Wikipedia Terms - There are none to my knowledge

3) Well-known persons name - Know one to my knowledge has a real name "The Wikipedian Formally Known As Starblindy" If so I would like to meet them or at least read about them.

4) Random Sequence of Numbers/Letters - This random sequence is called english

5) Extreamly Lengthy Usernames - I stress extreamly while it is on the lengthy side I don't think it is extreamly lengthy, plus it is a weak reason and not the one given.

6) Inflammatory Usernames - I don't think so

7) Harassing Usernames - I don't think I have offended anyone

8) With Non-Latin Charaters - No Problem there

9) Closly resemble Vandels Usernames - No problem to my knowledge

10) Usernames that promote a website or company - No problem to my knowledge

11) Email Addresses - No problem

12) Trademarked names - No problem to my knowledge

Be a hero unblock TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblind

PS: Don't say that my lack of edits shows I am a vandel as my past account that was blocked had 20 large useful edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:151.204.56.2 (talk • contribs)

I had defended your case before at first when you were editing under

WP:USERNAME). We already have another user/admin User:Starblind. So please create another username following the policy above and start editing. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®}

14:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I seem a bit angry but I have done this so many times. Now look here no one is getting confused between me and starblind I don't see any part of

WP:USERNAME that indicates that this username is inappropriate. This is the last straw I swear I will take action otherwise. I am a constructive user and I shouldn't have to go through this. I have been victimised as if I am a vandel with the intent to bring down the entire wikipedia. If I don't get unblocked this time I will act the way I am treated. There is nothing wrong with that username and there is nothing wrong with me. I am sick and tired of trying to mend wikipedia into a useable resource while also being attacked by the so called "administrators" who were voted in from what I see to try and make sure that this project stays were it is now, a place for them to flex their muscle. I started off as a good user with strong belief that I would have a good reputation and that no harm would come to me. But I see that no matter how good a user you are you get abused and attacked continually in a relentless effort to stifle the popularity of wikipedia in order to maintain thier "club". The upsetting thing is that this wasn't the "dream" of wikipedia or any wiki project. But users have come in from other backgrounds and created a "boys club" were they can get off on their own "power". It all is sickening. Unblock me, for the good of wikipedia and those who read this, understand, it can happen to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:151.204.56.2 (talk • contribs

)

You don't see anything wrong w/ your username but administrators see something wrong w/ it and it's been explained to you many times. Why can't you choose a brand new username among the trillions one can get? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with my colleagues. While a million monkeys at a million typewriters might someday type out 'starblind', there is no valid reason I can discern for permitting you to continue with any username that has any obvious mix of 'starblind'. I managed to register a username 1.5 years ago that is mostly random letters that miraculously has no similarity to 'starblind'. If you register a new username with the above consideration and make good edits I can guarantee that nobody will bother you. Syrthiss 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say essentially what Syrthiss already said. Your new username at least has the appearance of trying to make a point; which probably isn't going to go over very well. If I could offer any advice it would be to create a new user with a completely different username and go back to editing articles. Like Syrthiss said, it is virtually guaranteed nobody will bother you if you do that.--Isotope23 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is "do what I say or I start trolling?" is that it? or whatever can you mean by I swear I will take action otherwise and "If I don't get unblocked this time I will act the way I am treated." ? --

Charlesknight

15:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Gee Charlesknight!! I thought I was been treated well. I mean getting blocked because of you username and loosing all your reputation, that's good, right? I meant that I would act like I have been treated. Considering how little trouble I have had, I guess that means that I would start writing long complicated useful articles again, right?? Here is one question did it fool any of you for a second my name?? Did anyone look at it and say that is Starblind well I better go off and give this guy another barnstar for being the greatest administrator that ever lived? Don't you think people are smarter than that? Give them some credit they have turned on their computer! My point is are as follow so there is no mistake.

1) There is nothing in the protocol that says I can't have anothers username in my username as long as it isn't something like thatstarblidisafuckingidiot, that would be inappropriate. As long as it dosn't confuse people and I am sure that it dosen't.

2) This has stopped me making various edits to wikipedia get this into your head. I am a constructive user you are not saving wikipedia by relentlessly nitpicking about my username. It dosen't disrupt wikipedia, stop wikipedia or upset other wikipedians.

BTW if you don't like my attitude tough luck it was created in reaction to these events that everyone is guilty of as a result of letting them continue. I don't know which is worse, Nazi Germany or Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:151.204.56.2 (talk • contribs)

Godwin wins again. Syrthiss

16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Look my friend. We are here to help people and if you are not willing to cooperate than obviously we can do nothing. 'Till now you haven't agreed to change your username. You talk about reputation as if you were using your real name here and that would harm your electoral campaign! Just pick up any of the trillion usernames you can get and welcome. Further stubborness woudl not help this case. At the opposite, it would make it worse. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you're more interested in arguing with administrators than in actually improving the encyclopedia (which you can do as an anon), I don't think anyone will be particularly inclined to do what you want. Just register a new name that in absolutely no way, shape, or form resembles another existing editor's username, and be on your merry. Its not difficult at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You could always

promise to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man in order to help plead your case some more. --Elkman - (Elkspeak)

20:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when I saw this user's new username, I thought of this essay, and several other WP-humour articles. Seems to me that TWAKFS was employing the same type of humour in selecting his new username.

WP:POINT works both ways. Ah well. Risker

20:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked before (it's from a school, apparently). I've just been reverting his/her vandalism on the Henry VIII page. Having been through a random selection of edits from this IP over the last month, they all appear to be vandalism. Could an admin deal? Thanks, Hackloon 18:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

schoolblocked for 6 months. Syrthiss 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:72.166.123.170 was apparently blocked, but the block is neither listed on the admin's contribution's page, nor seems to have stopped the user from editing. A block template is on the user's talk page User talk:72.166.123.170 but there is no record of it being placed there in the contributions page of the Admin who signed it. TimVickers 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for one week on November 15th. Is there another, more recent block that you are talking about? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm just reading November and thinking December. Thank you for solving that "mystery" :) TimVickers 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have run across several users who are clearly not here to contribute to and help Wikipedia, but only to leave each other messages. Some also have excessive user pages, with extensive

violations.

• User:Frenchpoliceman
• User:Viva La France
• User:Mr. Wikipedia 019
• User:PETA Member
• User:Ockenbock
• User:Big Boned

These may be sockpuppets, a group of kids, or something. Per,

) 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think you might've missed one, User:Leben4life. I removed all the fair use images I found, (although there may be some that I missed, especially on User:Viva La France) and left them (him?) notes on their (his?) talk pages. Based on their contributions, I'd say most, if not all, are the same person. Seeing as at least two of the accounts have been used for vandalism, I think blocking all but one would be a good idea, with that one given a reminder about what the purpose of Wikipedia is. (Note: I'm not an admin.) Also, for the record, User:Mr. Wikipedia 019 claimed to be an admin yesterday. Picaroon 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What native French speaker would say "Viva La France" instead of "Vive"? Andrew Levine 11:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The bot, VoABot II, has made some bad edits to the article for Rebecca Loos. It has been removing the official site of Loos to put in the site for a portable toilet company. Could some admin please check on the bot and its edits? Dismas|^(talk) 22:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a very wrong edit ([63]). Bot blocked and I'll tell its daddy.

►

22:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Simple enough to explain. edit adds many external links, anti-vandalism bot reverts. Not too hard to see why. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See the white people's article. User Fourdee is trying to own the article anbd deleting other people's contributions. I do not have anyting else to add about his extreme POV pushing along wiht some other users and the reiterate attempt to silence other contributions.. Veritas et Severitas 23:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are removing material that is apparently

verify this sentence, I don't see anything wrong with Fourdee (talk · contribs) reverting your edits without you leaving an edit summary as why the removal. Followed the history of the page wrong. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done}

23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are adding information to a sentence that already has a citation. This could lead others to believe that this information can be found in that source ("Dealing with Diversity"). If this information does not come from that source, it should be in a seperate section. Based on this edit summary that says "eiditng perfectly valid information shared my common knowlegde", though, common knowledge is not a reason for inclusion.

reliable source for this statement, it shouldn't be included. It seems that Fourdee tried to convey this as well at User talk:LSLM#Please in a very civil manner. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done}

23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Scooter036

User talk:Scooter036 needs lots of help. Mentoring or blocking. He first came to my attention with his copyvio on Influenza. I checked his contributions and he seems to want to help but all his edits are poor and unsourced or copyvios. WAS 4.250 00:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just making a report here that administrators may wish to moderate some of the comments made on the talk page for the article University of Bedfordshire by Alfred Vella, a user who clearly has an axe to grind against his former employer. In the past he has made very POV edits to the article (eg. [64]), though he stopped that some time ago. However, the talk page continues to be filled with unsubstantiated rumours of "dishonest behaviour" by some of the university's staff; comments like, "The lives of many thousands of those who entrusted their education in the University have had their futures blighted," and risque remarks such as "Why do you not ask Ebdon what happened to the Head of technical services in 2000?" I would consider that some of these allegations could risk exposing Wikipedia to libel action.

I have warned the user that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not his soapbox on numerous occasions, and tried to reason with him, but he seems unwilling to listen and I am now sufficiently exasperated with the debate to withdraw myself. DWaterson 00:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrator:InShanee accused me of simply "throwing accusations around,"[65] but frankly, I might as well not bother, because it is well established on Wikipedia that any time anyone accuses User:Tajik of something they are ignored by administrators. Here, for example, E104421 accuses Tajik of something, provides diffs and evidence, but another user who is a friend of Tajik's jumps in, just like they did against me, and accuses E104421 of stalking Tajik, with no diffs, no support, nothing, just throwing accusations around.[66] Tajik simply throws around accusations of stalking, in fact, he is, like a classic stalker, using his accusations as an effective stalking weapon, and administrators ignore it. As I said, when I provided diffs, when I supported my accusations, just like E104421 is providing, I was ignored by administrators, in favor of baseless unsupported accusations against me, as is currently happening on WP:PAIN--accusations against Tajik are simply ignored by administrators, even after a proclamation of going rogue on Tajik, his incivility is completely ignored. Bias--pure and simply bias, Tajik's computer sophisticated and a longer term user, therefore he must be right and protected in everything. Again and again. I use Wikipedia dispute resolution techniques, and Tajik blasts me for them, and uses them against me, and administrators allow it, I support my accusations, Tajik throws around stalking charges with no supporting evidence, and administrators support him. It's nice to see that I'm not the only editor that administrator Tajik bias impacts so severely. KP Botany 00:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the examples on

WP:PAIN where this is also being discussed. Firsfron of Ronchester

01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone please block KP Botany for comments like "in fact, he is, like a classic stalker, using his accusations as an effective stalking weapon". I've had enough of her nonsense. Khoikhoi 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments alone are not a reason to block someone. -Will Beback • † • 01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that why Tajik was blocked? Khoikhoi 01:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree a statement comparing a user to a "classic stalker" could be offensive. However, this user does not appear to have even received a warning, judging from the history of the user's talk page. I could be missing something. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible, but I think he needs to be warned for that if nothing else, and someone new should keep an eye on him. He's hardly kept a cool head lately. --InShaneee 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) KP Botany 04:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked KP for 24 hours (to start). The lion's share of his recent contributions have all been anti-Khoikhoi rants. --InShaneee 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

He's just sent me a gigantic anti-wiki rant via email. I have a feeling this is the beginning of a trend. --InShaneee 05:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...And another. --InShaneee 05:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been in contact with KP Botany. KP feels very slighted and, looking at the evidence, I'm inclined to agree. KP has provided diffs for what s/he considers bad behavior, and has been met with apathy and silence. InShaneee's block of KP, I have to say, was incredibly inappropriate; InShaneee also apparently has a history of writing of contrary opinions as rants[67] (the email I got from KP claims that InShaneee's portrayals of the emails sent is false), so I'm inclined to believe KP's innocence in this. KP's statement above [68] was removed as a personal attack, but upon review, I think that's a bit of a stretch, given the fact that this is a dispute about the editor in particular.

All in all, there's some pretty shitty behavior about, and I'd like to see some actual dialogue, rather than just "I don't like what your saying you go bye now" kind of actions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say I partly agree with EVula here. KP Botany was upset and, yes, giving vent through somewhat long-winded and repetitive posts - call them rants if you must - but I don't think they seriously crossed the line into personal attacks, in a way that would have made a block necessary. There could have been far better ways of dealing with his complaints. Incidentally, I wouldn't have blocked Tajik either, this time, because he had actually been making a start at behaving better recently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote some of the things that KP Botany said:

• "Khoikhoi is abusing his status as an admininstrator, not only to push his POV on articles, to edit war with other editors, but to protect Tajik from the consequences of his own actions."

• "Administrator Khoikhoi abused and continues to abuse administrative privileges to promote his personal POV on Wikipedia via edit wars--something that this administrator has been blocked for plenty of times, and never gave up, and now abuses his authority as an administrator to maintain and support his POV on articles, and his blind allegiences to certain editors, namely Tajik."

• "It is outrageous, but not surprising, given as much leeway as Khoikhoi has been given to continue edit wars under the quise of an administrator, and as much as he continues to provide Tajik with leeway to do as he wants, that anyone seeking to get others to look fairly at what is going on with Tajik, would be attacked by Khoikhoi. However, it is outrageous, and it is doing a lot of harm and wasting time at Wikipedia."

• "Khoikhoi should admit his bias and stand back from issues concerning me, issues concerning Tajik, and issues concerning anyone he has displayed personal bias towards or against--it is simply not fair to editors to have to come up against administrators who abuse their administrative status to support someone they are biased towards--it creates a hostile atmosphere, not just for that particular victim, but potentially for all others who realize their complaints will be unheeded also, and they will just wind up being attacked now by an administrator (Khoikhoi), in addition to an editor."

• "Khoikhoi is biased and attacks editors whom he disagrees with, and supports Tajik no matter what he does, contributing to a hostile attitude towards other editors on Wikipedia."

I am sick and tired of this user attacking me like this. There were more than just complaints, and something seriously needed to be done. Khoikhoi 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If he has an issue with another user, he has to go through the proper dispute resolution channels like everyone else. If he keeps trying to smear Khoi to anyone that will listen, I will block him again. And EVula, while I do appreciate your assuming good faith on my part, just know that I'd be more than happy to post the text of the emails. --InShaneee 00:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently received this e-mail from a "LordPrincess," asking me to unblock an IP address. The sender states that his/her older sister is "that Bobabiba (sic) character" and that (s)he needs the IP unblocked as she and her siblings are "home schooled." What do I do with this, if I am to do anything with this? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

LordPrincess is a confirmed sockpuppet per contribs and checkuser. See User:Interrobamf/Bobabobabo, User:Bobabobabo, and User talk:72.177.68.38. Ignore any requests to unblock their IP. I did a good amount of work to make that blatantly obvious at the IP's user talk.--Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Magnetic767 (talk · contribs), who immediately after registering registered the accounts Yodawoman (talk · contribs) and Jediwarrior (talk · contribs)? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 01:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just got an email too. I've copied and pasted it below.

I AM TELLING THE TRUTH...... I AM A CHRISTIAN........ I FOLLOW THE TEN COMMANDMENTS..... I AM 14 YEARS OLD. PLEASE UNBLOCK ME..

Administrative note: This person has been sending e-mails to numerous people asking to be unblocked under various false pretenses.

Do not believe these e-mails. She is not editing from a school, and she could continue to try to be disruptive.

THESE ARE NOT TRUE!!!!!! PLEASE I'M SO UPSET....... I CRIED IN THE BATHROOM...... I NOT DISRUPTIVE.

tHANK YOU,

GOD BLESS, AND MERRY CHRISTMAS

PEOPLE ARE MAKING FUN OF ME, BEING RUDE, BEING UN FAIR, AND POSTING NOTICES THAT MAKE ME LOOK LIKE WHEELY ON WHEELS CHARACTER.. I AM A 14 YEAR OLD.. PLEASE GO EASY ON ME..... I DON'T LIKE THIS... MY PARENTS ARE DISAPPOINTED IN ME, THE ARE GROUNDING ME FOR TWO MONTHS, I GOT SPANKED WITH A BELT WHEN THEY GOT HOME TONIGHT. PLEASE ITS ALMOST CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!!! MY SISTER; GRACE (BOBABOBABO) WANTS TO START OVER.. WHY CAN'T SHE, NO WHY CAN'T WE.... PLEASE May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38. It is a school IP and it is shared by multiple users. Its a home school. Me and my seven brothers and sisters are home schooled, the [email protected] email is my uncle, he very smart with computers!!! We are supposed to use Wikipedia and the internet for educational purposes.

We just want to start over and start a new leaf!! On the weekends we edit Wikipedia and surf the internet. That Bobabiba character is my older sister, I told my mom that she is causing trouble on the internet durning school time (8:30-5:00), my mom "banned" her from using the internet. May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38. I noticed that user: JzG an admin wrote a rude and disrespectful message on my talk page.

See multiple threads on admin noticeboards and talk to Dmcdevit. Bobabobobo, what part of "fuck off" are you having trouble understanding? You are not welcome here. Not at all, not in the least, not even slightly. Go away, please. Guy ( Help!) 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that my IP has not vandalized.

==PRIVATE==

O.k. that Bobabobabab is my sister Grace, she was a "good" editor. She loves anime, Yu-Gi-OH and Pokemon. So she was trying to improve the Pokemon episode lists by uploading alot of fair use Pokemon images, she also was creating seperate episode pages, but the conflict started when A Man in Black opposed the images via discussion on the Pok¨¦mon Collaborative Project and change the template which included the images, so Grace created sock puppets to keep the images on the template, which User: Ryulong got involved.

Which Grace and Ryulong became enemies:

Subject

Re: Wikipedia e-mail

Sent Date 11-15-2006 11:03:02 PM

From

Ryulong <[email protected]> add to black list add to white list add to Address Book

To

"Aywana Tokiwana" < [email protected]>

Listen. I don't care if you are 13, or whatever. Stop vandalizing my page at the Japanese Wikipedia. It's your own fucking fault for impersonating me TWICE and I got my user name changed to the one that I should have had in the first place. Go edit Bulbapedia. I couldn't care less what you do over there. If you want, bring up your ban to the ArbCom at the English Wikipedia, but then all you can edit is your case. Just LEAVE ME ALONE YOU GOD DAMN CHILD.

• 15:04, 3 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Image:ScreenshotPokemonEpi63.JPG (top)
• 13:18, 3 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:43, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:38, 2 October 2006 ( hist) (diff) Fear Factor Phony
• 00:37, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
• 00:37, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:37, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Wikipedia talk:Pok¨¦mon Collaborative Project/Archive 7 ( ¡úPok¨¦num template.)
• 00:36, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) User talk:A Man In Black ( ¡úEPISODE IMAGES fair use rationale )
• 00:34, 2 October 2006 ( hist) (diff) Fear Factor Phony (RV every episode list has seperte pages for the episode look at the Simpsons, Prison Break, etc)
• 00:33, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes (RV every episode list has seperte pages for the episode look at the Simpsons, Prison Break, etc)
• 00:32, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel! (RV every episode list has seperte pages for the episode look at the Simpsons, Prison Break, etc)
• 00:31, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:30, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:29, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
• 00:28, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:27, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:26, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:23, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 00:23, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
• 00:18, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
• 00:12, 2 October 2006 ( hist) ( diff) Template:Yugiohepisode (RV)
• 00:11, 2 October 2006 ( hist) (diff ) User talk:A Man In Black ( ¡úEPISODE IMAGES fair use rationale)
• 12:10, 29 September 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon episodes (http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/anime/pokemon_bb/)
• 12:08, 29 September 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon Advanced Generation episodes (RV; back with images)
• 12:06, 29 September 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Diamond and Pearl episodes
• 11:53, 29 September 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon Original Series episodes (RV)
• 11:49, 29 September 2006 ( hist) ( diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Battle Frontier episodes
• 03:12, 29 September 2006 ( hist) (diff) List of Pok¨¦mon: Diamond and Pearl episodes

I hope this will give a "Whats going on".

PLEASE UNBLOCK!!!!!!!!!!! THOSE ADMINS ARE BEING BUTTS! I AM A CHILD YOU ARE NOT GOING WITH THE "GO EASY ON KIDS"

JoJan <[email protected]> wrote:

Don't expect me to unblock this account. It has a very bad history. In Wikipedias in other languages this account would have been permanently blocked.

See also the discussion at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:72.177.68.38

JoJan administrator Wikipedia

2006/12/18, Titanicprincess <[email protected]>:

May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38. It is a school IP and it is shared by multiple users

Its a home school. Me and my seven brothers and sisters are home schooled, the [email protected] email is my uncle, he very smart with computers!!! We are supposed to use Wikipedia and the internet for educational purposes.

We just want to start over and start a new leaf!! On the weekends we edit Wikipedia and surf the internet.

Quite amusing, if you ask me. --Rory096 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me as something I would write when I was 11, and had siblings getting into things. Nonetheless, this user doesn't need to edit the encyclopedia in order to use it. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I got the same email. I will note that the jjohnson email address has been named titanicprincess, Jessica Johnson, and MrBungle79 in the emails I've received. It's absolutley ridiculous.--WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, a Christian with a history of edits like [69] and that has been given an enormous amount of second chances after lying before. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Home schooled, huh? Originally, it was their real school and Bobabobobo was editing Wikipedia all by herself while she waited for her mother to pick her up, and it was her teacher saying that she needed to be unblocked so that Wikipedia could serve as her babysitter. The Princess needs to get her stories straight. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I could understand a second chance (or should I say, 5th chance, maybe), but the lying would have to stop. If someone can't be trusted to tell us the truth, can we trust them to edit Wikipedia?-Patstuart^talk|edits 03:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's at least the actual text of my e-mail to her ^_^ as opposed to stuff like was linked to before.--Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The e-mail I just got came from "Titanicprincess" and was pretty similar, except it contained "PLEASE UNBLOCK!!!!!!!!!!! THOSE ADMINS ARE BEING BUTTS! I AM A CHILD YOU ARE NOT GOING WITH THE "GO EASY ON KIDS"" Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

His/her messages have some funny trollish tinge to them I can't quite place. Don't give in, and don't unblock. I have seen these kind of people before, and they're usually trolls. "Blocks are preventative, not punitive." In his/her current state, assuming it is true, unblocking would not be a good idea, whether he/she is a troll or not.

31415 (Review me!

) 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, this has gotten to the point where we need to invoke

WP:DENY and just move on. -Patstuart^talk|edits

04:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree.

31415 (Review me!

) 06:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I got that too, look under the list of contribs. He's just spamming the same message to everyone. --Rory096 05:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to

WP:DENY, but we need to continue to collect information about this user as she is causing problems across Wikimedia projects (uploaded screenshots to the commons) and other wikis (Bulbapedia and their German affiliate). That and the Iloveminun ArbCom somewhat allows the information we've collected so far (that and protecting the talk page of every single known sock so far has proved fruitful in stopping her fun for the night).--Ryūlóng (竜龍

) 05:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What's with the "go easy on kids" thing? Do we have any such rule, or one that could be misconstrued? --Masamage 07:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. He's just trying to play to our consciences. It's the same as the "I'm a Christian" thing. --Rory096 09:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At least she wished me a Happy Hannukah, later asking that I should not be such a butt because it is the holidays. Regardless, I need to find the admin mailing list so everyone can blacklist her email addresses that she's used so far: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Must be an interesting home school, what with having it's own 'tech guy' (complete text of e-mail follows): "You can email - [email protected] about the IP , he's the school's tech guy." --

Donald Albury

12:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't use
  talk
  11:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yuser's instincts are dead on here. As someone else pointed out above, even if they are telling the truth, then don't need to be unblocked to read Wikipedia...--Isotope23
    16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently over 250 candidates in the category. Nuke 'em~ ~crazytales·t·c 01:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to report

02:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting seventh edit, I must say...a nice third edit, as well...and fifth...and sixth.

T • C

 ] 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And blocked indef.

T • C

 ] 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lovely. I think I am more offended by his bad grammar than his bad faith. :-) --Jimbo Wales 19:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting career this person had on Wikipedia. Seven edits, of which three were insertions of the f-word, one was a reversion of vandalism -- to the article Ho, as he was no doubt concerned that we all be able to distinguish between the late Vietnamese leader and the street term for "whore" -- and one was the grammatically-challenged impersonation of Jimbo. There were two having to do with photos which do not appear to have been particularly disruptive, but I do not know about any copyright implications. We will miss you, Lil Jon333. 6SJ7 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this mess is -- User:Cloony Da Baloony, User:Mr. Wikipedia 019 & User:BBQ Teddy Bear are clearly troll(s) (Mr Wikipedia is the worst.) I believe new users User:Ockenbock & User:Frenchpoliceman are the victims here (see talk pages), but its difficult to tell, since Ockenbock has clearly done some vandalizing. User:Cloony Da Baloony has posted his password [70]. My instinct is an indef block for that, but I wanted to check before I wade in and start taking names as it's my first 24 hours with the tools. Cheers. Dina 02:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That password is false. I think the warning you put on the page is sufficient. --HappyCamper 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just been reading this junk for an half an hour. It's a bunch/couple of students, probably from the same IP (a school in Boulder Colorado) all screwing around. There's a lot of accounts, but so far they seem to mostly edit each other's userpages. (the "victims" I listed above seem far from innocent after a deeper dig into their contribs.) I'll keep an eye on it, thanks for checking the password. Dina 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

See also the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Frenchpoliceman and friends section above. I assumed that they were all sockpuppets, seeing as they (a), logged on and logged off within minutes of eachother, (b), edit eachothers userpages as if they were their own, (c), like the same videogames, (d), all edit from one small IP range. But schoolkids would also make sense. Picaroon 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh. Sometimes I think blocking schools would be the easy way out... but in the end, we have to assume good faith - some of them will eventually become good wikipedians.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE to comment here... I get quite annoyed when "the boys" go on and vandalize at my school, and then I can't fix a typo when I see one. Etc. etc. etc. ~

how am I typing?

21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user and sockpuppeter

02:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another seems to have popped up; Glen wess (talk · contribs). Reverts with summary "edits by a mad man." -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with

Madder

02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more:

• Gleneessw (talk · contribs)
• Glen dfeww (talk · contribs)

-- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked most of those and blocked one IP that may be related from the page history. Sasquatch t|c 06:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Made of people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is the banned User:Mactabbed. See Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mactabbed as well as User_talk:Pschemp#New_User:Mactabbed_sock.3DUser:Made_of_people (I fully expect this addition to be reverted per this user's past behavior). (→Netscott) 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also read Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/December_2006/Made_of_people before taking any action. Made of people 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Made of people admits to being sockpuppet of this banned user. (→Netscott) 02:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Does he recant his past actions? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point this user has been independently permabanned under both the name User:Mactabbed as well as User:Maior. This user is bad news and these previous bannings need enforcement. (→Netscott) 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. However, it is my inclination to apply

WP:AGF on this instance and see if he will edit constructively. Unless such a venture is impossible or carries the implication of opposition strong enough to dissuade me, I will do such. This course of action, of course, does not disallow me, you, or anyone to block this user if he falls back into his past actions. --²¹⁰physicq (c

) 02:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has been blocked by User:Drini, User:Mackensen, User:Pschemp, User:Yamla, etc. etc. This shows the time for AGFing is long since over. (→Netscott) 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Those blocks were all for being a sock puppet, and not for the original vandalizing offense. Made of people 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Drini banned this user originally then User:Yamla repeatedly blocked this user for fair use violations then based upon continued fair use violation User:Pschemp blocked this user for an extended period of time and then when the sockpuppet nature of the user became apparent (when he again socked during her fair use block of him) she permabanned him. This user is bad news and User:Drini's original permaban should be enforced. (→Netscott) 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is an obvious sock of a banned user being used to evade a block. The original did a bit more than fair use violation. He inserted racial slurs and other unpleasantries. Blocked indef. pschemp | talk 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the user promises up and down to reform himself and crosses his heart in a pledge to not mess around anymore, I don't see the problem with unblocking. Kids grow up. The whole point of the multiple warning system we have is to give a user a second chance. -Patstuart^talk|edits 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this user has repeatedly

sucked up valuable administrator time in a very disruptive fashion. The time for second chances is long since over. (→Netscott

) 03:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you are unwilling to let others give this user a second chance. No one is asking that you have to deal with him. I advocate an unblock of this user, with a concession: that this user be indefinitely blocked, if not banned, if he further engages in the disruptive acts that he has recanted. --210physicq (c) 04:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, it would be more like a fourth or fifth chance. If you can't see why I'm unwilling to unblock someone who calls people niggers with only a vague promise of reform, you might want to think long and hard about your advocacy of this user. I'd like to see an apology from him for putting the word nigger in articles first though. You can then unblock him if you are willing to babysit, however the first time I see him put the word nigger in an article again, the very little good faith I have will be gone forever. pschemp | talk 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I probably had the first set of run-ins with Mactabbed due to his edits on the Courtney Cummz and Alexis Malone articles. There he kept replacing known free-use pictures with fair use ones that he uploaded, saying that his choices were better, even after it was pointed out to him that Wikipedia inherently prefers free-use over fair, and he also added those fair-use pics to his own user talk page, even after it was pointed out that fair use does not extend to the talk pages. As a result, I am absolutely no fan of Mactabbed.

Now having said that, I will grudgingly admit that he has made some constructive edits, specifically on a few articles related to classic mainstream films. IF Mactabbed is saying he'll behave, IF Mactabbed voluntarily limits his edits to only film-related articles where he has shown (at least until his bonafides are firmly reestablished) and IF Physicq210 is willing to act as guarantor for Mactabbed's conduct, then I will hold my objections to Mactabbed being unblocked. IF he is unblocked, he should have one and only one last chance to get back into the collective good graces of people. If he screws that chance up, my personal opinion is that Mactabbed should be so thoroughly locked out of editing Wikipedia that not even Jimbo Wales can restore Mactabbed's editing privileges. And by one, I mean Mactabbed should not even get the luxury of getting warned that his actions are wrong - if he screws up at all and in the least, he's blocked then and there. Tabercil 06:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone any idea how much of a pain this guy was? I had to put up with numerous personal attacks from him, and when he wasn't personally attacking me he was using Wikipedia as a chat service to talk to his friends. As soon as I blocked him he made another sock in clear violation of policy, and considering how many socks were blocked, he knew full well his behaviour was unacceptable. Unblock? No way. Unban? No way. --Deskbanana 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep him blocked, he had enough chances and responded with further abuse and sockpuppetry every time. If he really wanted to come back and contribute, he could make a new account anyway.

►

13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• shrug* I was asked to give my feedback. Unblock him if you people want, he's likely to get indefblocked very soon afterwards. -- Drini 15:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle this, but it seems to clearly be not right; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine

In fact, in addition to what seem to be the addresses clustered in Bryan's home town of Palatine, we also have a large number of folks the recruited trying to prevent established wikipedia editors from achieving consensus on the Free Republic articles. I wish somebody would at least look at this. --BenBurch 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

With all of the nonsense going about with Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg, I found Herman Chung (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (the name of the person possibly holding the copyright on the photo) making a personal attack against Alan.ca for his fervor in finding the true copyright holder.

I have reason to believe that Herman Chung is a sockpuppet of ViriiK (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), the main person in the dispute right now who is not Alan.ca (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and who is making a big deal about it (Arctic Gnome and Colin Keighter aren't doing much else about it). Since this doesn't really fit under WP:RFCU, I am requesting it done here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Block to force the account to give a reasonable explanation regarding their concerns. There is no reason to introduce or prolong this sockpuppet ambiguity in the dispute. Just be professional; if the account is legitimate, it should be reciprocated. The explanation regarding that image should be transparent, and not long drawn. --HappyCamper 04:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Obvious enough for

WP:AIV. Immediately block. Hopefully, then, the autoblock will take effect long enough to hurt the sockpuppeteer. Or should can we do WP:RFCU? -Patstuart^talk|edits

04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

RFCU essentailly tells me to go here for

WP:POINT socks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍

) 04:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Disruption of wikipedia and obviously not going to be productive. Sasquatch t|c 06:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If he is not the same person, block, I am sure we have a policy that you should not use names of living people if you are not that person...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The following accounts were blocked by User:Luna Santin as potentially related fact-changing vandals:

• Dhxaluzabm77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WiqkiMan53sw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dpebsmithaf1984 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

...and this surfaced after Luna logged out...

• Cincyjim1ocb (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (fact-vandal that I warned but have not blocked)

The potential association was reported by

) 04:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I blocked and then immediatly unblocked this last account. The MO differs in the misleading edit summaries (it left no summary), and the account was created quite a bit after the others.--
    T
    05:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll keep in mind MO-indicators like edit summary style for future reference. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. You're right about the MO, and furthermore, the game, while played in January 1982, was part of the 1981-82 season. It was probably a good-faith edit. I shall apologize on his talk page at once. Choess 08:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thank you for following-up, Choess ... I'll drop by the Talk page and see if I should say something as well. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the rule/policy on ED?

06:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the ArbCom rulling in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, particularly Links to ED, any and all references to ED are to be removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should rephrase the question ... I know that links are to be removed ... but is adding a reference to it a "don't mess around - go straight to AIV" offense or is it a "warn the user with test2, 3, 4" offense? BigDT 06:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on prior contribs of that user, I'd say. If it's a single-purpose account or a serial ED troll, bring it to the admins' attention, otherwise a politely worded note should be sufficient. In this case Phil Samurai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made no contributions whatsoever before adding these two, and uploading the ED logo a couple of times, so it's an unambiguous trolling account (I blocked it with what I hope is an appropriately creative block notice on Talk). Guy (Help!) 12:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL... where's the

WP:AGF ;;) ? Duja►

12:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

*golf claps* - Tony Fox (arf!) 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Its always a good day when you can reference the heat death of the universe. Syrthiss 15:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it." does not say that "and and all references to ED are to be removed" as Ryulong states. I don't care about this editors behavior nor am I stating an opinion on the appropriateness of a reference to ED on a dab page; but please don't go overboard on a mis-interpretation of the ArbCom ruling. A reference to ED, without a link, seems to be acceptable. SchmuckyTheCat 16:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Like I said above, it depends on the context. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Looks like there's a concerted effort by Justin082005 (talk · contribs) and friends to insert "Matthew Martin" into multiple articles (although a lot of the efforts have centered on Tampon).

Justin082005 (talk · contribs) [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]

71.241.242.133 (talk · contribs), 71.246.193.172 (talk · contribs), 68.238.162.138 (talk · contribs), 70.110.19.250 (talk · contribs) All contributions have been to vandalize articles with "Matthew Martin"

160.253.0.7 (talk · contribs) [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]

There may be other ones out there...what the heck's going on? Gzkn 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked for this nonsense ... I did find this edit to his own userpage amusing/interesting: [81] | Mr. Darcy talk 15:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has just complained about accusations of sockpuppetry. This is the timeline of events:

• I approached User:Aperfectmanisaenglishman re his provocative userpage before being attacked personally myself on December 15th 2006.
• User:Dppowell reports the incident accusing User:Sion glyn of sockpuppetry on December 17th 2006.
• CheckUser evidence on December 17th 2006 (Sion glyn = Aperfectmanisaenglishman = Englishpound)
• I than blocked indef the socks and reported the incident here on December 18th 2006. I also blocked the main account of User:Sion glyn for 24h.
• User:Sion glyn is back arguing .

Anyone for an indef block, new soft block or just

17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as status quo for the moment. If I interpreted things correctly, both socks are indefblocked...and he blanked the sock notices, but they've been restored? Then protect the sock notice pages (I'll be happy to if you feel you are in conflict with the user). If he continues to be disruptive and / or creates more disruptive socks then we can give him the boot. Syrthiss 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already reverted his blanking. Technically, i had a conflict w/

WP:USERPAGE and has nothing to do w/ sockpuppetry. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®}

17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Shams2006

I have indefinitely blocked User:Shams2006 as a sockpuppet of User:His_excellency, who is under a six-month arbcom ban. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/His excellency. Review or undo invited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who posted the sockpuppet report. Since I assume it's way too late for a CheckUser, the evidence is circumstantial, but I think extremely strong. I hope everyone can see that this guy walks, talks, and quacks like H.E. I considered waiting a couple more weeks to gather even more evidence, but he was already starting up again with his incivility and trademark preemptive accusations of wild anti-Muslim bias and conspiracy. - Merzbow 19:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not perform a checkUser guys so everyone would be satisfied? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence makes it pretty obvious, especially [82]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This diff also: [83]. Plus all the rest in my sockpuppet report. - Merzbow 21:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty obvious sockpuppet. Checkuser would not be helpful in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I started a TfD discussion, under related wiki rules.Template:Armenian Capitals.
• User:Clevelander, which is the creator of Template, deleted/divided into parts and transferred some parts to another places my and some other comments. I sent many messages to that user about Tfd, to stop his transactions.(He logged-in with IP and Username, -I think there is no bad faith here), but he emptied IP talk page and User talk page, I found them from my contributions here talk messages;IP talk,

User talk and messages in

• But he insists to destroy my comments and TfD discussions.
• He changed the name of Template when TfD in process. I posted messages to some admins than he saw my messages and changed back again.
• Due to his distruptive edits, TfD discussion in kaos now.
• Here, his first transaction;clevelander-first
  • my comments-first.
  • my comments-second
  • my comments-last
• Here his further transactions;
  • clevelander
  • clevelander
  • clevelander-last
• I feel, my offer is sabotaged.

Regards.

19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please block

19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 19:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Uses other IPs as well. I am not sure if this user is still going to be a problem, but I'll try and keep an eye. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Guy has managed the impossible after all - reason him. :) --PaxEquilibrium 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting that

20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming for the moment that I'm completely misunderstanding copyright policy here. I just looked at Qasim ibn Muhammed's page, and I'm not sure what you're considering a copyvio there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

From looking at the

WP:IAR). Also there's no policy against a user maintaining a developmental copy of an article in their userspace. (→Netscott

) 20:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've only checked

Fram

20:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Those articles were created long time ago:

• Thuwaybah: July 2005
• Al-Nahdiah: July 2005
• Sumayyah binte Khabbab
  : July 2005
• Hind the wife of Amr
  : July 2005
• Umm Kulthum binte Uqba
  : July 2005

Some of the contain so little text that it is hard to argue that the original writer has a copy right on that small amount of info, and even if they had, it would easily pass as fair use, specially considering that a link was provided.

Other cases can not support that argument, on those cases i apologies and refer to the long time elapsed (1.5 years), and to the fact that i was a much less experienced editor at the time.

Regarding the afd, considering that Beit Or was the one nominating it for delesion, im sorry if i robed him of the tension of having the judge announce "delete" by deleting it myself... but i found it in wikipedias interest to have the afd process speedied in such an obvious case, and to spare wikipedia of me going to del:rev and requesting to have it userfied, specially considering that the only other edits was IMHO some bad faith redirects by Beir Or and two bad faith reversions by Beit Or's friend. Yes, i am aware of the AGF guidline.

Obviously did Beit Or find it in wikipedias interest to spend some of ANI's time on evaluating that userfision and also gave some 18 month old editions to strengthen his case of me being a vandal... Anyhow, i am a more experienced wikipedian now and have a better understanding of the copyright issues, although it's still not flawless. I imagine that anyone with many edits makes mistakes, and it's even possible that i have might have made more mistakes than the average person.

Regarding "under the false premise that he had been the only contributor". You should check your facts before accusing me of such things, i did no such claim. You stated that you "do find Striver's action extremely disruptive and disrespectful of other editors". If you could elaborate what is bothering you so much, and i don't mean the action, rather your perception of it and why it makes you feel that way, i might have a better chance of avoiding it in the future. Peace.--Striver 21:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, can a admin tell if Beit Or is right in refusing to remove the tag after i stubified this article, and on top of that coming here and claiming i am a vandal? If ´he had not opposed the stubification of my 18 month of article, i would have stubified the rest, but on the other hand, he could'nt have complained here if i had done that, right ?--Striver 21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but seems fine to me. The copyright page specifically says that if there's a clean version, just revert to that. The "do not edit this page" requirement was meant to say, "don't play with the copyrighted text". IMHO, and I don't see why policy would be any different. -Patstuart^talk|edits 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at

Umm_Kulthum_binte_Uqba and then see the main page of http://www.themodernreligion.com/index1.html

, and it says, "No Copyright: Any organisation or individual wishing to reprint or copy the contents of this website may do so unless otherwise stated on specific articles. The information, names of authors and sources are to be kept in its original form. An acknowledgement to this site would be appreciated."

Technically though having no copyright doesn't allow them to say that "The information...etc etc" i.e. they can't place information into the public domain and then try and control how it is copied. My call is that the intent of the author wanted "No Copyright" more than that 2nd sentence which is maintaining the attribution. I don't see how this can be a copyviolation worthy of a wikipedia editor being blocked.

When I look at the "edit-war" diffs that were going on with

WP:COOL

really needs to be read.

Other articles (glancing at random) seem equally short. Heck someone with a reasonably good memory who was really into the subjects could probably read the web pages and then "accidently" edit this into Wikipedia (not saying that has happened). We're not talking pages and pages of data here but almost empty shells of articles on eseoteric subjects. I think I've had a bit of difficult edit consensus with Striver but thats because I choose contentious articles. My response to contentious articles is to start posting to the talk pages so some discussion can start. Has User:Beit_Or done this ? Not that I can see (OK neither has Striver but then he didn't start this mess; User:Beit_Or started the tagging and reverting the tags without clear talk.

I call this attempt at a ban not in Wikipedia's interests and that Striver (and other editors) can have a chance to correct any issues. Ttiotsw 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

) 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversial moves

Please see

21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I second Piotrus' comment: all changes should be rolled back and then a proper move request & discussion iniciated. -
  Evv
  23:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a RM specialist to fix double redirects. Anyone can do it. If you dispute the appropriateness of the moves, it is a different matter. I find the moves totally sensible as no "invasions" and "massacres" where introduced into the titles like is frequently done by Piotrus. In fact, the titles that would have included "Polish invasion" or "intervention" are widely supported in sources but were not used for the sake of the world's peace while we have all sorts of the "invasion" and "massacre" titles for the Polish articles when those are of rather than by Poland. Interestingly, Piotrus himself said earlier that he did not object to such move. So, I wonder whether this inflammatory post is intended to make more drama or indeed somehow avenge the user for the RfC about user:Piotrus. --Irpen 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you raise the same concern about my old post that I addressed at the talk RM, there is no need to fork the discussion about it here. And what inflammatory drama? Why didn't you comment about inflammatory drama when Ghirla brought my RfC on completly unrelated cases such as the FAC page? Oh well. Admin intervention is required to deal with merging

Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) gained acceptance of the community months ago and are disputed only by you and Ghirla. As for your comments on invasions and massacres, it's quite OT, and rather unsupported by reality, I am afraid, as had been discussed ad nauseum on relevant pages (sources, at best, ae split 50/50 for the latter periods, and show preference for Muscovy for the earlier... but this is OT here).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, as for bringing up your RfC, there is no single space in WP (except perhaps main) where you haven't yet brought up the Ghirla's RfC, so please no pot/kettling here. Now, you also do not make it clear whether you find the article's names inappropriate or not. You can't claim that the new arrangement is somehow inflammatory in any way. Article names are historically correct. One article is split into two. The other is moved to a non-controversial title. There is also a new term article. Where is the mess? Merging histories would be a good idea but that alone is no reason to whine. As for the "massacre" stuff, it is not off-topic. You created a whole bunch of massacre and invasion titles. Here we get moves to the titles that do not involve any of this stuff. Merging histories can be done of course, but I see no emergency to bring the issue here except if the goal is to harm your perpetual opponent in the content disputes. --Irpen 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please don't take this thread OT, we are dealing with controversial move and followup requiring admin (preferably an RM admin attention). All the other stuff is irrelevant, a disclaimer about RfC is a sign of good will from my part (to let others now of the big picture and my possible bias). I brought up Ghirla's RfC only during relevant DR proceedings and in a few cases where it was relevant - I never stalked him, inserting notes of his RfC to every place he posted that had anything to do with me or articles I edit. I don't mind some of the changes Ghirla made (split up the article); I mind others (new name which is not supported by majority, and the

Google Print. This is however OT here, so once again, please stop bringing irrelevant matters here. We have two articles in need of review by a RM specialist with admin powers, and an editing behaviour (making controversial moves) that may need to be commented upon. Please don't bring everything else and a kitchen sink into this thread, RfC has enough of that. Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I certanly agree that the moves are controversial, and had to be discussed first.

As a side note, a quite intriguing part is Irpen's response to the moves. Just yesterday Irpen's wrote "unproposes moves are generally a bad idea, but particularly inflammatory are the controversial moves made without proposal" [91]. Then in less than 24h, Irpen seems to favor the undiscussed moves by Girla. In my opinion, it clearly represents the behaviour of a manipulator. --KPbIC 22:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that I don't see those moves controversial in any way. No inflammatory terms were added to the titles at all. I would have proposes such moves first, true enough. But I object to calling them "controversial". As we speak Krys himself moved without proposal dozens of article.[92] I did not make a fuss about it despite Krys' claim to be a follower of move proposals.

I will not respond to the name calling part. Please stop trolling. --Irpen 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, please, no name calling. I have had enough of that recently. Irpen, there is no need to discuss every move, just disputed ones (which are for the obvious reasons controversial). The move of both articles has been discussed long (

Talk:Polish–Russian_War_(1605–1618)#Article.27s_title is just one example). No concensus was reached. No move should have been carried out. That's all there is to it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

23:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have merged the histories of

00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Alex, I just hope you will not be reverted as when I was when I added merge tags to those articles. There is still the issue of

Polish–Russian War (1605–1618), still sitting on double redirects, and with broken templates. I'd like to move it back to the name it was featured under, but I don't want to start a revert war - can you handle this too?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image deletions

I deleted Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg, but I can still access it - however, there is no Delete button and the Image link at the top is red. This has happened once before. Is it just me? Guy (Help!) 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a common problem, when the image is on Commons. [93] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy, if you let me know why you wound up deleting here, I will delete it at Commons. Jkelly 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at edit history, it was tagged with

Template:imagevio ([94]), there is also some lenghty discussion (see revision) - hope this helps.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an unfortunately long story here; I was curious why Guy deleted it at this moment, if there was any urgency. Email about this has been sent to permissions, so I'm following up on it at that end. Jkelly 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is stated to be Crown copyright, then stated to be photographer copyright, then an apparent impersonator turned up claiming to be the photographer, and in the end we simply don't need it because we have numerous unambiguously free and adequately encyclopaedic images, so we don't need the lame edit war. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the commons version does get deleted, can someone salt that name with an image similar to Image:Map.gif? Generic names like that just cause problems. --BigDT 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a great believer in prevention rather than cure - so an Admin might want to take a look at this before it all gets out of hand. Describing other editors as "bedwetters" in a edit summary is likely to result in one of those long protracted threads we have here that takes up so much of everyone's time.

Regards --

21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a polite warning. --

Guinnog

21:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some

WP:OWN issues involved there as well as the edit summary. Tony Fox (arf!)

21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my fourth revert. I trust this is not really a problem.

21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a self-report is nice. The usual procedure is for you to self-revert yourself, but as you are actually dealing with a possible libel from anon ip, 3RR doesn't usually apply to cleaning vandalism and such, so don't worry, as far as I am concerned, you are ok.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Same from me, and I've given the IP a short block.

rtinp23

22:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to get this edit summary deleted? --

22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd tentativly see that no, it states that the comment was deleted, so it should not be offensive per se.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did it while you were writing this, Piotrus. History cleansing isn't a big deal when there are fewer than 500 revisions, as there were here, so I figured why not.

Chick Bowen

23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is against the

GFDL license (which Wikipedia is published under) to do so in many cases. Not in this one though, as long as you deleted the original vandalism as well as the revert and they were consecutive revisions. Prodego ^talk

23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They were, I did, yes. GFDL only covers additions to an article--this was a net no change.

Chick Bowen

23:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

He has removed a list of IPs used by some account from this page, the last time with a legal threat. Am I being oversensitive, or is there a problem? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet/troll blocked (see edits). Patstuart^talk|edits 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"(The IP's listed here are assigned to me and may not be reported or reverted under penalty of law. Any reposting of these IP's will be prosecuted and are used without permission.)[[User:66.252.245.106|66.252.245.106]] 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC) "

This person clearly misunderstands the law and internet technology... or is simply playing ignorant to troll. I'll stop now per WP:DENY, but I sugust a short-term full range-block. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Vlh (talk · contribs) for one week due to repeated edit warring on Grand Slam Champion, including repeatedly removing an "sprotected" tag. He has been blocked repeatedly for similar actions, and the block lenghts have become longer and longer. He was warned just a few minutes ago not to remove the tag, but he did it anyway, and so has been blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Blent on a Saapteime (talk · contribs) is posting multiple complaints that an article, Red Hand of Ulster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is "stolen from my website" and threatening to take action. User has not anywhere, however, specified what website. Since I asked for the information, there has been no further communication. Trolling? Fan-1967 23:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some Google searches on unlikely phrases and only got us and our mirrors, and the history looks more like our normal editing process than one big paste from a website. Ideally this person will mail us our respond here with their URL. Jkelly 23:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look like they're going to be very cooperative. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Warned about personal attacks and legal threats. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the article Mangeshda with a speedy delete tag that had been there for a day or two. It did not seem appropriate to the article, so I replaced it with an AfD tag. The original editor who placed the tag, User:Terminator III put a vandalism notice on my talk page in response,[95] removed the AfD and replaced it again with db-spam. Since the AfD was already started, I put the AfD tag back, and the user put another vandalism notice on my talk page.[96] I don't think I've done anything wrong here and consider this to be harassment. Could somebody please get this person off my back? A Ramachandran 00:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've agreed with you on his talk page. I'm not sure that an admin is necessary unless it goes further. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong; this might be considered vandalism if you were the page creator. Taking the page to

WP:AFD for clear consensus is also not a problem. If you continue to be warned by the user or possibly stalked, return here and mention it. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done}

00:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! A Ramachandran 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Georgebd (

01:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, though would support unblocking if the User promised to stop spamming his link. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing though... he doesn't show remorse (using the word used by the US prison systems, which are not punitve, but correctional as well). He thinks that his link is okay and would probably continue to add it. Cbrown1023 01:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Joe Bob bill for posting a death threat on User:Georgebd's User page, which I have also deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

66.93.251.122 (talk · contribs) is using my edit history to undo many of my recent edits. See this comment. User is upset about this AfD. See the comments in the AfD for a history of problems with that block of IPs. JonHarder ^talk 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's vandalism... block? Cbrown1023 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours, if the user continues, please notify us again... Cbrown1023 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Now see new user account MonHarder (talk · contribs). Sigh JonHarder ^talk 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And evading now by using 66.93.251.120 (talk · contribs) JonHarder ^talk 01:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to those who pitched in, blocked IPs and accounts and closed by speedying the AfD. JonHarder ^talk 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

JonHarder keeps following me around rv every edit I make and then says its like spam when its really a reference. Sign 66.93.251.118 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... You've only made one edit other than this, so it isn't stalking. ANI isn't here to resolve disputes over whether something is a good external link; please discuss it with him. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See [above]. I have blocked this anon for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)