Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive175

Out of the blue, Weirdoactor (talk · contribs) posted this comment on my Talk page. I considered it verging on a personal attack, if not a threat, and I replied with this, which was probably not the most diplomatic response, but I wanted to make it clear that his comment on my Talk page was worrisome. He removed the comment, calling it "admin harrassment". I reverted the removal. He responded on my Talk page with this. This is completely coming out of the blue, as I had no previous dealings with him except for suggesting he be civil in an AfD discussion. This threat should not be idly dismissed, but I have no intentions of continuing the discussion. I will, however, take action if there are further such threats issued against anyone else. The User's comments on Talk pages have been generally of such poor quality. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird. My previous interaction with this user was completely acceptable and very pleasant, but that kind of conduct as listed by Zoe cannot really be tolerated. Final warnings needed per

Deletion! 18:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I really don't like the look of that - a little chat about civility is in order. --

Charlesknight 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow... yeah, needs one final warning from someone not!Zoe and if the incivility continues, a 24h block is definitely in order. —bbatsell ¿? 18:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had some brief encouters with this editor and found him to be very reasonable and civil. This is out of character. I suggest attempt at clarification and discussion, not blocking, as the appropriate course of action. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This was the comment that I suggested he needed to be civil about. See also [1], [2], [3] (and note the edit summary), [4]. I stopped at that point. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for posting all these diffs, it helps to know the situation background. I will attempt to obtain an understanding of what Weirdoactor's view of the situation is, as I can see no reason for his characterizing your comments as harassment, or any reason for his reactions at all. Hopefully it is just a case of him having a Very Bad Day and reading your posts wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

His replies to you on his Talk page seem to be more in a similar vein. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Perhaps we should ask Durova, as the only admin he seems to have respect for, to take a look? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. His attitude seems to be that the "deletionists" are out to destroy Wikipedia and he's here to protect it from the evil ones. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know about that, but his current attitude is certainly "any admin who politely informs me my incivility and hostile demeanor is unacceptable is harrassing me, and anyone who says s/he isn't is just protecting her/his friends and is a Bad Admin too!" which is hardly a helpful or rational attitude. I wouldn't have taken the trouble, except that I had interacted with this editor before, as I've mentioned, and seen nothing to indicate this kind of attitude - as Moreschi has also noted above. I'll post to Durova's talk page, up to her whether she wants to give it a go or not. I now withdraw any objection to any block deemed acceptable by any admin, my attempt to help this user resulted in insults and accusations. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(un-indenting) Hi! Please see my talk page for a short but sweet mea culpa. Also, Zoe?

• I was referring to myself here in terms of a need for caffeine. Me. The sleepy editor. Hi!
• Re: here; Jmabel had stated that he wouldn't be returning to the thread; it wasn't an attack on him in any way.

Just thought I'd clarify. If you have any more diffs of mine you'd like me to clarify, please do let me know. Ta. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Weirdoactor's rather... uh... weird, suffers from an juxtapositionally idiosyncratic sense of humour, just like

some others; but my previous conversations with him have been harmless. Just be a little nice with those you don't know, they might misapprehend your intentions. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite her undeniable fame [1], success ^[2], iconic and superstar status and groundbreaking career achievements ^[3], it is noticeable that since the beginning of her career, Madonna has been the target of constant criticism, being always far away from any possible type of unanimity. Reviews about her body of work have generally been mixed and many music critics have constantly put her artistry in doubt.

They wrote: Despite her success, it is noticeable that since the beginning of her career, Madonna has been the target of constant criticism, being always far away from any possible type of unanimity. Reviews about her body of work have generally been mixed and many music critics have constantly put her artistry in doubt.

They also completely removed GTBacchus' edit we all agreed on.

However, some critics do see Madonna as a talented vocalist and songwriter

Israell 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article (I have no idea why it needed to be deferred), and I have blocked

► 09:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This are a latest lot, described by Checkuser as "likely" at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters. The ones to be blocked are:

• Fox33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Daniel Shays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Done. I thought you were admin. :P — Nearly Headless Nick 13:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not yet:)

Deletion! 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Someday Soon F♯, D♭ -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, quit with the flattery or I shall verily

Deletion! 16:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That song was for Julia. Don't you like it? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has been busy reverting the edits made by OrphanBot and reinserting unsafe images in to Wikipedia articles [5]. Despite repeated warnings from me [6][7], this activity is still continuing [8][9]. Please put a stop to it. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This user is consisently placing large amounts of POV, incorrect and inappropriate content in the League Against Cruel Sports article.

He has broken the 3RR several times and has now resorted to pasting a large amount of plagiarised and POV content on the page.

Help would be appreciated.

GWP 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mexico123 seems to be constantly uploading unsourced images (and indeed seems to have virtually no other contributions besides inserting these images into articles). He was warned about this before and then blocked for a week when he continued. I found that he had continued, and gave him a stern warning, but he's continued. Time for a lengthier block, perhaps? David Mestel^(Talk) 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dhg247 (talk · contribs) (a single-purpose account) recently wrote an essay in article space where the controversial Electric universe (concept) was recently deleted as a result of AfD. The account (as well as the article page) may be worth keeping an eye on for the near future for potential recreation, NPOV, or vandalism reasons. ju66l3r 07:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment was removed (accidentally?), likely as a result of an edit conflict improperly resolved by the above editor. I'm replacing it. ju66l3r 07:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The

I deleted the article page under 'A3. No content whatsoever', as the page consisted solely of a message to other editors, which I had moved to the talk page where it belonged. I left the talk page in place, however. --

Donald Albury 16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For closure, I submitted the orphaned talk page for deletion and it was removed. Anyone watchlisting this article may want to keep track of it a bit longer. ju66l3r 20:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The same user -87.196.44.177- now deleted Madonna's main picture... Please take action. They got a warning from me and two other user and went ahead and deleted Madonnas's picture. I gave them another warning.

Israell 10:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place to handle content disputes. Vandalism should be taken to

WP:DR. --Farix (Talk) 19:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Power level (Dragon Ball) (

I'm not an admin, but let me see if I can diffuse this a bit before someone gets blocked.--Isotope23 18:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps inserting inappropriate words in the first sentence of the article on North Korea. Originally, I believe the term, "Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)" was used. The vandal first substituted " Democratic Brandon Republic of Korea," then, "Dmocratic Brandon Yang's Mother Republic of Korea," then "Brandon Yang's Papa's Stinker Republic of Korea." I tried to change it, but I am a novice at all this. It took me quite a while just to find this message box. Hope you can intervene. Pepperosa 18:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Pepperosa

All fixed, I think. Thank you for reporting this vandalism; happy editing! I have given you your formal welcome on your talk page. Cheers!

Yuser31415 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User's contributions seem to show that he's going through everybody with a blockand giving a rant about the admin cabal. Might someone like to have a word with him, or give a block? -146.186.210.78 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User also appears to have a 2nd account at User:Silent Lucidity or has vandalized that page with a redirect.--Isotope23 21:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Checking... that user does not appear to exist, so I tagged for speedy deletion (don't know if I'm supposed to do that, if it was a purposeful redirect). -146.186.210.78 21:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with this user. Thanks a lot for your help here! --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User from ip adress 206.224.254.17 keeps vandalising pages. Found no useful edits. Should be blocked. → Aethralis 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just two edits since December 22nd. Just revert as needed. And in the future, IP vandalism reports should go to

WP:AIV. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I happened to see one of Cplot's more recent edits before it was reverted. In it, the Cplot sock says that even though these edits are all being reverted, they are still worth making because they live on forever in the page histories and curious users look to see what has been reverted. I don't know whether that is right or not but I wonder if admins should begin the practice of deleting rather than merely reverting these edits. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to delete the entire

WP:ANI and restore it all each time minus one edit each time he does it, be my guest. So, basically, it's impractical. Oversight would be an option though, however, I don't know if those with oversight permissions would consider this a proper use of their abilities. That'd be up to them to decide I'd imagine. Metros232 05:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The way the user interface is set up, edits to pages with huge histories like this are much easier to oversight than to delete. On less traveled pages, deletion might be an option.

Thatcher131 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, until the better revision deletion system for admins is created (rather than the hack we're doing now), it's nearly impossible to delete a ceratin revision from a page with many edits.

inp23 14:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of responding new edits where it's the top one in the history, not of going back through all the old ones. I thought deletion was easier under that circumstance, but please disregard this if I'm wrong. Newyorkbrad 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Could the restore deleted edits page have a button that checks all the boxes? That way you'd only have to unclick the all the ones you want deleted. --

Samuel Wantman 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but it works fine when using the shift key. Khoikhoi 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles with large edit histories brings the servers to their knees. Remember what happened when AfD got deleted? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, could someone explain this diff to me? -75.42.174.181 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an innocent error resulting from an edit conflict. Clumsy, perhaps, but I don't see a reason to assume it was malevolent. Could re-insert or ask the acting editor for clarification. Luna Santin 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good explanation! (I wasn't presuming villainy.) Deletia follows. -75.42.174.181 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems absolutly strange that such an edit conflict somehow managed to slip by, as I thought I used thew '+' to add a new section - I'll experiment in one of the sandboxes (later) to see if I can reproduce it. --Sigma 7 08:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Cplot would then just gloat about the workload that he was imposing on administrators. In any event, except when a particular version is cited somewhere with real importance, such diffs probably have even less importance than, say, comments to LiveJournal.com or to Usenet. Arguably, it's better for the world if Cplot wastes his time here. ;-D. -SlamDiego 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If I had oversight, I'd use it to get rid of this obvious idiocy. I don't see a need to keep it around... Grandmasterka 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance on this issue - I'm not well and so don't familiarise myself with sockpuppeteers. Is CPlot the one currently insisting on posting the "federal clowns" rubbish at such places as the village pump? Crimsone 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. I kinda wish it was possible to have a reasonable conversation with him because he occasionally makes a reasonable point about the potential for abuse of admin privileges. But he's always posting these huge rants that get deleted because, well, they're huge rants. —Dgies^t c 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a shame in that respect (assuming you are correct, which I've no reason not to), though my experience of the web in general suggests that when people get ideas in their head to the point of writing long and persistant rants about them, there's just no reasoning with them. Thankfully, such severely entrenched people are reasonably uncommon. Crimsone 03:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems with Esperanza was the leadership council, which made decisions that were binding on other people. I recently found Wikipedia:Motto of the day which has a similar hierarchy. It has several sections that may only be edited by "overseers" (whatever that is) and appears to make decisions based on seniority of those "overseers". I think this is bad and unwiki. Thoughts, anyone? >Radiant< 10:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite concerning. Dan Bryant is listedgone, and he's a frequent ANI-er, so I think let's wait for his opinions. – Chacor 10:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"My opinions", sounds like a mini-heirachy for this thread - just kidding :) I forgot all about this "project". Anyways, I'm strongly against that sort of heirachy, and combined with my inactivity regarding MOTD, I've speedily-resigned. As you can see, I "signed up" (or was it elected? I can't remember) during August, when I was a

very new editor

. Although MOTD is good, the current system of "overseers" isn't, and I don't have any brainwaves currently on how to fix it.

I think that there will be an overwhelming concensus here to remove the "overseers" per se, and replace it with a better system where everyone is equal (and no,

T · C ] 11:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The hiearchy, in my opinion, should be removed immediately. Also, as I have seen in the past, MOTD has been going rather downhill. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen such bureaucracy for such a tiny concept, one I'd never even heard of before. Any small group of editors could do this if it's seen as important (I don't) with little coordination required. Grandmasterka 11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty evident what the concensus here will be, so I'm going to go through and rid MOTD of this heirachy.

T · C ] 11:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(responds to self) I believe I've got rid of every bit of hierarchal creep that was in MOTD, and I've left a note on the no-longer-"Overseer",-now-"Co-ordination" desk linking here. I also made it clear that everyone who wants to is invited to help co-ordinate the project from the desk, and I removed the veto voting scheme and promotion "rules" from the procedure text at the top of two of the pages. If you see anything else, feel free to remove it and replace it with a less rank-like system and/or description.

T · C ] 11:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The "anything else" I saw was a "I am the senior overseer" userbox on

User:Geo.plrd, which I've now replaced with {{User MOTD}}. >Radiant< 11:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I didn't spot that - I didn't leave

T · C ] 11:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Geo.plrd seems to be obsessed with creating hierarchal structures on Wikipedia (with himself as head, of course). It seems to be his sole reason for being here. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There’s still Wikipedia:Motd/Template:Warnvote. —xyzzyn 11:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuck. Tagged for speedy deletion.

T · C ] 12:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I do believe that this is blatantly excessive bureaucracy for something as simple as a daily tagline. Brazil, anyone? >Radiant< 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess, all the date subpages of mottos now-used (eg all of 2006) can be killed. However, if you take out all those, there is barely any pages.

T · C ] 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A handful of the date pages have talk pages; modulo those (and possibly page history, if motto pages were edited), they seem entirely redundant with the schedule archive. —xyzzy_n 13:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Far out, it all got readded, and there is still the apparent group of users who have their names distinctly listed in the big yellow box at the top. I'm half-tempted to MfD the desk, just to get rid of it.

T · C ] 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo.plrd took over after User:Go for it! moved on, i think. Geo does indeed have a long history of inventing hierarchies and pseudo-projects, and joining everything in sight.

They (MOTD) just asked again about putting the MOTD in the

Community Portal. I still believe it to be very unsuitable. It might be acceptable if confined to userspace, though I'd be happy to see it MfD'd entirely. I prefer humour hidden like a treasure, and actually funny.. —Quiddity 08:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

i took over after Childzy left. i do edit articles

o. 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

From memory, you have approx. 50 mainspace contribs out of 1,300 (something like 4%).

T · C ] 00:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist (talk · contribs) has posted to a lot of user talk pages soliciting input to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InShaneee. I am concerned the user seems to be trying to rustle up a lynch mob. Even assuming good faith, this was more inclined to escalate than resolve the dispute, so I'm rolling back the posts. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree here, Guy. It's pretty common to contact users who have previously commented in an RfC (which is what was done here) if further action is being taken (he is preparing a request for arbitration). I won't revert you, but I wouldn't qualify it as "rustling up a lynch mob." —bbatsell ¿? 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just took a quick jaunt through your talk page and see that more fundamentally, he appears to be picking and choosing commenters, which is obviously canvassing, so I retract my above comment. —bbatsell ¿? 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

yep - that's a no-no - trying to stack the deck. I think Guy was right to remove the soliciting. --

Charlesknight 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Considering that I commented in the original RfC I'm not sure how much impact soliciting my opinion again is supposed to have. You have a point about the canvassing, but removing talk page threads that have already been replied to isn't very productive. --
  talk 18:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to reinstate the conversational element. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

":::I have slowly contacted a 7 people over 2 days and had 5 replys, no one contacted has said don't post. As for canvasing how am i ment to build a case against an admin without talking to the people he has delt with. The RfC which came to nothing was a good place. to start. This is just an attempt to stop an arbitration against an admin and find having my talk deleted highly offencive and the rest civility rules don't allow me to even start on.Hypnosadist 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• You posted text soliciting input in an RfC designed to get InShaneee stripped of the sysop bit. The text was the same on all Talk pages. In both tone and target, it was unacceptable, as noted above. Please do not do this again. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rfc had stopped, i'm trying to get an arbitration on Inshaneee and his conduct. As a result of that i do want him stripped of his sysop powers, because of the way he uses them. This is not spam so what policy are you deleteing them under?Hypnosadist 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh look NuclearUmpf has just reverted Guys deleteion of my message, maybe he wanted to help stop Inshanee abuseing his powers as well.Hypnosadist 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think your tone will help anything, Hypnosadist--please try being the one NOT running around calling editors "douches." However, I don't object to the message being put on my talk page, but am a little irritated that it was deleted without notice on my talk page. Hypnosadist could have posted this on the InShaneee RfC, that he was moving on to arbitration, except that InShaneee archived his own RfC while it was still active, not giving Hypnosadist the opportunity to use that avenue. KP Botany 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could i make a request of guy to keep his accusations of which polices i am breaking together, preferably here. At the moment he is claiming i am breaking Wikipedia:Canvassing but no vote or Afd or such is ongoing nor is my posting disruptive.Hypnosadist 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A third editor i contacted has reverted but was re-reverted and a message left by an admin says not to. [10] This is getting beyond a joke now, is Guy really aloud to run blocking coverage to stop an arbitration about another admin.Hypnosadist 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policy is

"May I recommend you stop for a second, assemble your own version of events for the RfAr" thats what i'm doing! Bbatsell this case invovles probably 20-30 different people Inshaneee has had less that optimal interactions with, such as the 7 people i MASS mailed.Hypnosadist 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I got one of the messages from Hypnosadist, [11], but there were more people involved in the RFC other than the seven of us. While I will not comment one way or another on this issue, I really think that the RFC went nowhere and no real solutions were brought up. I would suggest another firm RFC, out of InShaneee's control, so we can see what could happen. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just found something. Before the messaging began, I found Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_abuse. This was composed by Hypnosadist. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Question, so simply giving a neutral notice and posting on the talk pages of all who had responded to the RfC, even those supporting InShaneee, and including InShaneee, would have been okay, or Hypnosadist would have had to wait until after posting an RfAr? I think it's an important distinction, particularly with the RfC closed prematurely, as it would have been a general venue to post a single notice rather than proceeding to post messages on individual talk pages. I don't see that InShaneee controlled the RfC outside of archiving it during the holidays. Thanks for the link, Bbatsell. KP Botany 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist also mentioned about the posting on the messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_petulant_and_totally_unjustified_block, so that pretty much two, public places, that he mentioned he will contact people involved with the RFC about the impending RFAr. I won't get involved in the RFAr, but I wish for no sanctions to be placed on Hypnosadist for this, since he was going to have to do it anyways due to ArbCom procedures. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to KP Botany: essentially, yes. If Hypnosadist had contacted everybody who commented on InShaneee's RfC and noted that he was adding additional information to that RfC and inviting participants to consider it, that would have been fine. The problem here was twofold: first, the apparent selection of only those likely to be anti; second, the tone of the message, which was essentially "let's all get together to get InShaneee desysopped". Posting a single comment inviting participation, in neutral terms, to all existing participants in a process, is not usually viewed as problematic, although it may depend on the circumstances. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't contact everyone from the rfc and Inshaneee's talk page because i thought THAT would be spamming, oh the irony.Hypnosadist 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean if Hypnosadist had left messages on the talk pages of all those who commented on InShaneee's RfC, he would not be accused of spamming? Please explain this policy.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Ahwaz, why did you delete my post? I'll assume it was by accident, which I've done before. Ironic, but now you know how to do it in the future, and, as Zscout370 points out administrators had notice beforehand about what you intended to do, and the tone you would take, and no one bothered to stop you before you did it. So, it appears it's not a well-understood or well-known or well-respected or .... policy, and it's not like you did it on the sly. In general, though, being mellow about the situation will make it easier for everyone, potentially gain you more supporters and clearly deliniate between you and the person you are complaining about, not just on Wikipedia, but in all situations. So, in the future be neutral and invite everyone to the party, but, yes, oh the irony of it all. Thanks for the information, Guy. KP Botany 20:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I had deleted your post and wasn't aware that I had broken any policy. Are your remarks referring to me or Hypnosadist?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As you'll see from Hypnosadist's Talk, I went there and told him that he had done wrong, and pointed out why, and did so in terms which assumed good faith (ignorance is a defence on Wikipedia). I went out of my way to assume that this was a one-off based on not knowing it's wrong. Sadly Hypnosadist chose to bluster and escalate rather than ask for clarification. "You can't do that!" tends not to work with the better-known and more active admins, because generally we are doing it precisely because we can - and usually should - do that. We are the

rouge admin cabal and our anthem is "We Will Block You" but only if you persist after your errors have been pointed out. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just a joke to you isn't it "We are the

rouge admin cabal and our anthem is "We Will Block You" but only if you persist after your errors have been pointed out." This is pathetic!Hypnosadist 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was happy to be contacted by Hypnosadist regarding this matter and was unhappy that his message to me was censored on my talk page by Guy, who refused to allow me to revert his deletion of the message to me.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A joke? No. Using humour to attempt to defuse the situation. You are taking this way too seriously. Bu don't be fooled,

come down from the Reichstag and get a sense of perspective, eh? Guy (Help!) 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Also, as I posted above, it's best to wait to leave notes on the RfC commenters pages until an RfAr has been filed. Otherwise it's like you're plotting to overthrow someone, which shouldn't be your intention. Your intention should be to tell your side of the story, let everyone else tell theirs as well, and then allow the ArbCom to come to the appropriate conclusion(s). —bbatsell ¿? 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to sum up, InShaneee gets given a clean slate after so many examples of uncivil and over-the-top actions that breach Wikipedia guidelines and he is let off the hook without so much as a warning. Hypnosadist, who was insulted by InShaneee, feels this doesn't adequately address his or others' concerns about this admin and wants to take it further, asking other editors suffering similar grievances to outline their complaints ahead of arbitration. In response, admins come down on him like a tonne of bricks for allegedly spamming users' talk pages (although those users have not complained). This is about admins covering each others' backs, not an even application of policy. This strengthens Hypnosadist's case for taking the problem to a higher level.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that the admin's are not coming down on him for spamming folks pages. If he had contacted ALL members of the RfC, then there would have been no repercussions. Instead, he selectively chooses those who would be the most sympathetic to his cause . That's not allowed. Please read the notes earlier in the case, and try to assume good faith of their legitimate issues. Comments like "This is about admins covering each others' backs" do nothing to help your cause. SirFozzie 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Sir Fozzie i was accused of as the title suggests MASS posting and now you say i did not post enough when it turns out what i was doing was not spam. What happened was the charge against me was changed mid stream when it became obviouse that i was not guilty of any spamming.Hypnosadist 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ps as for my good faith how about "the user seems to be trying to rustle up a lynch mob" thats good faith i take it. Hypnosadist 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are seeing parts of this discussion and not others. Several folks (admin, and not-admin alike, including myself) have agreed that the mass discussion you were doing was ok in theory.. EXCEPT: A) you were only letting people know that already agreed with you, when to be fair, you are supposed to let all sides know that you are adding more information to the RfC, and inviting comment, and B)You did not do so in a neutral manner. SirFozzie 23:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, I have explained MULTIPLE times the correct procedure for the future, and have explained exactly what policies you did not follow. You were not blocked, you are not being attacked, you are not being hindered in any way. Please acknowledge this and move on. Thank you. —bbatsell ¿? 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Bbatsell i understand the correct proceedure, that from now i should go to arb com then tell inshaneee that i've done it then try to get the evidence for my case. I am being attacked as this tread is about how i'm wrong while i'm trying to get justice for how me and many other people have been treat by inshaneee. I've been hinderd by having my messages deleted on talk pages, i deliberately did not post loads of messages just so i would not be accused of spamming and then i am accused of doing that because of how few messages i posted. I am really having difficulty with this.Hypnosadist 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This thread is not about your attempts to get "justice". That's not the issue at hand here. There are other places for that. Like the RFC you have filed. You didn't follow WP proceedure in your canvassing. Period. Accept that and move on. No one is having a big black mark against their name. No one is getting blocked, banned, etcetera. The only thing you are doing is prejuducing people AGAINST your case, with your constant complaints about how you're being treated unfairly, despite SEVERAL people trying to explain what you did incorrectly so we can all move on. Now, PLEASE, take the advice you are given and move on. SirFozzie 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not filed an RfC ever! Given that you have that fact wrong could you relook at this case!Hypnosadist 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be the confusion "If Hypnosadist had contacted everybody who commented on InShaneee's RfC and noted that he was adding additional information to that RfC and inviting participants to consider it, that would have been fine". I'm not doing anything to do with an RfC, the one A Link with the past started died with nothing happening. Hypnosadist 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is because a RfC cannot hand out disciplinary measures. You need an arbitration to do that. BTW, I have reviewed the information. It makes things worse AGAINST you, not for you. You are actively soliciting those who agree with you to file a case against the admin (who even I agree has not been lily white in this whole issue). You are/were attempting "Trial by Ambush" here, (please don't attempt to tell me different, telling folks that you are messaging them only because they supported your case in the RFC as in [[12]] . Just end this farce, Stop claiming you're being persecuted in here, and get on with the Arbitration (then let EVERYONE involved know, not just those on your side). ~~

Actually Hypnosadist I did add the note that you had explained what you were going to do before you did it in two notes (as Zscout pointed out) and that folks/admins could have asked you not to before you did what you did, and I pointed out that you didn't try to hide it or anything. Still, this is, imo, the kind of thing that happens when people "in power" abuse it or are perceived to abuse it, it builds up bad feelings, the kind that don't readily go away. That's why I also urge you to take a cool step back to deal with this. KP Botany 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

At last my real crime is revealed "You are actively soliciting those who agree with you to file a case against the admin" yep thats a fair cop, i only told you that every time you asked.Hypnosadist 09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist asked InShaneee for an apology,[13] and InShaneee apologized[14] (and it wasn't a Hollywood "if I offended you" piece of doo-doo), and Hypnosadist accepted with a smile.[15] KP Botany 02:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't want to do it but I was struggling to keep up with reverting the vandalism, meaning that nobody else could get an edit in edgeways. Lets leave this long enough for the vandal to stop and then unsprotect. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not long ago

Yuser31415 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem with adding the text, "in the interim, please feel free to contact an administrator directly" or words to that effect? --BigDT 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me...either that, or use the talk page...Guettarda 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the text. I don't know that asking for messages to be posted on the talk page is a great idea, but I won't yell/scream too loudly if someone disagrees and changes it. Really, though, you could contact any established user ... anyone can copy/paste your message here for you. --BigDT 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Cplot has stashed accounts sitting around waiting to disrupt, since he was just able to vandalize this page again. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go new account patrolling sometime and bash anything that follows his username pattern with {{

username}} --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot just managed to hit it again, as User:AbsoluteXer0. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this page is no longer sprotected? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct. It was unsprotected, and quite rightly so, as it seemed to remain so for some time without any problems. Strangely, the most recent rangeblock I placed seems to have shut him up. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

IP user actually didn't get blocked indefenitely unless ip user uses Open Proxy. Could you tell me why you made request this ip for indefinite block? Daniel5127 <Talk> 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out this single purpose account adding libel to various articles (yes I know the suicide bit is pure nonsense but the rest could be harmful). Needs to be blocked ASAP --

I issued a

WP:BLP warning. I love the spelling of "reminist" :) User:Zoe|(talk) 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Socko 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently created and has popped up on The Showster (talk · contribs)'s talk and user pages on my watchlist. In this edit the user claims to be someone who was vandalized by users who were possibly connected to The Showster in a RFCU about a month ago. Should this account be blocked as a sock used only to stalk? Metros232 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

the name doesnt help.

WP:USER vio if anything. ~Crazytales (Talk) 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Now he's uploading images that relate to The Showster's area of interest, Image:NWO vs Wolfpac.JPG.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

About the user name,

Mr. Socko is part of Mick Foley's whole persona. Yes, it has the double meaning in this instance, but I think the wrestling connotation is meant here. Metros232 01:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him per username Alex Bakharev 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Huckleberry Hugo (talk · contribs)
• R.T. Merck (talk · contribs)
• He calls you scumback (talk · contribs)

Thank you. TheQuandry 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

GaryGoingggg has gone back to standard User:JB196 behaviour, inserting links to articles JB196 has written [[16]] as well as nominating wrestling articles for AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Scaia‎. Note: The account is only a few days old, which is a strong indicator of trying to get around JB's ban.

See

Also user:Machodawg is inserting JB196 links in articles as well [[17]]

(Sorry, forgot to sign) SirFozzie 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a very obvious JB196 sock, and he's already threatening to evade any block that may be imposed. [18] One Night In Hackney 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is comforting to know that you must stoop to the level of personally attacking new users and wrongly accusing new users of sockpuppeting because you dont want a verifiable source (which they added) to remain in a article. theres no threat on my part--and the only personal attacks have came from you.

GaryGoingggg 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the "verifiable source" is largely unverifiable original research carried out by JB196, a link to which has been inserted on a constant basis by JB196 and all his socks. The claim of a personal attack refers to me stating Common sense says that screenshots can easily be doctored or manipulated, so they are not reliable, which is clearly not a personal attack. The sooner this disruptive editor is blocked the better. One Night In Hackney 08:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. hopefully, someone can look at this ASAP SirFozzie 18:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

-1. I am not disruptive. -2. You are harassing me with these false sockpuppetting accusations and you are not assuming good faith. -and most importantly 3. The source is extremely verifiable and the day that Tommy Dreamer saying his opinion on a particular matter becomes not relevent or not verifiable in relation to Tommy Dreamer's opinion on said particular matter is the day that the world ends.

Stop harassing me.GaryGoingggg 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not have to assume good faith where there is a pattern otherwise. SirFozzie 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And that argument is an EXACT replica of another of your socks, Barber. BooyakaDell. So don't bother trying to convince us you're someone else. It won't work. Clearly you are a threat to Wikipedia and it's about time someone contacted your ISP and had you forcibly removed. You are not welcome here. 124.181.204.208 05:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. dont know who you ar 2. not gonna claim to be someone i'm notGaryGoingggg 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User:129.7.35.194 has vandalized DDT (professional wrestling) and Facebuster, given personal attacks to me and just broke the three revert rule. He has atleast two previous blocks. Could he please be permanently blocked? ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if this should have been in

WP:AIV instead.↪Lakes (Talk) 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a good amount of rules broken in one post. Look at

WP:CIVIL, amonst others. Honest question. if you don't like it here, why do you edit? SirFozzie 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

IP range 129.7.35.0/24 blocked for 1 week for block evasion. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Downside, the university of houston has a /16 range and you only blocked the /24. Upside, they might actually respond to a complaint. Bonus: classes are not in session so that cuts down the suspects to emloyees, faculty and grad students.

Thatcher131 21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to imagine a university student acting like that. I guess it shows how some people act when they're relatively anonymous. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You might ask Chris O. The business about reverting a "lying scientologist" strikes me as nonrandom and more than simple wrestling fandom.

Thatcher131 21:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, you're talking about people who think the highest goal of life is to go someplace where they can drink themselves blind everynight and then use getting a sunburn as a hangover cure. --

Donald Albury 21:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And you're talking about me, Donald! Well, not the sunburn bit, but the drunk bit. I'm yet to actually do too much work on my degree though :-P --Deskana [[User talk:Deskana|

Been there, done that, although I couldn't afford to fly to Cancun or Cabo, but come to think of it, Cancun hadn't been developed when I was an undergrad. \sigh\

I warned a vandal to test2 or 3 (I can't remember which, it was quite a while ago) once and the IP was registered to

M.I.T.. That was pretty funny, Prodego ^talk 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys he's at it again now as 72.178.235.28 and we are now nearing the tenth revert.... i have tried my best to comunicate with him and have even asked him to start a survey to judge oppion on the articles talk pages but he has just ignored me and continued.. please help stop him ---

EccentricRichard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also known as Vox Humana 8' (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and possibly other accounts) is continuing to edit as 81.107.213.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — CharlotteWebb 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

NLP update - Some COI issues and reluctance of some editors to get along (and some positive points)

Hi all. Recent notifications concerning the NLP article have covered promotional obscuring of views (suppression of information [19]) and users of a known COI editing the article To be found under "Comaze" [20] Under "NLP article specific examples of promotional obscuring of facts and relevant views" [21]. An admin has already civilly explained the situation to those above editors [22][23]. Also Cleanup taskforce has asked for a serious cleanup of the article - including reducing redundancy and making the debate more concise and contained [24]. Efforts to balance views emphasizing the concept [25] seem to be getting ignored -

"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview."

Some editors have been persistently trying to suppress core information from the opening and these tend to be the ones reluctant to get along with those of a different view [26] [27],[28] [29] [30] [31], [32] [33]

[34],[35],[36]

There is still a misuse of argumentative words to avoid. There is no need at all for the argumentative or debate word "however" in the line yet they insist. [37] [38]. Their behaviour seems to me to be highly unconstructive considering the assessment of the CleanupTaskforce.

Editors have been ignoring efforts to make the article more concise (without obscuring views), by physically distancing the discussion on the article [39]- and by removing it completely from discussion [40].

There is some evidence of editors with known COI making odd edits on other articles [41].

On the positive side - there are fewer edits per day (usually less than 40). A lot of the problem was caused by the plus 50 eds per day which has led to an oversized article. The CleanupTaskforce has given helpful instructions to make the article more concise and to clarify what NLP is about. I don't see any particular problem long term and I'm fairly sure editors will come round to the idea that editors of different views are supposed to try to get along. Once they properly discuss the suppression of information policy I'm sure a win-win can be achieved. Trolling - sockuppetry - and meatpuppetry don't seem to me to be an issue. I believe the main point is to encourage editors of various views to work together collaboratively and civilly in the long term. AlanBarnet 07:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All other editors on the NLP page are in agreement [42] [43] [44] [45] that AlanBarnet (

HeadleyDown or he is equally bad. At least two more independent users on his talk page have identified him as a sockpuppet also. However, even in his own right, this new user has exhausted all patience with his disinformation, distortion, and lies (much of which continues above). This is his third WP:AN/I notice about content disagreement. A block has been requested before. 58.178.142.37 07:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello user 58.178.142.37. The editors you mention all seem to be keen on obscuring key views or at the very least they are all reluctant to make clear concise statements of each view. I've provided edits and discussion recently [46] and on multiple prior occasions and encouraged discussion concerning getting along and making sure that each view is concisely summarized to the best of each view. Rather than discussing or adjusting my edits - others have tried to either marginalize the discussion or in your case - delete my edits altogether without discussion on a regular basis - call me a troll with venom - and restore argumentative debate into the article. I believe that most would see your actions as unreasonable. I havn't tried to cut away - reduce- or obscure any of the sourced NLP views. You and others seem to have obscured the views of science either by removing them from the lead - reduce them so they become obscure - add undue argument - or cover them with nonrelevant information. All the article needs is to present the subject of NLP with each view summarized so that it becomes clear to the reader. This can all be done without excess size and it can be done civilly. This is not a content disagreement. Its about COI - obscuring key views - getting along- and a simple enough NPOV solution. AlanBarnet 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your diffs above clearly show several other editors consistently reverting you. Can't you see that only incriminates yourself as the editor that pushed an edit-war? 58.179.166.57 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• It has been asserted by others that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown. I would not like to call that, since at least some of the motivation for the assertion seems to be that he is pushing the scientific mainstream view of NLP in that article. Previously the article was under mediation; maybe it needs to be again. My understanding is that HeadleyDown was less calm and less polite than AlanBarnett. I have no personal knowledge of HeadleyDown, though. There is abundant evidence of conflict of interest in the pro-NLP camp, and they definitely dominate editing of that article. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your view that editors are partly motivated out of their POV is unfounded and must necessarily be based on not having read the NLP talk page. Both User:Doc_pato and User:Fainites have been very extremely verbal in promoting the mainstream scientific view and nonetheless they both want AlanBarnet blocked [47] [48]. And quite frankly Guy, you are in personal conflict posting here as an admin; having previously labelled NLP pejoratively as a cultic [49] [50], and with AlanBarnet saying he communicates with you privately [51] [52]. There is no consistent evidence that there is either a pro-NLP or anti-NLP camp. In fact, the NLP talk page clearly shows there is much healthy debate, except on one issue where all agree: User:AlanBarnet is an abusive sockpuppet of HeadleyDown. Users have had two months to determine this. AlanBarnet is just as antagonistic and disruptive as HeadleyDown [53] [54] [55] [56] and more and he has maliciously posted a users' personal information several times [57] [58] [59]. Woohookitty? Voice-of-all? Can we please have an admin that is qualified to recognise this sockpuppet? 58.179.166.57 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am convinced that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown not because of the views he/she pushes), but from his/her well-documented pattern of behaviour (btw, personally I would tend to be more on the anti-NLP side). Jbhood 12:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi user 58.179.166.57. I am cooperatively posting notices on ANI to solve a problem. I never said I communicated with Guy privately - only that I am keen on cooperating with admin. There have been over 80 edits on the NLP article per day at times and with no sufficient discussion. There are editors on the article who seem to have a COI and you seem to be encouraging them to edit. I've reiterated admin suggestions and assessments and you call it harassment. You seem to be dismissing key NPOV points about keeping the article summarized and you've been regularly marginalizing key science views as can be seen in the links above. When I make reasonable suggestions towards making sure all relevant views are presented as best as the proponent of each view can - you delete the suggestion. When helpful editors restore the suggestion you delete again [60]. You and others seem to be refusing to balance views and refusing to make succinct concise statements about each view. I am talking about getting along. If you would like to start civilly discussing the Suppression of Information policy on the NLP talkpage I'm sure admin would be happy that editors of different views are trying to get along. AlanBarnet 03:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Utter baloney! AlanBarnet, if you are so wonderful how do you explain six separate editors [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] thinking you are a manipulative sockpuppet and wanting you blocked? Coincidence? All editors are reverting you blindly now, quite obviously sick of your falsified article citations and talk page sugercoated baloney. Your own talk page confirms what I am saying. Clearly you should be blocked. 58.179.166.57 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi 58.179.166.57. Editors who have not shown a reluctance to presenting all views clearly seem to be reverting you [67] (Editor MER-C at least). And rather than blind reversion - it seems to be a reversion based upon the need for collaborative and civil discussion. AlanBarnet 06:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi again; Just to help get the ball rolling towards collaborative editing and discussion - I'd like to present this [68] for discussion on the NLP talkpage. Rather than just delete such a large piece of unsourced argumentative commentary - it seems more constructive to see if there is anything of any value in it by discussing with other editors. Thanks AlanBarnet 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy. You are being naive. Just because AlanBarnet says he's presenting mainstream scientific views and preventing them being obscured by others doesn't make it true. AlanBarnet has done virtually none of the work in sourcing, verifying and citing the mainstream scientific views which now have a full clear section. I know because I did alot of it myself in collaboration with other editors, including Comaze, but almost never AlanBarnet. He has no real interest in ascertaining genuine views from genuine sources, whether they're pro or anti NLP. Neither is he remotely interested in helping shorten, improve or clarify anything else. Mostly what AlanBarnet does is revert to older inaccurate versions without bothering to clear up the mess created with references, citations etc, put inaccurate or highly selective quotes in the introduction (over and over again), put in grossly POV statements, unverified and unsourced and refuse to provide verified sources on request, and then clutter up the talk page insultingly accusing everybody else of doing these things.[69] (note inadequate edit summary)[70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] If you believe any of that nonsense about wanting to collaborate or work constructively with others then you are the only one who does. Those of us who have had the pleasure of trying to work with him (and I tried very hard) know this protestation for what it is worth. Less than zilch. I also asked you some time ago that if you had any decent sources to back up your claim that it is a 'fact' NLP is a cult, to let us have them, because nearly all of the ones from the HeadleyDown/AlanBarnet camp, when somebody troubles to actually read the blasted things, don't support this. The only sources left are Protopriest Novopashin and you. In the circumstances I would support the request for somebody else from admin. Fainites 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)