Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive212

I've blocked User:PWnsivander the Great as an obvious reincarnation of User:Mike Church, who was banned for long-term sneaky vandalism. Most obviously, he blanked a page meant to keep track of his sockpuppets. Other clues include his use of the word "pwn" and his obsession with "prestige". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

12.168.24.203 is owned by the American Cancer Society. It was also the home of a particularly nasty troll from late 2005 through 2006. I've unblocked it at the direct request of the ACS - if anything nasty comes from this IP, please do let cancer.org know - it's supposed to be a work IP. I've asked them for a sysadmin contact to add to the User:12.168.24.203 page - David Gerard 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Please help.

I am new to Wikipedia/WikiMedia. In the process of trying to make copy a Wikipedia HelpPage for my own Wiki I realized had I accidentally made the edits to Wikipedia itself. The edits involve two redirects, all focused around the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia

however, when i tried to revert/undo my accidental changes by doing another revert, it seems that all the history has gone. I think becuase of some cyclic redirects.

Could someone please fix these changes before too many people get upset! Sorry! Mr-morfik 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Yeah, double-check the hostname first :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

This user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images to WP, either leaving them unsourced or tagging them with obviously invalid fair use claims. Despite the numerous messages left on his talk page, he continues to do so. He has already received his final warning for page vandalism too. Thought I should probably bring this here for admin attention, rather than at

I have blocked this user indefinitely for disruption, per my comments in the last thread about this person. He continues to upload photos with no copyright status or incorrect copyright status, and vandalize, and has been warned numerous times about this despite somehow never being blocked. More trouble than he's worth. Review welcome.

masterka

23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, though I would leave a comment on the talk page inviting him to promise not to continue the image misbehavior. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 07:39Z

Againts

The complaint that you're abusing admin rights seems to come from the misunderstanding that being an admin means you get to dictate the result of content disputes. However, the main thrust of the complaint is not that you abused your admin tools, but you abused the editor tools, and thus shouldn't be an admin anymore. -Amarkov moo! 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And that complaint seems to be unfounded; you've only edited the article twice, and most of the unsourced information was not added by you. -Amarkov moo! 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This appears to just be bluster. I certainly saw no malicious edits or abuse of admin powers in your logs. --Ginkgo100^talk 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto...nothing to see here at all...kudos for Dalbury bringing it here to have others examine these accusations...which are obviously unfounded.--MONGO 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell him to file a user conduct rfc if he really believes what he's saying (after all, abuse of admin power is a serious allegation). You'll obviously be vindicated if he goes through with it and it should be a nice ego boost, or at least confirmation of your good work here. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Of late, this appears to be the first thing that people shout - "ADMIN ABUSE!!!!" - whenever they don't understand what has happened, don't like a consensus, don't like a contribution, don't like a contributor, etc. If just 1% of these types of accusations were real, we'd be in trouble. But not even 1% are (more like 0.0001%) and the noise-to-signal ratio means we'd have trouble spotting an admin gone really rouge even if it did happen. I've lost count of how many times I've been accused of it - several before I got the mop and one about 15 minutes after I got it ... downhill from there. Worth your while to ignore this one, Donald, really. 〈

REDVEЯS

〉 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was accused of something like this just yesterday. --Ginkgo100^talk 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, this is a content dispute, and I have invited Rogue Gremlin to seek

Donald Albury

14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, editors who cry "admin abuse" and "censorship" are often the problem editors, not the admin in question. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Socks:

• 209.247.5.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.215.27.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 209.244.43.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Jonathannew7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One user, using three anonymous and two named accounts. Repeated and persistent deletion of talk page discussion on Talk:Kylie Minogue#Category cleanup over the past two months. A partial list of diffs: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

Has been blocked twice for 24 hours already and once for a week, but keeps on deleting using either one of the non-blocked accounts, in true whack-a-mole style. Has been asked to participate in the discussion instead of deleting it (examples: [12][13][14][15]), and has been warned on all five accounts already, but keeps deleting user talk page warnings (examples: [16][17]). --Plek 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JJonathan just blanked this section. Restored and warned user. --Kurt Shaped Box

01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that an editor (User:Randomfrenchie) uploaded an image (Image:School 804.gif), claiming that the image is in the public domain. However, I am quite sure that this picture is not in the public domain, and I am also quite sure that the uploader did not get permission to use the picture as the summary suggests. (No, I can't prove it.) I have talked to this person in real life, and my conversation with him showed that he probably would have lied about an image's copyright status. What action should be taken about this image? PTO 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can talk to him about it (in real life or on-wiki), and if that doesn't work, you can take the image to

no license}} tag on it. If you have problems beyond that, you can come back here or talk to me. --Mr. Lefty (talk

) 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Heavily spamming

Used {{

WP:AIV. Blocks/bans get done faster there. x42bn6 Talk

00:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, will report there next time. Stevage 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. If in doubt, this place is always good. x42bn6 Talk 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A user, ANNAfoxlover, has been mass-spamming users to get them to sign the user's own autograph page. Despite several warnings from other users 1 2, including administrators, the user continues to spam others (see the contributions 3). On the opposite side of the board, about a hundred other users have actually signed this users autograph page.

The user also tried to force HighInBC to sign their autograph page 4, after he had said many times to the user that he was not going to sign it. The user appeared to stop when I intervened by saying that trying to force HighInBC could be seen as harassment.

I do not believe this user has bad intentions, but the mass spamming is a serious issue, and failure to acknowledge the warnings makes this situation even worse. Acalamari 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This matter is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Autograph pages. Probably best to try and keep the discussion in one place... WjBscribe 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll post this there then. Acalamari 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently removed a userbox [18] here from user:Embargo. It appears as though the version i removed was vandalized (I am not too sure). Now, Embargo is claiming that I have vandalized his page, and several other things. I just wanted to make sure that my actions were appropriate to remove the version of the userbox listed above. If it was innapropriate in the eyes of other admin, I will have no issue apolagizing to him however, I feel anything that states, that they support the massacre of another people is innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I actualy made a mistake above [19] is the diff where I removed the userbox, the one above shows the userbox before I removed it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Er... yes, that certainly seems like an inapppropriate userbox. I think you did the right thing. I'd say you might have requested its removal, first, but judging by his talk page, that's been tried unsuccessfully... several times. Shimeru 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There was previously a fairly long discussion about User:Embargo's userbox... I have no idea what the final consensus was, but I believe most had accepted his most recent version. --Onorem 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he changed it back after I removed the bad version. The version I removed stated, "This user supports Hezbolla to israelli massacres." -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC) The version that reads "This user supports [[Hezbollah|resistance]] to [[Israeli]] [[massacres|hostilities]]."? Really? Strange. Shimeru 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Was just trying to provide some background for any interested. And you had asked on his userpage for a discussion that said his userbox could stay. The "bad version" had been altered in this edit earlier today. I'm assuming that Embargo didn't notice the changes when he reverted the rest of the vandalism. --Onorem 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That is what I was looking for. I have no issue with the current revision. Thanks for the background, much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I do, though. If the content is unacceptable in the open, then it's unacceptable when it's "hidden" behind pipes, too. I'd think this would be pretty obvious; I mean, nobody would support a userbox that read something like "This user thinks <insert ethnic group> are [[rape|really]] [[murder|nice]] [[evil|people]]". Would they? Shimeru 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While you are at it and on this subject, User:TheKaplan has restored "Hezbollah = Murder Incorporated" after removal as per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive73#User:Embargo

I have aksed him to remove it. It appears as though his intentions of having it there are to

Make a point per this quote ("And I probably would have cleaned this one out with all the other superfluous ones, but since someone tried to remove it") located right above it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)

20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by Embargo's edit summary, reverting Chrislk02's removal of hostile material here : "Garbage..."??? that can't be civil at all. ThuranX 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you ok guys w/ the current version? Shall we move on or do you still have some things to say? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, as above. If there's a consensus that says supporting Hezbollah against Israeli "massacres" is okay (and that is what the current version says, although covertly), then fine -- but in that case, I fail to see why the "Hezbollah = Murder" userbox is any worse. Personally, I don't care for either side in the conflict, but I don't think we should allow one of these messages and not the other -- that would appear to be taking sides. If stating a political view in terms of "X is murdering people" is okay, both boxes are okay. If not, both are not. Shimeru 10:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, i've never supported any of the versions myself (see current and archived Embargo's user page). However, and after lenghty discussions at their talk page and at a previous ANI thread, there seemed that the issue has been resolved. Otherwise, i'll be supporting the immediate removal of all these userboxes which smell politics. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Laudable of you, but I think that misses the point. Politics isn't the problem; it's a smokescreen. The problem (if one exists) is couching political statements in terms of "murder" and "massacres". I think there's room for userboxes that state political views without demonizing any given political entity in that way. That said, if it's been settled, I'm not inclined to push. Neither of them offends me, particularly. Just wanted to point out that defending one of those boxes while attacking the other is a pot/kettle situation; they're more or less equivalent, for better or for worse. Shimeru 07:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

user:Geg

• 1.Possible sockpuppet. (not sure.)
• 2.Small wikistalking
• 3.Harassment.
• 4.Removing my comments on talk pages for no reason.
• 5.Removing a section in
  Kingdom hearts II
  for no apparent reason.

Both him/her and user:Apostrophe have been a pain in the butt for me lately. Could there please be a small block? Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Diffs or it didn't happen. JuJube 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Look at this diff for a lovely comment he made to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_Hearts_II&diff=113227430&oldid=113227046 Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• That does run afoul of
  WP:CIVIL. However, there's no context of this so-called "sockpuppetry" and "harassment", and that section is pretty needless. JuJube
  03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On Sockpuppetry- Geg seems to act similar to Apostrophe, both harass me, both edit the same pages pretty much. Harassment- Both keep rverting edits of mine for no apparent reason, and will remove my comments on their talk pages, claiming i am vandalising it. (see their talk pages.)Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: The section has a fair amount of trivia, and they dont even explain to me why. They just harass me while reerting the edits most of the time. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC),

• Geg and I both edit Zatch Bell articles. I guess he's my sockpuppet, too. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with removing comments from talk pages. JuJube 03:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if we're allowed to post here but...

WP:CIVIL, though for some reason his block log is empty now. And the above comment is just due to my frustration and disbelief that someone would want to add something something like this to the article despite the overwhelming consensus that it should not be added. The Splendiferous Gegiford

03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also.. "And by the way, there's nothing wrong with removing comments from talk pages." Well, yeah there is, but not when it's obviously just him being smart by trying to act like one of the "Welcome to Wikipedia" guys. Also, I apologize to the admins for how immature this whole thing looks. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Because i changed my name. And i stopped putting it under Trivia with other notable trivia things. Just because you and your little group dont like it doesnt mean it is irrelivent. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, this sounds like a content dispute. InvaderSora, have you tried using the article talk page? This isn't a matter for the admin noticeboard, no matter how much you think they should be blocked. JuJube 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

About the trivia, most Wikipedia guidelines like

WP:TRIV discourage the use of trivia sections in articles, especially for something this unnotable. But yes, this is definitely a content dispute, and as far as I can tell he hasn't tried using the article's talk page. The Splendiferous Gegiford

03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For one, you're not an admin, so i'm sorry, but i'll have to ask you to stay out of it. Two, regardless of editing, he has been harassing me, and that's worth a block. Also, Apostrophe seems to often wikistalk me. Proof? He's reverted my edits at pages hes never edited before. The Trivia has more notable stuff to back it up. And i dont use the talk page, because nobody is going to care. Why should i be discussing it ont he talk page if you already remove my comments from talk pages for no reason? Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, diffs or it didn't happen. User talk pages are different from article talk pages. JuJube 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Err... what? -- ReyBrujo 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet the behavior will likely be the same. See Apostrophe and Geg's talk pages for the diffs. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I wasn't harrassing you until that one time when you kept provoking me. Simply reverting your bad edits isn't "harrassment". And yeah, I did check your contributions to see what other articles you may have edited with that stuff, but "Wikistalking" is defined as "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." I never had the intention of causing annoyance or distress to you, despite the amount you're causing me.

And like I said, I removed your comments from my talk page because of your sarcastic attitude about it. If you had left a normal message I would have complied. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC

I was NOT being sarcastic. If you think the edits are bad, then IMPROVE THEM! Apostrophe is wikistalking me, though. Can i have some fishy crackers? 04:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If people speak harshly towards you when you engage in disruptive hehaviour, don't do that, then! Uncivil comments have been made towards you by Geg[20] and Apostrophe[21]. This is true and is to be discouraged, but understand that this behavior was provoked through quantitatively worse behaviour on your part. As stated to you previously, administrator intervention is not meant as a punishment, but as an attempt to control or correct undesired behaviour. Administrative action is not required to prevent future incivility towards you from Geg and Apostrophe; the quickest method is simply to correct your own behaviour. –Gunslinger47 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WORSE BEHAVIOR? SHOW ME PLEASE...Can i have some fishy crackers? 04:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get a link... oh yeah

HERE :P JuJube

05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring alone against concensus over fruit box packaging.

1. (no summary)
2. It is true, at least the fruit snack one.
3. (no summary)
4. (no summary)
5. You know what? leave me alone. I have plenty of proof that this is happening. Get off my back.
6. -sigh- You obviosuly aren't seeing the image.
7. (APOLOGIES FOR 3RR.. THIS GUY KEEPS MESSING IT UP) Source=Image. yes, it is notable. I will report you to an admin if you continue.
8. how so?
9. (no summary)
10. THERE. happy? let's at least mention it. (possible typos)
11. rv
12. and..?
13. RV. Want to get BLOCKED for HARASSMENT again? LEAVE ME ALONE NOW.
14. rv pointless removal.
15. rv- NOT pointless..

Note that multiple people were against you, all explaining that they believed your trivia to be unnotable. –Gunslinger47 06:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So if a whole bunch of people go to say, the Invader Zim article, and say "It's unnotable thats its canceled!1", they get their way? Yruly, especially with more stuff to back it up, it is not pointless. I would like Geg and Apostrophe blocked please... Can i have some fishy crackers? 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll like to point out that this isn't the first time InvaderSora has done this. This is the third time, actually. Admins, please do something about this. A warning. Anything. I'm getting quite tired of Invader's antics and I'll like us all to get back to our lives. ' 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would stop reporting if you'd stop HARSSING ME.. I haven't done anything lately against the rules. I am getting tired of being harassed and will not stop untill you guys get blocked or you gutys stop. Ok? Can i have some fishy crackers? 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"I […] will not stop untill you guys get blocked or you gutys stop."

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. In a nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked. –Gunslinger47 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to reason with an editor insistent on adding his own

The above editor is very confused about what is and is not allowed on talk pages. The issue of a Wikipedian doing source-based research has come up on

WP:NOR many times. The answer has always been that Wikipedians are free to do research and post a link to the Talk page, if another Editor wants to add that link to the article they may. The prohibition involves Wikipedians adding their *own* OR to an article page. It does not involve Talk pages whatsoever. Wjhonson

22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another note, the complaining editor is consistently mischaracterizing the page linked. Please review the page yourself to see that it's fully documented, cited, sourced. His hyperbolic argument should be taken with a fairly large grain of salt. I have never, not once, tried to add this link *to* the article page. I posted a request on the Talk page, to see if someone would add the link. That is the approved, accepted, behaviour as you can find in the

WP:NOR archives. The issue has come up many times. Wjhonson

22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

the "wiki" you link to seems to operate as your own private website - all of the edits are by you, everything is by you. The material seems to represent a novel synthesis and as noted, you even say that it's "speculation" at one stage in the process - so no, it should not be added. --Fredrick day 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

While that may be true, this issue should not be here. I suggested that the complaining editor take his issue to

WP:ATT and instead he takes it here ;) If the issue is that the site is not "reliable" then don't cite it. It's simple. Wjhonson

22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

article RFC and get some more input. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!}

23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take it there. ANd thanks to Frederick Day. ThuranX 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to point out that I posted here BEFORE WJhonson suggested WP:ATT, and his mischaracterization, along with the 'pithy' winkface, are frankly irritating and smarmy behaviors. ThuranX 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:30 didn't work. anyone want to look in now? NOW it's getting combative, and I'm tired of explaining things over and over to him. ThuranX

06:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are making it combative. You agree with anyone who agrees with you and argue against anyone who doesn't. This board is not the place to have this discussion. As has been pointed out to you, what I posted on the Talk page does not violate any policy. You should take your concerns to

WP:ATT which is where they belong instead of bothering Admins with things that do not require Admin intervention. Wjhonson

07:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just got an email from

Has this been checkusered? Newyorkbrad 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Does he use any particular pattern with his sock names? Anything in particular to look out for? IrishGuy ^talk 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. There are too many sockpuppets being created to really bother updating the checkuser page, I think. Probably the checkuser folks would kill me if I added all 50+ accounts. That said, it might be worth doing as he has switched to using open proxies now. As to the names, anything with 88 to 91 at the end, or often 180 or 360. A complete list of the ones we've found is available off of Verdict's user page, User:Verdict. --Yamla 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning, he now appears to be threatening me with physical harm. If the picture he keeps on uploading of himself is accurate, he's a big guy. Still, he doesn't live anywhere near me. --Yamla 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This user recently violated my privacy. The edit in question was removed by someone with oversight. Given his previous threats, I'm starting to feel a bit uneasy. --Yamla 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please change the puppet tags and categories on User talk:Coolioj and User talk:Mandalore11 from socks of Martin181 to socks of Verdict and change the CAT to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Verdict (and then delete the then empty CAT Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Martin181)? Verdict was created 14:25, 27 September 2006 and Martin181 was created 18:21, 4 January 2007, so Verdict would really be the puppeteer. Thanks. WODUP 03:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

I had blocked Rajsingam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours yesterday following the incident reported here by User:Netmonger (see the report). Today, using his sockpuppet account DoDoBirds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he attacked me personally before attacking Jimbo Wales on our talk pages. I immediately blocked DoDo and extended Rajsingam block to indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Updates 1

I've been contacted lately by User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam claiming he is the owner of both above-mentioned accounts and that he was betrayed by 2 of his friends with whom he shared the password of his accounts. After further explanations i decided to unblock the main account User:Rajsingam after being assured that it won't happen again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

His accusations

He has accused me of using his blocked account which is totally untrue. All my IP's are known and any check user will determine whether I really did misuse his account or not. I am sure his accusations are against

Could you provide us w/ a link to the accusations you are refering to? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar (talk · contribs) has been banned by the arbitration committee for a period of 1 year. But he has been disrupting wikipedia ever since. He came back as Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs) and later as Lionheart5 (talk · contribs). I was able to identify both these socks and block them. Lately Hkelkar has taken to editing anonymously. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Hkelkar. I have got most of the pages he used to edit on my watchlist. All his edits are of the same type - reverting articles to his own POV. But I cannot continue watching literally hundreds of articles and block IPs everyday. Is it possible under wikipedia rules and legal under US laws to contact his ISP and/or University and inform them of his disruption? - Aksi_great (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Several of the IPs are from the University of Texas. Their network admins can be contacted regarding the abuse. --Ragib 13:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I might add, Hkelkar had his computer privileges revoked for 2 weeks at the University of Texas. He got an entire class blocked. I only know about it because I tried to edit some articles, and there was some block message with an "X" sign.

Some people at the University of Texas know his real name, but I can't give it out (for obvious reasons).

I know this seems a bit odd, a new user editing this page, but I did try and edit as an anon, but couldn't.

Any problems, just contact the University of Texas's technical department at [email protected] and they will try to resolve it. Just be aware, there's no official policy on students editing Wikipedia.

As regards ISP complaints, well, don't go there. Legal minefield, so I'm told by a friend who does computer studies.

Well, there you go. Explanation given. --Trudiruddsen 13:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info. I will contact the abuse department soon to inform them of his disruption of wikipedia. I am sure I know his name too, but have not revealed it yet on wikipedia. The

Arbitration Committee too is aware of his real name. You must have been blocked from editing as many IPs used by Hkelkar have been blocked due to his ban evasion. Also, I do think it odd for you to have edited this page as your first edit. - Aksi_great (talk

) 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what of the socks of

talk · contribs). If you smell Hkelkar, one of these users is not far away.Bakaman

01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are suspicious, you are free to start your own thread on this page, or make a request at RFCU, or list your request at the ArbCom enforcement page. IMO Hkelkar has caused more trouble than BhaiSaab and Terry after the ArbCom case by not accepting the decision of the ArbCom and by not getting the message that his style of editing and POV pushing is not wanted here. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note that I have contacted the abuse department at the university. I have received a reply asking for more evidence, diffs, timestamps and other info. I have given them the information. At present, I am hopeful that they will do something about this. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

On March 4th and 5th, User:Gwern appears to have created hundreds of non-functional redirects. I found them because they today flooded the Short pages list (Parsed version). The short pages software did not recognize them as proper redirects, so they all dropped onto the list. Several issues that I see:

1. Do we even want to keep several hundred different capitalizations of "A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy Far, far Away..." redirects. A couple of others were done as well.
2. They are non-functional. Some just need a space before the first "[", others need whatever is there (before the first "[")converted to a true space. If they are to be kept, it is a non-trivial fix-it job to clean them up and make them functional.
3. Does Gwern have permission to run a bot like this? And in his own main user account?

Anyway, I'm putting this here because if the answer to #1 is no, we need more admins than me deleting these things. After fixing a couple of dozen of the non-functional ones myself, and realizing that there are hundreds more to fix, I decided I needed help of some sort.

And I'm *not* looking for a block of User:Gwern at this point. His "bot" has not been running for a couple of days. He may need a warning, especially if the bot is unauthorized, though there is already discussion on his talk from people generally concerned over the flood. But there is at the moment no immenent reason to block him. - TexasAndroid 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there is only one article named "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" and there aren't 50 different variations with different capitalization, the go/search box will work, no matter what you type, right? For example, we have Virginia Tech Hokies. If I type "VIRGINIA TECH HOKIES", "vIrGinIA tECH HoKIES", or any other capitalization into the box, all of those send me to Virginia Tech Hokies. So having redirects from all of these alternate capitalizations is useless. --BigDT 15:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

His concern seems to be that linking isn't as smart as the go box, but, well... users should check when adding links. Maybe something on submit that will check any new redlinks for "go box results" for that text and suggest them would be useful. --Random832 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, redirects from every conceivable alternate capitalization is a maintenance nightmare. The risk of someone accidentally leaving a redlink to an incorrect capitalization is less than the risk of these alternate capitalizations being vandalized becaus nobody is paying attention to them. Unless it's a prominent alternate capitalization (

2006-07 NCAA Division I men's basketball season), I don't think there's a reason to have them there. And even if it is prominent ... there's no real need for it - anyone adding the link will see it is a redlink and fix it. If they don't, someone else will. --BigDT

16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed these due to a large number of them appearing at the top of Special:Uncategorizedpages. As he seems to have stopped, I don't think any immediate admin action is required, but in short yes, these are/were:

• broken, due to a missing space,
• unnecessary, for the reasons discussed above,
• liable to create ridiculous bloat if done for any significant proportion of all articles (increasing the number of pages in the main space by a significant multiple -- probably something on the order of 10 million redirects, depending on the distribution of length in words of article names),
• made with an unapproved bot (see
  WP:BRFA
  , not to say the lack of an explicit consensus anywhere to do this),
• inappropriately made from his main account,
• done at "bot-like speed", which an account not flagged as a bot really shouldn't ever do, even if approved to do the particular task.

(See

(To which add, "creating what would be double-redirects, were they working redirects at all". e.g. at !Kora Language. Alai 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Ok. Thinking more about how to handle this. The following are suggestions:

1. We begin to clean out (delete) the bulk of these redirects that were bot-created on the 4th and 5th. At current they are an unapproved, non-functional, bot-created mess, clogging up at least a couple of important tracking pages.
2. Gwern is asked to first get consensous of the very idea of this type of massive redirect. Not sure where he should be directed to for such a discussion, but it's definitely not appropriate for AN/I. (Note that I FYIed him on this debate, so I'm hoping he'll drop in here at some point. He appears to mostly edit in the evening, US time.)
3. Direct Gwern to the bot approval process, and asked to follow it before he launches the bot again. He *really* should not be testing a bot in his user-space without any sort of authorization.

Note that in all of this I am totally WP:AGF about Gwern. I have no reason at all to think this was anything other than good intentioned. But it really, really needs to go through several more steps before anything like this is repeated. - TexasAndroid 17:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be 1. 'agree to give up on the whole idea', and 2. delete the existing instances. But he might want to press ahead with it, and if so, then as you say, he should take some sort of soundings about this (I can only think of

WT:RFD, but I'm open to suggestions on a better location), and if that's at all favourable to the idea, go ahead with a bot approval request. Clearing them out before he's had a chance to chime in here might look a bit hasty, if he's determined to go ahead with the idea (heaven forfend), whereas if he has no objection, all'll be well. It should be said that some sort of unapproved 'testing' in the mainspace is more or less custom and practice, but not dozens or hundreds of such edits, at full-bot-speed, and only if closely manually supervised. (Making the same mistake twice in a row isn't a good sign of appropriate "testing", much less 30 times in a minute.) Alai

17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have resumed making up to 15 (automated, unapproved and unflagged) edits per minute, though seemingly at present just fixing some of the broken redirects created last time: [23]. Alai 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assured it's just massive use of tabbed browsing, so never mind. Alai 05:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This one appears mostly resolved for now. User:Centrx cleared out the bulk of the bad redirects yesterday, so they are gone. So unless Gwern decides to fire up his bot again, I think this one is settled. - TexasAndroid 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The dispute on WP:AWARDS finally ended last night when an admin stepped in (thank you) and removed the coordinator section and voting restrictions that southphilly and evrik insisted on against consensus. We've got some good stuff going on over there now, with some really helpful new users in. Anyone else wanting to sign up would be welcome.

Unfortunately South Philly (talk · contribs) has taken up personally attacking me here, here, and somewhat subtly here. Apparently, in an accusation which Southphilly has also accused me of in the previous AN/I above, I "control" the project. I don't know what Southphilly's definition of control is, but I invite anyone to review the page, as I seriously doubt his claims. I am getting tired of Southphilly's bitter accusations and vindictive actions and ask that he be warned and/or blocked for his disruptive behaviour (he has also MfDed the entire Awards project because, ironically, he claims it "is too bureaucratic".) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Applying the "glass is half full" take on this, one might discern a temporal progression from "personal attack" to "subtle criticism". Either way, I don't think this requires admin action at this point. I'd suggest waiting a while, and if it resumes, taking the matter up at, say,

WP:WQA, or requesting mediation. Let's hope there's no further outright disruption, at least. Alai

19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just closed the MfD as a keep here. I'm going to sleep (way to avoid conflict for a few hours). If anyone wants to overturn and open, don't wait for my return. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think South Philly was
  Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Finally, people who say that other users exhibit in pathological hatred and appear to relish humiliating them should not throw so many stones. --evrik ^(talk
  ) 19:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Drama" I would much rather have avoided - you're the one who insisted on your shiny Coordinator badge and straw polls for every edit. Resolving disputes would have been a waste of time given an administrator had to reprimand you both before you stopped. Thuglas left because of that edit war, you take as much blame as I. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• So, now you're resorting to
  ad hominem attacks? Attacking me does not refute the facts, let me quote, "Im pretty sure i would have drop kicked Dev by this point - unfortunately the internet doesnt let me do that so i decided just to quit before i get any more mad. ." --evrik ^(talk
  ) 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's any good faith here left to assume, or civility to share, can we please do so, or take this elsewhere -- like dispute resolution, as suggested above? Alai 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally would like to get on with editing the Wikipedia. South Philly and evrik seem to want to argue til the cows come home, and then send away the cows because there's no consensus on them coming home. Evrik, I am trying to work with you on WP:AWARDS, such as that Service awards thing, but your endless sniping is making it difficult. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I stopped editing for a long time because of the way people treat each other here. I am angered by Dev920's blatant abuse of the system (who the f--- files three notices at the ANI in a week?), and her power grab. Evrik worked long and fairly to make sure that the system was working and repeatedly asked for everyone's help. After the dust settles, I am contemplating leaving Wikipedia for good because of Dev920.

This should have been mediated long before it was brought to the administrators. I've now been mentioned three times at the ANI this week by Dev920 - and I don't think it's fair. --South Philly 13:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if Southphilly would stop being so abusive I wouldn't have to keep coming here. Note that this is brought up every single day at the same time - when southphilly starts editing. I am genuinely confused about southphilly's accusation that I am grabbing power: what fucking power? How is contributing to a wikiproject controlling it? Seriously, what the hell is he talking about? I haven't removed anyone's messages, I haven't, significantly, started a revert war with anyone because I want my own way, I have no idea why southphilly insists on posting such accusations about me here, on the project page and now on Alai's page. It's insane. Southphilly posted a personal attack against me on WT:AWARDS claiming I had ousted evrik from the project and had "taken over" when evrik is still posting on the page. Given my only experience with South philly has been to observe his endless attempts to get his own way against all reason and opposition, I can only think when he leaves Wikipedia will be better for it. I am going to get on with my work now, and I hope Southphilly will see the sense of quitting before he makes himself looks even more irrational. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• WikiLoco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated vandalizingofthesame information (despite consensus). Other vandalism on other pages. Warnings abound on his talk page. McKay 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

another McKay 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Am I the only one who thinks that displaying Essjay's photograph with a DYK item on the Main Page is grossly inappropriate? Newyorkbrad 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not at all. Who signed off on that? Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nishkid64, it seems. [24] Not one of his better choices, IMO. -- ChrisO 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Inappropriate how? Hbdragon88 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Mainly the fact that its totally self-referential- comes across as "ooh, look at us we're Wikipedia, aren't we important"? Also its unnecessarily unpleasant to Essjay. Oh and its rather POV- I mean he didn't fake credentials, he just claimed to have some he actually didn't have. WjBscribe 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree. And we don't even know that it's Essjay. Trebor 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, and so does Dragonfly, who has removed it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Inappropriate as in highly insensitive, and also grossly Wikipedia-centric. This is starting to look like organised persecution, frankly. -- ChrisO 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Of course it's inappropriate. Have some dignity, people. — Dan | talk 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse both the pic removal and the removal of the article itself from DYK. Ill-advised. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 100% Endorse removal - Munta 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Why pour more salt in the wound?
  masterka
  23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Putting the ethical issue aside this picture has no relable basis of fact. No one can confirm that this is Essjay. If someone uploads the portrait of Leonardo to wiki claiming it to be oneself, this would be as much reliable. Whatever people think about leaving him alone at last (or refusing to), ethics is more of a feeling while
  WP:RS is a policy. Support the removal. --Irpen
  23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly fine with the removal. Someone added that to
    T:DYKT, no one seemed to complain about the image, or the hook, so I did not see any potential problem there. Nishkid64
    23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like it was added to the update page by Parker007 [25]. WjBscribe 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • For the record, what I said only applies to Essjay's supposed image, not the DYK text entry on which I am not opining here. --Irpen 00:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Just as a side note... I really don't understand the reasoning behind it not being there. It seems like people are hiding behind self-reference as a way to keep mention of the scandal off the front page. --Dookama 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I glanced at the article before and it basically said about the picture, "I don't know, this was posted to the user page so maybe it's him but maybe it's some random other
    living person we're now associating with this event." Honestly, I think there's a good case that could be made for its removal entirely on that ground alone. Bitnine
    23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Try to
    WP:ASR is yet another reason it shouldn't be on the Main page.) Picaroon
    00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Feelings are running high in the community regarding essjay at them moment - but we're not here to serve ourselves - we're here to serve 'those out there'. The issue has gained wide publicity - today I read a report of the issue on the BBC - this exposure is going to generate traffic. Stepping back from my opinions as a wikipedian (And I'm conflicted as the next man on this - great wikipedian but possibly damaging etc. etc.) the press it's generated and the way the community deals with such things is good for us and our profile - it was a good and brave call putting it on the front page at this time and I welcome it. Upsetting for essjay? undoubtedly. Good for the wider community - well maybe.--Joopercoopers 01:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, stupid navel-gazing! Endorse removal of both the picture and the DYK. I'm all for the "persecution" (which I would call examination) of the matters behind Essjay and ramifications to Essjay of his mendacity, but this is an internal matter, and we are not an issue for DYK. Heck, a lot of the "did you knows" lately have been "did you care?" In this case, the photo is of a person who may not be Essjay, and all of this folderol is self-reference. Geogre 13:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy article now on AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy

The article is back at AfD under its new title having been nominated by Cool Cat. WjBscribe 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy closed by Mikkalai. WjBscribe 00:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An admin closed the discussion on Clamp (manga artists) despite there being discussion going on even as he boxed it up. Is not the continuing active discussion on the talk page the definition of an "active discussion"? According to Husond (with funky characters), it does not appear to be so. Can I get some clarification here? Also, the template states "with clear consensus", but there was no consensus on the page. Should a "no consensus" closure be allowed while there continues to be debate? Kyaa the Catlord 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again: 1) Move proposal was active for the 5-day period until it got listed on

WP:CIVIL.--Húsönd

02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

History: The original move was done with no consensus, it was a badly done move (it lost the original page's history, etc), should it not be moved back to original, historic article at least to save the page history? (Yes, this is a bloody mess) Kyaa the Catlord 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out Husond ignored the following passage from the "closing a request for move" directions for admins when he speedy closed the discussion after I relisted it: "If a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, relist it." I don't hold any further desire to revisit this debacle, but I felt that perhaps it would be best if someone would point out that proper procedure was denied. Kyaa the Catlord 12:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is only feasible to relist if there are prospects that a consensus will be reached if more time is given to the discussion. Not the case here. Polls can't last forever.--Húsönd 13:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw this edit while reverting vandalism from that IP. It happened a couple of days ago, so I think it's too old for AIV. Should any action be taken for that particular edit? Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 06:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is a threat of physical attack, but it's made to a -bot. Then again, we block for the threat of attack, not the likelihood of its fulfillment. Seems to be a dynamic IP, though, so a block probably won't do any good unless we find the user in the act. Geogre 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why and how is User:Scott3 a bot? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry. I was apparently mistiming my drugs. You're right. It is a threat of attack, so yes, it is a block offense, if we can catch the IP at work. I see that the user has gotten a "this is your last warning" warning, so a block at the next hint of trouble. Geogre 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are objections here, I'll delete that page again, and I'm considering a block warning and/or page protection if he tries this once more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, honestly I can't see any real harm coming from this user. Deleting his userpage and blocking him might be a violation of

WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND so I guess I would not support these harsh measures. Sorry. :-/ Húsönd

13:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The present contents are a personal attack at the least (the thing about the "Greek fabricators" and their "fascist propaganda" is directed at fellow Wikipedians, not some abstract Greek opponents elsewhere). And enforcing

WP:USER isn't censorship. We've deleted pages and (I think) even blocked users for doing much more harmless things with their pages - various cases of kids using theirs as a chatroom come to mind. This user's pages, for well over a year now, have always been breaches of the no-soapboxing rules of WP:USER. And he's been playing cat-and-mouse with the community over it during all this time - always seemingly acquiescing to enforced removals of offensive content whenever people had lost their patience with him, and then sneakily letting the page grow again with new rants. As I told him last time, I'm sick and tired arguing with him just how much political content is acceptable, when I know he's going to dodge it in a week again. That's why I thought we should set him an easy-to-remember and unambiguous limit this time: zero political content. Fut.Perf. ☼

13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. I don't tend to be politically correct and I have a rather lenient attitude towards users who express their animosity towards a specific entity as long as they don't start making personal attacks or other kind of disruptive behavior. However, I checked the deleted versions of his user page and it does seem like this user's been using his userpage as a provocative soapbox only. I have a long experience of warmongering users from the Balkans and a firm response is often the best remedy. So yeah, go ahead and give him a last warning.--Húsönd 14:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Tell The Thruth (

Please can someone delete my article, I hate the entire thing. It's appalling and insulting to me. --Keanu Reeves 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User blocked, nothing to see here. Deiz talk 14:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just another note: Hkelkar has also been running a spambot from the University of Texas IP addresses, it's been used to spam multiple forums and wikis with links to his case on here, and it's been done so often, that we've been IP-banned and IP-blocked from forums and wikis, with the IT department having to resolve it frequently.

If you see anon IPs editing like Hkelkar, be aware that they will usually have a spambot running, so be careful.... --Trudiruddsen 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

As previously menionted here, 12.208.153.82 (talk · contribs) has a history of silently altering figures in articles. This IP was blocked on Feb 15 for doing so, and SpuriousQ complained about this vandal returning about a week ago (see his note in WP:AN Archive 208). His most changes are [28], [29], [30], [31], etc. As SpuriousQ mentioned, "this kind of vandalism is particularly pernicious because it is likely to go undetected (as a several of his edits have)." He has been warned multiple times, with no response. His edit rate is rather low so AIV doesn't seem the place to report and the earlier block did not appear to be long enough to get his attention. Would someone consider placing a longer block on this IP? —RP88 14:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked it for a year. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved to subpage. --Random832 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. I posted the full text of a public court document. Only AFTER I posted the court document did the user confirm that this was his case. The user Eschoir made the connection after the fact. If the user had not identified himself as being the author of the court document, the connection between the wiki screen name and real name would not be known. Relevant diffs. [32], [33] . Finally please advise if posting of freely available public court documents is contrary to wiki policy and I'll gladly cease and apologize. Dman727 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, FAAFA, I appreciate and thank you for refactoring it as the user requested. I would have done so, but you were much faster than I and removed his name 6 minutes after the user requested it. I hope you don't find me at fault for being away from wiki during those 6 minutes ;) Dman727 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Update. After further discussion with the wikipedian in question I have removed, per his request the entire remaining text of the public document from the talk page. FAAFA is correct that the document in question and the users identity is freely available via "intrawebs", however, there is no reason not to respect the wishes of the user in question here on wiki. If an admin would be so kind as to remove the diff history Here(containing the full name) I would greatly appreciate it. Dman727 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits of this nature should be

TML

22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are usually good at applying common sense over the letter of policy. This is obviously one of those times.

masterka

22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just fully protected this - the article had at least 5 users edit warring (all within the last hour) and try as I did to begin to warn them; it seemed more just kept jumping in. So, I've sent them all to the talk page (discussions on m:The Wrong Version have already started). Thoughts? Glen 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• My thoughts are that it should be a sub-stub. It's a news release rather than an article to talk about this controversy, as it's still underway. I hate it when people try to write an "article" on something that has just begun to happen. When they do, they become a secondary source -- journalists -- instead of a tertiary source -- encyclopedists. If a person is reporting, then she or he is not writing an encyclopedia article. This is in addition to the fact that "the controversy" can't be written about until it has a defined shape, with cause, event, and effect. The "effect" bit is still nebulous. Wikipedia is not CNN (or the Drudge Report or Skippy the Bush Kangaroo). Geogre 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with User:Geogre. I've been editing fairly heavily on the article mostly in an effort to keep the thing half-way decent and inline with policy. I tried to hold off on editing it but found that it was glaringly out of step in terms of policy and since my first edits I've made efforts to combat that. (→Netscott) 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• As usual I agree with The Geogre. In a year or so we may have a clear idea of the historical import of this, if there is any, but right now we really don't. A stub with a link to Wikinews (which is for news, unlike Wikipedia which is not) would be fine. How can we record what the considered view of the world is, when the world has barely begun to consider the thing? All we get is a series of gut reactions, and often very poorly informed ones at that. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• This article represents a unfortunate
  Catch 22 situation. Having an article is overfocusing on current news, self-referential and seems to overtrumpet the importannce of Wikipedia. But deleting the article (or most of its content) looks like a cover-up and gives some the impression that we wish to hide the controversy that surrounded Essjay's retirement to save embarassment. Hopefully once the dust has settled we'll be in a better position to decide how an encyclopedia should cover this controversy if at all... WjBscribe
  17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • For now the article will need strict attention from policy wonks like me and others. Eventually I think it will stabilize. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with Geogre. Or, rather, our current practice strongly disagrees with Geogre, so strongly that what I think isn't that relevant. Look at the
  Estonian parliamentary election, 2007 (just to name the top 3 items in that section today), and if those actions get community approval, then come back here saying it is clear Wikipedia policy not to have articles on recent events until the effect is clear. Until then, it wouldn't just look like a cover-up, it would be a cover-up. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)
  18:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Um ... I don't think that we have had much success in covering this situation up. In fact, I think it has long since taken on a completely disproportionate importance. Newyorkbrad 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Could it partially be a reaction to how people are treating it in comparison to other similarly-referenced events, though? Certainly, the community's closeness to the subject lends extra detail, but when people keep reacting that we don't need this article, or that it should disappear, when there's no significant reason beyond the IDONTLIKEIT situation, it's merely asking for more detail and more attention, is it not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • How disproportionate it is not clear. We're the #11 web site in the world, and we had a scandal with one of our most highly trusted users: Bureaucrat (22 of them), Arbitrator (15 of them), and CheckUser (13 of them), all at once. Is it really that disproportionate? The #13 web site is Microsoft.com, the #14 is EBay - if one of their top dozen people was forced to resign under a scandal, do you think it would substantially less coverage? In any case, the point of I'm saying is that the proposal to "sub-stub" the article is clearly wrong. Even if the coverage the media gave it is disproportionate, and that is not clear, they did give it substantial coverage, and it is not up to us to second-guess them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As there is no talk page to discuss this, and the page is protected, could somebody comment on this recent change

[34]

I feel that having the two links on the talk page are valid links. Some people who are new to Wikipedia, having come here to read up about the controvercy, may not know how to navigate the history [35]. The inclusion of the links made clear that Wikipedia wasn't censoring information and also helped novices find the details that they were looking for.

Regards - Munta 15:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They can find the button at the top of the page. If not, then oh well, these are the type of people who slow down to look at a car accident. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think thats rather dismissive of people who use Wikipedia. I came here first to research - now I edit. It took me days to realise I could look at the full history of an article - So these are our future editors you are are dismissing. - Munta 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you be reading Essjay's talk page history if you were just researching? What casual reader would care about internal strife we had once? -Amarkov moo! 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think characterising this situation as 'internal strife' is dismissive, at best. –

dzasta

15:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on the Essjay controversy, unfortunately, so you can read about it there. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's necessary to get rid of the links. I say that if Essjay left them there, preserve his page as he wanted it kept. --Dookama 18:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone who cares about the reliability and trustworthiness of WP would want to see the details of this particular dispute, for it bears upon the credibility of everything we have been doing. It is not a minor incident in the development of WP--it is by now universally known to anyone who knows about WP at all, and there is no point trying to pretend otherwise.

Within WP, Essjay is (was) a public figure. When he chose to give interviews to a reporter for an internationally known magazine he became a public figure in the most direct way.

Why we would conceal the details--obviously, because we are ashamed of them. And well we should be; but the only way to restore our reputation is to admit the details of our failings. Consider other cases of attempts to hide information that ought to be public--first of all, within the last six years--and more generally. Those associated with Enron or its accountants have good reason to wish the details private, but everyone else as even better reason to keep them public. some political figures are aware of how they will look to history, and thus have good reason to keep their documents from public view. I doubt they will get away with it. Nixon too tried to conceal the documentation.

We are not quite as important as those people in a world-wide sense--but within our own part of the world we are. I try to persuade other librarians to use WP--it will now be much more difficult. I try to persuade faculty whom I know to contribute--it will now be very much harder--they now have good reason to prefer one of he competitive projects.

IWISHITWERENTSO. DGG 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He didn't, they were added by the page protector at my suggestion so that the paranoid couldn't claim people were trying to hide the comments. Even if you can find the history they are still useful because you can go directly to the two major revisions easily rather than needing to search through an obscenely long diff list. --

talk

18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you are taking positive steps to preserve the records appropriately.DGG 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was once again cleared by Checkuser here [36] as not being anyone's sockpuppet and this user files another (identical) accusation yet again. Besides similar IP's there is absolutly no similarity between me and this person, yet he continues to accuse me. He also put this on my main page: [37] !!! How long will I be harassed by this raving madman before someone tells him to stop? Tar-Elenion 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: The previous CheckUser did not clear Tar-Elenion of sock-puppetry suspect. It was declined due to the fact that Tar-Elenion was inactive (no data). That's why I re-filed the RFCU immediately after the User in question became active again.

I have to note that this is slightly annoying that this User is repeating this (this same thing was done by Afrika paprika while he was User:Factanista) because if User talk:Tar-Elenion is carefully inspected, it will be seen that I've explained this twice on the user's talk page and twice more additionally elsewhere. As for the tag, I fully stand by it because that's the proper thing to do. --PaxEquilibrium 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did. I was not cleared based on my inactivity but due to inactivity of this AfrikaPaprika. What is imporant however was that I was cleared. Even the recent checkuser (which is identical to the last one rejected) implied you are fishing. Beside the similar IP between me and this person (BTW I disclosed my IP to Pax on his talk page) there is absolutly no proof of me being a sockpuppet, least that of this AfrikaPaprika character. I already tried reasoning with this person but he is stuborn and keeps hurling his ridiculous accusation insults at me. I don't know what argument he has with this AfrikaPaprika but I am simply not him (or her). Tar-Elenion 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(Merged from dupe section)

• PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tar-Elenion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tar-Elenion recently contacted me, asking me to have a word with PaxEquilibrium. The two appear to be reverting back and forth over a sockpuppet template on Tar-Elenion's userpage. As we can quickly see from the argument on Tar-Elenion's user talk, this situation has escalated quite a bit. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Afrika paprika is relevant. Beyond that, I'm getting a feeling this situation is too complex for me to act alone -- anybody have opinions? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take. The IPs belong to the T-Mobile Croatia network. Both Tar-Elenion and AfrikaPaprika edited Croatia-related articles. It's not at all out of the question (disregarding edits for the moment) that they are two independent editors both from Croatia using the same ISP editing articles about their home country. However, it's entirely possible that they are not. So, Pax, if you can properly apply the duck test and

WP:BEANS and all that jazz)). Sound good? —bbatsell ¿? ✍

20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He has no proof. All he has is my IP which BTW was revealed to him by me and the supposed "similar intrests" I have with that of this person which basically means all Croatia related stuff. It seems to me that to him anyone editing articles related Croatia (and so most likely from Croatia) is a sockpuppet of this AfrikaPaprika. Tar-Elenion 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bbatsell, would that be OK - Afrika paprika as Factanista (before) appealed how I was conspiring behind his backs. If I e-mail you all proofs in one package and you block Tar, I fear the same reaction and regardless of the fact that I'm pretty much convinced that Tar-Elenion is Afrika paprika himself (who sent Jesus Christ to f**k my mother and vandalized my user page for 18 times adding insulting homosexual crimes including a war criminal), I still think that it would be somewhat unjust. --PaxEquilibrium 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that would explain it, thing is I am not this AfrikaPaprika. Checkuser confirmed so. I am asking you what "proof" do you have I am this person? Besides blatant accusations and your supposed conviction (suspcion really) of me being this person, what else is there? Are similarities in IP's and interest in the same field (rather wide field of interest - Croatia-related articles) enough? Especially when you are accusing the wrong person. Now please send him the "proof" and let we be done with this. Tar-Elenion 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop saying that CheckUser cleared you. As has been explained numerous times, it has not cleared you. Pax, I encourage you to e-mail me your information. It's a pretty standard way of dealing with sockpuppets, and as I said, it will be available to anyone in good standing who requests here or on my talk page (or on yours, I'd imagine). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mailed. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this case, this edit where one user apparently refers to Tar as "Afrika". Can't think of why they would do that unless they knew something... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The direct translation's included in my e-mail to Bbatsell. You'll get the info. --PaxEquilibrium 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite interesting, isn't it? At the same moment when Pax is making the accusation at User talk:Tariqabjotu this person "GreaterCroatia" comes and refers to me as this "AfrikaPaprika". I find this to be too great coincedance and that "GreaterCroatia" is in fact Pax sockpuppet, you know so that he can have an alibi and say "aha, see someone referred to him as AfrikaPaprika". I can think of no other reason.

Also another interesting bit I found after quick search on Google is that Pax also accused Kubura (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kubura) being a sockpuppet of this "AfrikaPaprika" on the same ground as he is accusing me here as well - Kubura is also a member from Croatia and also often edits Croatia-related articles. Who knows how many innocent users jut like me he accused, only he knows. Tar-Elenion 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I found an OTRS complaint form the author of a Rush tribute book, stating that the tour dates listed in some articles on Rush tours were a copyright violation and impeded his ability to sell an updated version.

Although I am not really convinced that you can copyright a list of dates which is available on the back of every tour shirt sold, about half the articles had no content other than a fair use image of an album cover (copyvio; can only be used in the article on the album) and an infobox; those that had dates lists were unformatted and unreferenced, in short there did not seem to be anythign there actually worth having. I removed them from {{Rush}}. There may be kickback. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a regular editor at that page, I will leave a link to this on the talk pages of a few of the regs, that should clear it up, Guy. ThuranX 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally see the encyclopedic worth in tour dates anyway, but that's just me. JuJube 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vaguely rings a bell somewhere about disputes around one (or more) of these lists (not copyvio) but I could be mistaken. Not sure about the copyrighting of lists as generally you can't copyright factual information, though things like telephone directories do claim copyright. It would seem unlikely the author of a tribute book might have ownership of such copyright anyway. From your description though, sounds like they were adding little encyclopedic value and probably fail

not an indiscriminate collection of information --pgk

22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

One can copyright the specific layout of a given set of factual information, so long as the layout has some artistic or creative function beyond simply dumping the information, but not the information itself. (That's why you often see more than one phone directory in an area, just with different titles and designs.) Therefore, a scanned image of the book cover or page would be a copyvio, but simply putting the same information here as there is not. Still, seems to fail

WP:NOT, as stated above. If information itself could be copyrighted, we'd be committing a copyvio every time we paraphrased a source! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!}

22:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

More being sidetracked than necessarily applicable here, if your interested in this sort of thing, would be this --pgk 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A

WP:NPA warnings from his talk page. I asked him to please not do that and reverted the selective blanking. Was that the appropriate move? --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits

) 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The purpose of warning someone is to try to convince them to stop the behavior in question. By removing the warnings, they've proven that they've seen the warnings. Attempting to force them to keep the warnings on their talkpage will usually just make the situation worse. --Carnildo 00:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked indef for this [38] I mean, really, death threats are a no no. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User calls me by a derogatory version of my name real name Alexander — Sashok from the Russian nickname Sasha. Now although it is disputable that Sashok is actually an insult and there are cases when it cannot be e.g. a grandfather calling his grandson. However when a rival person, and in wikipedia we do assume that we are equal in age...at least formally, calling another person with that name, who is not a close friend is insulting and I find it so, and in the context that he is using it ([39], [40]). Furthermore this is not the first time he has done so. And was warned of a personal attack (dif) one of the links include several entries in which he has referred to me as such. I believe that as a wikipedian I have the right not to be

Kuban Cossack

23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the issue. Here is what I can say. The user Ukrained (talk · contribs) chooses to perpetually harass me all the time. Some diffs from only the latest times:

• attack on another editor (see edit summary)
• attack on myself and yet a third editor
• frivolous warning
• attack on me and host of editors calling them "Irpen Group" (gross ABF)
• attack on myself (again) and two other editors
• unveiled attempt to recruit help to launch a revert war
• another grossly ABF attack
• another call for an edit war
• same here
• reaction to admin warning that he retitled into "Another intimidation attempt by the Irpen Group", the edit summary "мене не залякати" translates as "I won't be scared" (!)
• second response to admin warning, or best yet check the whole thread

Now, I choose to simply ignore Ukrained and his filthy mouthed friend AlexPU (talk · contribs) despite I am the aim of their trolling but Kuban kazak is under no obligation to be as patient.

AlexPU just fresh from a one week block is now again trolling full-trottle: [41], [42]. See also the edit summary to in reverting my totally innocuous edit

How many times was AlexPU "warned" is difficult to even say. More than a dozen. I will only link to the discussions about him at this very board:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive207#AlexPU_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29s attack page,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive207#Reposting. Can someone please do something about this guy.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive115#AlexPU
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive105#Appalling profanity.2C ethnic slurs.2C threats by blocked user on his talk page
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive107#AlexPU keeps on attacking despite his block (where a community ban was discussed even)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive97#user:AlexPU: maintaining an attack page and_perpetually unleashing uncivil diatribes there as well as all around Wiki

Now, I must say that I am on the record opposing the blocks for mere PA, especially an occasional one. But blocks for disruption is something else and sometimes habitual trolling becomes a disruption. I don't care whether the fellows get blocked, actually. But I am providing my own observations since I was asked. --Irpen 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A little something to add. I would not support any sort of a lengthy block of a user Ukrained. Whatever problems that he has with me, I am very thick-skinned and usually ignore his whining, something that

Kuban kazak chose not to ignore (a position to which he is also entitled.) I must say that Ukrained's article edits are usually more reasonable than his talk page entries which are mostly either offensive or horrific. If there is any way to relay to him a message that he should stop the disruption (prior warnings did not work) that may be a better idea than a long block. As for AlexPU, I do not care a least bit. Most of his recent activity is pure trolling. Anyway, I thought I should mention it. --Irpen

01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only second Kazak's and Irpen's request. Both users have a disruption record as long as my arm, starting from "classic" disruption and insults as evidenced by the diffs above, to straight and blind criticism of an elected arbitrator because of his nationality [43] and ignoring warnings from an admin in a quite insulting form [44]. I say both need to be brought in order, and this far, there is unfortunately only one possible solution... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a well-written, well considered explanation of the problem. I've had smaller run ins with AlexPU who is totally incivil, and more importantly disruptive. He constantly engages in tendentious editing at articles related to Ukraine, constantly pushes a Ukrainian nationalist POV and calls everyone who disagrees with him "anti-Ukrainian or "Soviet". When he got into an argument with me over his POV pushing, he accused me of being a part of an Irpen-led anti-Ukrainian cabal, admitted that he and a few of his pals were Ukrainian nationalists, called Irpen a "Traitor", and basically told me that if I didn't take sides against Irpen that I would become his (AlexPU's) enemy. [45]. He refuses to acknowledge consensus refuses to discuss his edits and instead engages in stubborn revert wars. This is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, and in the interests of all, I thoroughly support an indefinite block, of AlexPU (who was already blocked for making the ridiculous personal attack on my talk). TheQuandry 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Ukrained for 24 hours and AlexPU for 2 weeks. He has just come off of a one-week block and has resumed making personal attacks almost immediately. Given his long history of making them, I think this block's length is appropriate. If another admin disagrees with either of these blocks, feel free to let me know. Khoikhoi 02:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Support blocks. Good call. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see threat of legal action here. Not sure if this is the correct place to report, but

This is the correct place to report. Looks like an unacceptable legal threat to me. Strongly warn, and block if not retracted, or block straight away? Newyorkbrad 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Legal threats, veiled or otherwise, are not tolerated. And that was a veiled legal threat. I told the user we can't stop them from taking legal action, but that we don't tolerate legal threats on Wikipedia. I also told him there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia, which he seems to think there is. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the relevant article,

Zero Point Module. --Deskana (talk) (review me please)

01:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I require an administrator for explaining correctly to the american User:R9tgokunks that Alsace is RIGHTFULLY a part of France nowadays... I'm living in this region for ever, and no one around me think that we feel as german. Okay, the thousand years old villages' names have got a germanic sound and some found habit come from Germans one. NEVERTHELESS, Alsace is French no more. The official language is French, we hace got french institution, we speak french every day, we watch french TV... No one around me feels that Alsace is actualy a part of Germany !!! So I try unsuccessfully to explain this fact to User:R9tgokunks , but this one don't pay attention to my request, and continue to reverse the article Alsace without any explaination. I hope that you will convinced him or excluded him on Wikipédia for some days as a simple warning. Sincerily user:Paris75000 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

NB : It seems that User:R9tgokunks is always walking on the line... (have a look to User talk:R9tgokunks)

Administrators can't explain such things to users, unless they're experts in the subject, in which case they can because they're experts, not because they are administrators. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)