Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive367

NYScholar edits at four times the rate of most of us, but has a Wikibreak notice permanently on his user page, and a talk page header that basically says "Please don't put any messages on my talk page; I'm too busy to respond". If anyone posts on his talk page, even for matters that really do require a considered response, such as asking him to prove or withdraw a false accusation of personal attacks, he accuses the poster of harassing or upsetting him by ignoring his request not to message him, and then he archives the discussion, i.e. deletes it from his talk page, copying it into an archive which others are not permitted to edit. If anyone pulls the thread back onto this talk page to continue the discussion, the cycle repeats - accusations of harassment, followed by an immediate archive.

Sarah put his modus operandi like this:

"you make false accusations and then archive quickly before your victim has an opportunity to respond, forcing them to leave it unchallenged in your archive so it looks to anyone not aware of the truth that it's true, or your victim restores the thread and responds, only to be hammered with more false accusations and lies.... "

Yesterday I warned NYScholar that his management of his talk page was disruptive, and asked him to stop archiving active threads. A number of other administrators chimed in with support. NYScholar subsequently archived that very thread three times. I therefore applied a 24 hour block, expressing the hope that this would convince him to find a method of managing his talk page that is in line with community expectations.

In my absence,

, and asserting that my block was punitive because it did not prevent NYScholar from editing his talk page.

I cannot understand how Sandstein cannot see that this behaviour is disruptive. I cannot see how s/he can imagine that

endorses this kind of behaviour. And I don't see how s/he manages to function effectively with such a narrow, technical interpretation of preventative - in my view the whole point of punitive v preventative is that blocks should be applied not when a user has done wrong, but when they are likely to continue doing so. There is no requirement that the block must directly technically prevent the action being censured, else we would never again bother to block for block evasion, sockpuppetteering, or anything at all that happens on a user's own talk page, no matter how awful.

All in all, I find Sandstein's rationale for unblocking to be so bizarre that I don't think we can work it out between us. That is not to criticise Sandstein, who is operating in good faith according to his/her own understanding of policy. But we seem to be so far removed in our respective approaches that there can be no meeting of the minds. I would like to hear some outside opinion on the correctness of my block and Sandstein's unblock.

Hesperian 00:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think NYScholar should stay blocked, preferably indefinitely. He is consistently rude and tendentious, and has in at least one case forced a false and unnecessary license tag onto an image because of his own inaccurate interpretation of the statements of third parties. Wikipedia would be better off without him. *** Crotalus *** 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, on what basis did you block? You used "disruption" as the reason. Please provide diffs for that disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, in this as in most cases, disruption is a pattern of editing that is difficult to capture in a few diffs; I probably can't do much better than Crotalus below, although I could provide a hell of a lot more such diffs. What Crotalus' diffs are missing is context: If someone accused you of making a personal attack, and you asked them to prove or withdraw that accusation, how would you feel if they simply deleted it unreplied, then accused you of harassing them by ignoring their request that people not post on their talk page? That's what happened to Moondyne. If you were trying to hold a serious discussion with someone, and they kept replying with false accusations, then immediately archiving, so that the discussion ended with their false accusations ensconsed in an archive that is not supposed to be edited, how would you feel? And if you decided to bring that discussion back to the talk page to respond to said false accusations, only to be accused of disruption and harassment for doing so, how would you feel? That's what happened to Sarah. And if that user deleted that discussion within a couple of minutes of it being brought back, over and over again, how would you feel? That's what has happened to everyone who has tried to engage this user over the last two day. The warning I gave was "I'm now giving you a formal warning that your management of this talk page is disruptive, because it is likely to cause anger and frustration amongst your collaborators." And that is exactly what has happened; that page shows reams and reams of discussion from angry, frustrated people, who want a redress that NYScholar is denying them through what amounts to a low down dirty trick. If this is not disruptive, I'll eat my hat. Hesperian 01:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, but preventative. A user's talk page can be edited by a blocked user, so blocking NYScholar will be punitive as it does not prevent him from doing what he was doing before. Encourage the user to follow

WP:RFC, so that the community can give him feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already gone through this punitive-preventative issue above; didn't you read it? You don't seem to be addressing what I said about it. Hesperian 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See [1], [2], and [3] for some examples I found in the past day or so. He simply refuses to discuss issues with other contributors and instead accuses them of disruption, using this as an excuse to "archive" (delete) comments from his talk page. Ability to work in a collaborative environment is necessary for Wikipedia editors, and this one gets a F- on that score based on his repeated actions. *** Crotalus *** 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See also his block log which contains an extensive record of misbehavior including repeat 3RR blocks, legal threats, and trolling. *** Crotalus *** 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He should have been blocked long ago for disruption on Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg and related pages. I've fixed the license information on that image, and I would appreciate if an administrator could go and undelete the old, high-resolution version, since it meets Wikipedia standards. *** Crotalus *** 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

WP:DR instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and didn't block him. But I think he should remain blocked because his presence is a net detriment to Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with

) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As with any privilege, when abused, it needs to be curtailed. If NYScholar is going to abuse the privilege of archiving talkpage comments, then he needs to be placed on some kind of probation in that regards. --B (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - a probation of some form should be the minimum expectation here. While policy allows archiving of talk pages, doing so mid-discussion as a move to end scrutiny of one's actions is downright disruptive. Furthermore, on principle, I would have declined the unblock on the basis that the unblock request itself contained a personal attack. Orderinchaos 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with OIC and Hesperian about the talk page disruption and I was particularly disappointed to see the block unilaterally overturned on a page which contains numerous attacks against multiple users, false accusations, and incredibly disruptive userspace practices, without so much as a warning or obtaining an undertaking to cease the attacks. UP is a guideline that has limits and says so. If people's userspace practices are disruptive and it gets in the way of the project (as is most certainly the case here) then they need to stop or be stopped. Sarah 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[ec] NYS is possibly the most frustrating editor I've come across here. His/her talk page (history, don't bother just reading the current content or the selectively updated archives) and block log is littered with warnings from exasperated admins and non-admins. And thats not counting the still unresolved false accusations of personal attack against Sarah and myself. In this context I was amazed that a nominal 24 hour block was hastily overturned by Sandstein without any of the other admins currently communicating with NYS (Hesperian, Sarah and myself) having time to respond. Why the rush? A better course of action would have left the block in place rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to a known disruptive user at least until until an involved admin could comment. —Moondyne 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• So, without any comment on the block itself, it appears that Sandstein overturned a block without any attempt to contact the blocking admin? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, an attempt was made

^talk

02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that Sandstein didn't contact the blocking admin. —Moondyne 02:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Contacted in the most perfunctory manner - the sensible action to take would have been to communicate with the blocking admin. As it turned out, he would only have had to wait a further 3 or 4 hours, and none of this drama would have been necessary. Orderinchaos 03:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another bad block, and another admin that needs to review our blocking policy. While admins are supposed to use their good judgement in situations, they are not to replace policy with that judgement. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And IAR doesn't cover "well, we don't like this user, so we'll look the other way". -- Ned Scott 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why you think it's a bad block? Pairadox (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean the part where a user was blocked for rapidly archiving their talk page? -- Ned Scott 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to make something look wrong if you simplify it until it is. Hesperian 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And your IAR comment too please? Who was that addressed to? Who's trying to invoke IAR here? Hesperian 03:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(to Hersperian) No one, it was a bit of a preemptive comment. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems we agree on one thing - IAR is the most over-invoked policy on Wikipedia... unless it be second after POINT. Hesperian 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But Ned, you're wrong if you think this will be cleared up by me reviewing the blocking policy. I believe that the block was proper, both in policy and common sense terms. I opened this thread to get some feedback, and your feedback is welcome. But it isn't constructive unless you take the time to explain why you think this was a bad block. Hesperian 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just undone the "archiving" of this thread by User:Jossi. Way out of line shutting down an active discussion that you're involved in and want to have stopped. Orderinchaos 03:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out WHY this had been archived. A bad archiving, and a bad unblock. Archiving all talk page activity and continuing with bad practices isn't the purpose of the 'if they delete it, they saw it' rule of thumb for Talk pages. IF you're approached about stuff repeatedly, and always make a show of ignoring it, then you need to stop editing here till you CAN work with others. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. This is exactly my belief, too, ThuranX. Sarah 08:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by the unblocking admin: I acknowledge that I should have been more diligent in contacting Hesperian, and I apologise that I did not wait longer for a reply by him or her before unblocking. As to the merits of the block I've presented my point of view on my talk page, at

) 05:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar makes a baseless personal attack against Moondyne. Moondyne posts a message asking him to prove it or withdraw it. NYScholar blanks the request unreplied two minutes later.[4] You may have your own opinion on whether or not this is appropriate, and you may have your own opinion on whether or not the modus operandi of doing this to virtually every post, irrespective of the state of the discussion, constitutes disruption. But to assert that

WP:UP affords NYScholar carte blanche to do what he is doing is an insult to the good people who wrote that page. Hesperian

06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But WP:UP does allow this. A great number of times people have pointed out that a user's talk page is for messages to that user, not from that user. There's nothing stopping anyone from talking to him. If they want to leave the discussion open the can make a copy of it on their own talk page. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of where this came from appears to be located in the following, and after reading it, I am now even more convinced that a bad call was made here. This should explain why such behaviour is disruptive. I believe Sandstein should have read this and taken it into account before making such a controversial decision. Quoted in full below from NYScholar's talk page. Orderinchaos 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I've been very concerned about NYScholar's use of this page for a couple of months now and have kept his/her page on my watchlist as a result. I had to contact NYScholar because the foundation was contacted by the brother of a man NYScholar claimed had died but in reality was still alive. The brother hadn't had recent contact and was distressed to learn of his brother's "death" via a google search of his name. He wished to talk to NYScholar to find out the details of his brother's "death". Only NYScholar declined email contact saying s/he prefers all contact to be on site (fair enough, I suppose). This forced the brother to register for an account specifically to come to this page to talk to NYScholar but a couple of hours after responding, NYScholar archived his/her talk page. [5] It seemed rather rude to me that NYScholar would claim a man had died, causing his family great distress only to immediately archive the thead. Do you think someone who has never used Wikipedia before and who came here to address such a matter would have seen NYScholar's reply in the couple of hours it was posted? Would he have known where to find the archived reply or would he have thought his message had simply been deleted without response and then given up in disgust? Makes you wonder what kind of message people unfamiliar with Wikipedia must get. I had to apologise to the poor man several times. Sarah 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) (reposted in AN/I by Orderinchaos 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

But NYScholar responded to this person. He apologized and explained himself. NY didn't anticipate that the guy might not see his message, and that is all. That is certainly not a blockable offense. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He even left the guy a note on his talk page, User talk:Aachtert. Clearly NYScholar wasn't trying to be disruptive. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) This post was on NYscholar's lengthy talk page at the time of his unblock request, but it was not cited in his block reason, and for that reason I did not acquaint myself with it specifically. If this account is true, NYscholar may have it made rather difficult to communicate with the brother, but it seems from this account that he did respond to him. If this episode was the basis for the block at issue, not just NYscholar's practice of deleting talk page threads in general, the blocking admin should have said so and should have cited this (and possibly other) specific incivilities. That's not to say the block would have been justified then either, but at least it might have been possible to evaluate it more thoroughly. Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Achtert issue is a red herring and really has nothing to do with the block that I'm aware of. I only raised it when I did to explain the point that I personally became concerned with the way NYScholar was conducting the page with hyperediting and controversial claims and false allegations about people followed by rapid archiving, effectively preventing them from responding. I am very concerned and upset by his personal attacks, and utterly false claims and accusations. This is just exacerbated by the fact that he rapidly archives so that the 'victim' can not respond. They can't edit the archive where the claims are and if they attempt to repost on his talk page, he accuses them of harassment and of causing him upset etc etc. His talk page practices are massively disruptive. Also, I might add that I never claimed that NYScholar didn't respond to Mr Achtert...so if y'all are getting that idea you're barking up the wrong tree. What I have claimed is his talk page practices exacerbated that very unfortunate situation and it did. Sarah 08:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad judgement is not a reason to block. Intentional disruption is. I can't speak for other situations, but it's very clear that NY meant no disruption when he responded to the brother's message (he even left a message on that user's talk page). Not only that, but for that specific issue it seems that NY was not attempting to make some kind of "zomg, false accusation" to hurt anyone, but made an honest and simple mistake, one which he corrected and apologized for, before this incident even happened. The brother found the comment on a talk page archive. NY could be the biggest asshole in the world for all I know, but I'm getting tired of you guys trying to make him look like a monster because of the Achtert incident. Even assholes have a heart, and I have no reason to believe that NY was doing anything in that situation with the intent on being misleading, sneaky, or any other form of disruption. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Ned. Red herring. As I said. The Achtert incident happened months ago and it had nothing to do with the block...I don't know how many times it needs to be said that he was blocked for disruption. You don't seem to be understanding this and have been sucked into a red herring tangent. And "you guys" is a bit rich given that I was the only one who had mentioned the incident and was, in fact, the only one who even knew about it since I was the one who handled the OTRS complaint and I never discussed it with anyone else or raised it on-site until I noticed the dispute at the weekend on NYScholar's talk page about his problematic editing practices. If you have a complaint about the Achtert issue then it's all me. I'm the one you should be taking issue with and accusing "you guys" of making NYScholar "look like a monster because of the Achtert incident" is extremely unfair on the others involved in this. You're tarring them with my brush, they've never had anything to do with it, never even knew about it, and never opined about it at all (except, perhaps in OIC's cut and paste of my comment above). So if you have an issue with it, take it up with me but trying to dismiss the entirety of this dispute which had nothing to do with Achtert because of it is very silly. You also don't seem to understand that this block evolved from a dispute in which NYScholar accused Moondyne of making personal attacks, refused to retract the accusation, refused to provide proof of personal attacks and, in fact, stood by the accusation and quickly archived the discussion, declaring it "unnecessary discussion". That's what was the starting point of this dispute. You're stuck in a red herring, Ned. Furthermore, I take issue with this: "Bad judgement is not a reason to block." If I thought otherwise, I would have blocked NYScholar months ago when the Achtert incident happened. You seem to think that you're arguing against me on that but you're not. Please try to understand that the Achtert incident had nothing to do with the block. He was blocked for disruption after several warnings from multiple administrators. Sarah 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how things change. A little while ago the prevailing attitude was that users might be given a little latitude in how they manage their user and talk pages, but ultimately those pages belong to the project and were subject to the various rules, expectations and even vagaries of the community. Perhaps this mode of thinking was a product of the userbox wars. I must have nodded off for a moment, because the sudden change of attitude has come as a surprise. All of a sudden a man's talk page is his castle, and he can do whatever he damn well likes on it, no matter how outrageous, no matter how it pisses people off, no matter how disruptive. I suppose this change is a backlash against the ridiculous warring over the removal of warning messages. This had become a real problem, and I'm glad it has been resolved. But methinks the pendulum has now swung way too far. Hesperian 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how that's the "prevailing attitude"; only two people here have expressed that attitude. -Amarkov moo! 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian - that's certainly not an attitude I would support. You can't attack someone on your talk page. You can't violate copyright. You can't put someone's home address and telephone number. But archive it "early", when we have no guidelines about how long message should stay there? I can't see that as a disruption. I'm sorry it wasn't convenient. Frankly, I think NYScholar was pretty irritating with it. But I just don't see it as a blockable offense. - Philippe | Talk 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear about this: I'm not talking about "archiving early". I'm talking about deleting a active thread in the same minute as the previous contribution to that thread.[6] Or within two minutes.[7] Or four.[8] And accusing people of harassment when they restore the thread in order to continue the discussion. That is a far cry from "early archiving", and the fact that people here are choosing to characterise it this way, is, I think, inconsistent with how we would have responded two months ago.

Furthermore, it is indicated above, clearly and repeatedly, that you can't block someone for making an attack on their talk page, nor for putting a copyvio on their talk page. The logic is that blocks don't prevent people editing their talk pages, so such a block would not be preventative, so it must be punitive, and therefore forbidden. Hesperian 01:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian's general point. I've noticed some users (usually the more disruptive ones) create special "rules" for their talk pages and then get mad when users don't follow them. Talk pages, both user talk pages or article talk pages, are for communication and discussion. Inappropriate material should be deleted from either but appropriate material should not be removed whether by deletion or by overly-rapid archiving. If folks can't or won't deal with other users they should find a non-collaborative project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian's block, although I have no confidence that it will have any effect. NYScholar has been a difficult editor for some time in almost every regard. He has treated article and project page archives in the same way, making personal attacks then archiving so that no one can respond, and if they unarchive and post a reply, he will post several very long (unreadable) responses, then archive again. He's difficult in the same way when editing articles. I'm afraid I agree with Crotalus that an indefblock might have been the best thing some time ago. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a guideline change proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Archiving. —Moondyne 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

offensive title.Numbered user seems to be sockpuppet of Dodona user(and if he isnt he mirrored his actions and while reading the talk it seems they are the same and they he forgot to change usernames).He copy pasted the same material and material belonging in the talk page in the article page and discusses as being both users but at the same time denying it.Also refuses to understand given position on article and the fact that he added a pseudohistorian(s) quote already removed along with his long comment on the talk page.Admin and other users rejected these positions in the past as well but to no avail.Megistias (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Said(dodona and/or numbered user) we are or making "greek propaganda in wikipedia",called on ethnicity and other elements said:they are most originally Albanian but they loath everything Albanian , you know what I mean it is just “schizophrenic". Megistias (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Extreme confusion here: I just removed an entry from

about a few accounts which are maintaining (what appear to be) legitimate hockey game log articles in user space. The accounts/IP involved so far are (and yes, these are real account names):

• Bozeman Icedogs Roster (talk · contribs)
• 2007-08 Bozeman Icedogs season (talk · contribs)
• 1974-75 Quebec Nordiques season (talk · contribs)
• 69.144.85.125‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Does this behavior sound familiar to anyone? I've asked all four for clarification but have heard nothing. They are active - 69.144.85.125‎ edited one of the user pages a few minutes ago - and a couple of them have made legitimate edits elsewhere (although a couple haven't). I couldn't find where the articles had been deleted from article space so it's not a

) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If the articles are legitimate and are not CSD-eligible, why not move them to the article space (if no article space copy exists)?

T»

17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's part of my confusion. Why don't they move them to article space? And why did they need to name their accounts after the user page/articles? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If User:2007-08 Bozeman Icedogs season were made into an article, previous consensus would like hold up and it would be deleted. See examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000-01 Huntsville Tornado Season
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 Alexandria Glens season

Although the other content could be useful in mainspace. Flibirigit (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

General consensus thus far hasn't supported minor/junior league team season articles. Rather than put them in main article space, perhaps point them to the ice hockey wikia, where such articles would be most welcome? Otherwise, I've seen a couple around making edits, and they seem to be fine editors thus far. Resolute 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• A similar discussion to this is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Userspace_and_Usernames_pretending_to_be_articles. Flibirigit (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this complaint is being filed by a persistent anti-science POV pusher, who himself has been blocked repeatedly for incivility. In this case, the edit warring Uber refers to was him reverting to preserve the wording changes he made during CallmeBC's absence. I've asked Raymond Arritt and William M. Connelly to weigh in on this one, and we should defer to what they say. Raul654 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise all interested admins to ignore the above comments, because they are useless and not germane to the discussion. I would delete them under the just pretense of

WP:NPA, but completely without regard to the truth. A careful examination of my edits and blocks show this to be true, with blocks only coming from the above administrator because of some mislead biases and vendettas he has against me.[11] So again, I reiterate, ignore the above as the content of the dispute is easily resolvable, but the behavior of the user is what brought me here. ~ UBeR (talk

) 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty aggresive response. I assure that I, for one, will not be ignoring the comments of a trusted user who also happens to be an administrator, a bureaucrat, a check-user, etc. In this case, the content of the dispute and the behaviour of the users involved are intrinsically intertwined. - Philippe | Talk 17:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately,

appeals to authority tend to lead to folly discussions. Raul654 has but demagogued the issue. I'd be glad to discuss the content, because I can assure you that Callmebc has been inserting inaccurate information (and I have but removed it). If by "intertwined" you mean that typically his edit warring is over the insertion of inaccurate content (as is the case for Killian and GW articles), then, sure, I could agree. But I think it would be best to discuss the content, in this case, at talk:Global warming. ~ UBeR (talk

) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

UBeR has indeed demonstrated in the past what some might consider to be some hostility towards me and perhaps what might be seen as a little fudging of the truth, and this thing here appears on the surface to be only more of it. His actions in this situation are mostly outlined via these two links here and here. The basic background is that I had one time posted, after a Talk page discussion, a graph on

Global Warming with I thought was a pretty good description. During a later block on me, UbeR changed the wording to what I felt was something not nearly as clear. I recently created a new Talk page section on GW to discuss changing the wording back to its original, and evidently UBeR saw this mostly as an opportunity to get me blocked again by provoking me into a revert war by being untimely and unresponsive to the Talk page discussion and automatically reverting me after I had allowed for more than ample time for discussion. I have since requested comments by other GW regulars: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. I think UbeR's actions and mine in this particular situation, once you take a look, speak for themselves. -BC aka Callmebc (talk

) 17:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence is presented here that Wikipedia needs to take aggressive steps to protect scientific integrity in it's articles, and to protect especially editors who work to advance real science, free or political, social, of religious nonsense. Perhaps another look at scientific point of view is needed, to keep the lunatic junk science under a harness.

18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No block needed; some form of dispute resolution or mediation should be done. If mediation and/or dispute resolution is conclusive in its findings, and ignored by one party or the other, then ArbCom may be a next step. However, other than some perhaps short-term 3RR blocks, I see no evidence of bad faith or foul play against either side that requires the drastic measures called for here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if it were not for the user's exceptional history. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My "exceptional history" seems to consist primarily of trying to improve articles by adding updated, well ref'd, clearly written content, removing dubious, POV'd, poorly sourced (if at all) stuff, and bumping heads with editors apparently not so much keen on such activities. I don't think dispute resolution is needed at the moment -- given UBeR's somewhat less than congenial behavior, and not wanting to risk 3RR, I had already solicited comments by other Global Warming regulars on their Talk pages. I'll let however that turns out to be the guide. Also

Global Warming -- despite even that article's high visibility, you are still really dependent on just a handful of watchful, responsible editors to keep things from deteriorating. -BC aka Callmebc (talk

) 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your exceptional history, to contrary, seems to consist of no less than 15 blocks, one of which was supposed to last indefinitely, relating overwhelmingly to edit warring and incivil behavior, the last of which just ended a few weeks ago. Your record of ever being accurate on

global warming has been shoddy, given recent inability to understand radiative forcing and earlier mistakes of confusing temperature with greenhouse gases. You may chide me for removing your mistakes, but it seems the levelheaded editors at least agree with me. But this is neither the time nor the place to discuss that particular matter. ~ UBeR (talk

) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

UBeR, you're not one to be pointing out anybody else's block history. Corvus cornix_talk 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure I am. I only have one or two legitimate blocks, which is more than quite a few people who've been around as long can say--though I don't tout that, especially not as a good thing either. But who I am matters not as much the problem user in question. Like I said earlier, when we engage in silly fallacies our discussion is reduced to folly, and that seems to be going in that direction indeed. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely no block. If anyone is being uncivil, its Uber, whose comments on t:GW appear deliberately provocative. The assertion that C's edits are untrue or mistakes is silly - this is just a matter of wording. Both versions are "correct", which makes this a silly edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No block needed. CmBC gets in plenty of trouble on his own, we know. Working to get him into more disingenuously, while working to push an anti-sci agenda doesn't make for a good case for blocking him. I'm with Lawrence regarding pseudo-science and science denial. ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ip Special:Contributions/217.87.88.179 had been blocked for 2 weeks earlier this morning (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_with_repeated_incivility_from_IP_user). Since then, he has used multiple ip's to vandalize talk pages, and engage in edit warring at Talk:Binary prefix. The multiple ip's are Special:Contributions/217.87.88.179, Special:Contributions/217.237.148.23, Special:Contributions/217.237.148.24, Special:Contributions/217.237.148.25. I'm asking for an sprotect for Talk:Binary prefix, and for someone to look in to more drastic measures against that ip's dial-up service as this has been an ongoing problem for months with this person (see user:Sarenne, User:NotSarenne, User_talk:217.87.59.247, User_talk:217.87.98.171, User_talk:217.87.61.227, etc.) --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, this IP user is getting out of control again and it appears to be a regular cycle of abuse. Fnagaton 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This may be in need of a Range-Block, since the nature of the drifting IP address indicates that individual whack-a-mole blocks may be futile and ineffective. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I have semi-protected Talk:Binary prefix for 48 hours. — Satori Son 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) *Breathes sigh of relief* Fnagaton 18:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And I have blocked 217.237.148.0/27 for the same length. Black Kite 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32, since the IP user has continued to evade the block and has now started to blank this section many times [17] [18] [19] [20] I have to agree that a temporary range block for the user's IPs seems to be a prudent course of action. The range for User:Sarenne and User:NotSarenne would appear to be 217.87.* and 217.237.148.23-25 so far. I realise this course of action is not to be taken lightly. Also please can I have semi-protection on my talk page as the same IP user keeps on reverting comments on there as well? Fnagaton 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite, another IP from the same ISP is doing the same thing ( User talk:217.237.148.71 ). [21] Fnagaton 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Block tweaked to 217.237.148.0/24. Black Kite 19:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI semi protected for 48 hours... Feel free to shorten it if you think the vandal won't return. SirFozzie (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another range of IPs which appears to be 217.237.* with the IP user vandalising my talk page. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] and many more in the edit history. Please can I have a semi-protect? :) Fnagaton 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie took care of it.[27] — Satori Son 20:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As a favor to the author of a web cartoon, I have been recreating the Wikipedia article about his cartoon. Unfortunately I cannot create the page by moving--it gives a message

"You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation"

The author said he had "given up" trying to create this article, but could not remember the specifics or which administrator was involved. I feel that I have written an article that is acceptable for Wikipedia, meeting the NPOV, format, and citation requirements.

The title of the original article was "Retarded Animal Babies". I would appreciate some attention to this. My email is synth...metasonix..com. Thank you. Eric Barbour (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eric - I'd suggest posting the article in your user space and linking to it, so that we can evaluate whether it's worth unprotecting the page to create it. I confess that your statement that you're doing this as a favor to the cartoon's author doesn't strike me as a good sign to begin with.

talk

) 20:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've dotted out your email because it's not necessary and that might stop you getting a little spam. Hope you don't mind —αlεx•mullεr 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted via

deletion review, where you should link to your new version so that editors can decide whether it alleviates the concerns raised in AFD. Someguy1221 (talk

) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree; deletion review is for cases in which the closing admin didn't correctly determine consensus. In this case, Eric seems to be saying that the article that he's written - as distinct from the one that was deleted - is policy-compliant. I don't think

talk

) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That is only one of the four criteria for listing an article at DRV. The point here is that the AFD acts as a pre-existing consensus that this subject does not deserve an article, and the proper place to contest that ruling is at DRV. It actually sounds to me pretty much like Eric is making a claim (unwittingly) that that consensus is incorrect. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, an AfD only establishes that the article, as it existed at the time of the AfD, does not meet WP's requirements. If someone had written an article on

WP:RPP might be better. Argyriou (talk)

21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the correct place for this then be

talk

) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review has been used many times to successfully validate a new version of a deleted article, particularly if said article had a messy history. Given the extensive deletion log of that entry, a community consensus prior to recreating the article in mainspace is wise if for no other reason that to prevent an over-zealous G4 speedy deletion or a potentially-needless 2nd AfD. Eric Barbour should take the new article at

WP:DRV and be sure to include any secondary coverage since the initial deletion in this case. — Scientizzle

21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't aware that DRV had been used in this way in the past (I spend very little time there). I defer to more knowledgeable admins than I.

talk

) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem--I wasn't aware of it myself until I participated in one of the same type myself about 6 months ago. — Scientizzle 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Actually, this venue is as good as any. If the new version created in the userspace meets

21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already been listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 11. Feel free to add a comment there or be bold yourself in whatever you think should be done. Directing people to a forum in which analysis of past AfD results and present content is routine isn't bureaucracy, it's organized discussion. As I stated, if this article has been a problem in the past, why not get a consensus on its proposed reinstatement? If a bold admin unprotects/restores, there's a decent chance this will end up at AfD again...that's just my gut feeling given the article history and a reasonably-perceived COI. — Scientizzle 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The exception to the 'unilateral' theme being, of course, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff (requires explicit consensus to restore). Daniel (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not relevent since the article being restored here is not a BLP. No BLP, no need for insanely complicated beaurcracy. But, it looks like the DRV has started, so no need NOT to see it through. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I posted a complaint at

) 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What good would an admin do? We carry no special weight in the matter; any user may respond to the Wikiquette alert, and their opinions should be taken with the weight of any other user, including an admin. If no one is to be blocked at this time, there is nothing for us to do... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my query. I have never made a complaint before and don't understand the process. So are you telling me that if Quizimodo doesn't respond to the Wikiquette alert, there is nothing we can do? Myself and other uses must suffer his rudeness?--Gazzster (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As has been suggested at the Wikiquette alert section, I'd strongly advise going to

talk

) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll do that.--Gazzster (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To reply Gazzster's earlier comment (Edit conflict): Not at all. All I am saying is give the WQA report some time to work its course. Perhaps mediation will work, and the user will reform their ways. All I am saying is that until there appears to have been some serious attempts by outside users to get this guy to straighten out, blocking should probably not be the first course of action. Also, Sarcasticidealists suggestion to follow up the WQA with a RFC is a good idea, since the more editors that find this users behavior inappropriate, the greater justifcation there is for a block should the behavior continue. A block may well be appropriate in the future when all other attempts at

dispute resolution have been attempted, but lets not throw around a plan to do so until those avenues turn out to really be dead ends... --Jayron32.talk.contribs

22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. Thank you.--Gazzster (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would someone mind having a look at this historic checkuser and clarify something for me. The last line doesn't explicitly say that the six or so users are socks of User:Wikinger, but each has been blocked with that as the reason. Is it therefore the case that the socks were socks of Wikinger, even though the RFCU report doesn't say so in as many words? Thanks. _GB^T/C 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Over the past few weeks, several people have been harassing

00:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for filing this report, Keilana. Tfoxworth initially was the subject of a report here a year or so ago (my memory is a little fuzzy on that matter), but it didn't go far because the report was not really noticed (much more must have been going on at the time) a pattern had not yet really developed and it certainly appeared then to be a content dispute. However, over a period of weeks and months it developed into stalking behaviour involving this user, another user who claims to be his wife (I vonH, and therefore his meatpuppet, at the least, on the basis of tag-team reversions and stalking) and a number of proven IP addresses, all of which can be viewed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tfoxworth. Initially, the sockpuppets were all tagged and categorized as a means of organizing a report which was filed more or less at the same time as a previous WP:AN/I report. Over the passing weeks and months, Tfoxworth's and I vonH's behaviour has been consistently disruptive and aggressive and has usually been targeted at me but now also at others who may or may not share my viewpoint. More specifically, I should say people who oppose the two users' viewpoints are those who are targeted. This is a long-term abuse situation that has been steadily going on and I truly feel it should be dealt with accordingly with a final ban, discussed here as a record of the situation. There have also been a number of other similar stalking editors in the past that seem to arrive in a cascading effect but I have not been able to make as clear of a connection between any of them as the obvious connection between the presumed Mr. and Mrs. Foxworth. Charles 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Both Tfoxworth and I vonH have *just* turned up reverting a lot of the changes made to a number of articles. Charles 02:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For example, see

Jorge de Bagration. Tfoxworth has removed newspaper citations. Pairadox (talk

) 08:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to get some more comment here. Charles 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Very ugly situation, this… It appears to be a clear case of stalking and, given the warnings and blocks that both

^talk

23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• A persual of both accounts' histories shows that there is no doubt that User:I vonH is either a sock or meatpuppet of User:Tfoxworth (editing days and times, article choice, stalking of users and edit summaries), I have blocked the former indefinitely and User:Tfoxworth for a week. I invite review of these actions, and if any admin wishes to extend the latter block, please feel free to do it without informing me. Thanks, Black Kite 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wasn't there a recent discussion on this page where it was stated that I vonH has claimed to be Tfoxworth's wife? Corvus cornix_talk 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • A possibility - but given their edit history, that would still be meatpuppetry. And I would be dubious of that anyway - their editing styles and summary are very similar. Black Kite 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot owner is aware of the situation.

This report has been moved from

• BoxCrawler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Talk:Ash Green School, Talk:Exhall Grange School, as examples; Bot making a lot of mistakes. It causes duplication on wikiproject schools wikiproject boxes under some circumstances. I have seen it make several duplication mistakes now, so it is probably making a lot all over the wiki. I reported this on its talk page, but I am not sure if it has come to anyones attention yet. . Snowman (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• User:Snowmanradio has left a message at the talk page of the bot owner, but I wanted to bring it here in case they're not around to see the message. Caknuck (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• A random sampling of the edits shows the bot is functioning (mostly) correctly. Some of the find/replace routines needs to be tweaked to account for spaces, etc... Caknuck (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have recieved the message and stopped the bot. The issue was that the bot didn't recognize parameters with extraneous spaces (Many of them cut-and-paste of the exact same template text). I am fixing the bot so that it will remove such spaces and fix the errors it has generated. Thanks for not just killing the bot as the vast majority of it's edits have not produced this error. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also some discussion on my talk page at User Talk:Snowmanradio#User:BoxCrawler Snowman (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I want to leave Wikipedia. I don't want to stand around several months [[Wikipedia talk:Request for comment/Vanished user|waiting for Wikipedia to fix bugs that mean I still show up on google

To that end, will people stop insisting that my real name feature prominently in Wikipedia's bureaucracy and google? The Request for comment, the Arbcom case - let me leave, alright? Don't poke me with a stick. Just rename nmme, like I asked, buut which is evidently being delayed until the arbcom get off their arses and approve it - oh, gee, sending it to the group that have buggered me over at every turn! I'm so glad that I can trust them to do a good job at doing things at a timely point, and not to lose e-mails left, right and centre.

I just want to leave. User:Hiding is my precedent. LET ME.

Oh, and don't include me in the damn signpost, alright?

04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do something about these edits, I'm pretty sure this special doesn't exisit! --Hailey 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail to Oversight about this; but I appear to have done something wrong, since I got some sort of bounce message back. Could an admin please delete this edit, which appears to include someone's phone number (the area code matches the area where the IP is located) in both the edit and the summary? Deor (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did it... twice because I messed up the first time. --Haemo (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Deor (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Something might be broken with this bot. See User talk:ShowToddSomeLove. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the large print edition of the usual warning, customized for those who have the "vision-impaired" flag set to TRUE in their preferences. Pay it no mind.

talk

) 05:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

CSDWarnBot is leaving gigantic icons on user talk pages...[28] [29] [30]. It looks like it's been doing it for the last few days at least...Is this normal? --Smashville^BONK! 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't really a bot error. The image has been deleted at en.Wikipedia some hours ago, and the image displayed afterwards was the larger scaled one from Commons with the same title. I've restored the image for now, even if the bot's code is changed for future messages, all messages that were previously made would display the large scaled version. --Oxymoron⁸³ 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just blocked

[36]). Craig was the first registered user to vandalize the article in this fashion, which gives me strong reason to believe that he is the anon-editor who has been disrupting the article for a while. Based on this user's edit history, he is somewhat of an established user who has been involved in a number of editing disputes, which is the reason I'm bringing this up to AIV. Most of the anon edits come from the Colorado area (a state Craig claims to be from), which makes me feel that the editor is one and the same. If possible, I would like to have another editor take a look at this situation, possibly a checkuser. --w^{L<speak·check>} 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, that all the IPs in question (or nearly all) were from one university. Note sure if this would be valid for RFCU, just throwing it out for discussion. For BLP reasons this article probably needs it's Semi-protection reset.

t/e

03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be better listed at

WP:SUSPSOCK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly clear cut case. The IPs all resolve to

Craigtalbert's userpage states that he is a student at that university. It also says he is a resident of Denver, Colorado (~20 miles from Boulder). No need for SSP reports for such a case. Endorse block - auburnpilot talk

03:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Unrelated to

personal attacks

.
I had not been aware of Craigtalbert until about 25 hours ago, but for no reason that I could discern, our interactions in our brief acquaintance were threatening to erupt into a full-scale . Since the majority of his edits seemed to be thoughtful and responsible, I was taken aback by the vehemence of his disagreements with my edits. (It was clear that he vehemently disagreed with me, but his reasoning was not communicated nearly as effectively as his vehemence.) I was surprised to see that he had been blocked, and that the block had nothing to do with me.
In retrospect, I guess that I must have triggered something several days ago, when I saw the AfD for Schizophrenics Anonymous, reviewed the article and its topic, and commented that I thought it should be kept. As it happens, this is an article that he had earlier proposed for speedy deletion. Subsequently, by editing Schizophrenics Anonymous and a couple of related articles, I seem to have wandered deep into territory that he considered his own.
I hope that the block helps him cool off and return here with a more cooperative attitude. --Orlady (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus appears to support the block, but the original reason for the block was because of the vandalism. Other issues have come up as well. Should they be taken into consideration. Also, the reason I have blocked for a month is because Craig tried to justify his vandalism because of Ezarik's "attention whoring" [

Wikipedia:LIVING. Is the length of the block proper? --w^{L<speak·check}

> 07:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the 1 month block length given the user's recent history. If he wouldn't have been a productive editor before, indef may have been more appropriate, but he seems to have contributed well in the past.

friendly

) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He's invoking

Justine Ezarik for a while. Horologium (talk)

19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He made a post in the Wikipedians community on LiveJournal, in which he explained he was afraid of losing his job over the incident (apparently he was editing from work). That post is now deleted. I think he is spooked and won't be editing in the near future. --Ginkgo100talk 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just recieved an email from him asking to have his username changed. I've forwarded his email to the unblock mailing list. Being that he is/was an established editor, I would say yes. But being that this is a serious offense, I won't do it myself. --w^{L<speak·check>} 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have found out that he has changed his username to Scarpy (talk · contribs), however he is still blocked. and I have rejected the CSD on his usertalk page, pending further decision here. Your thoughts? --w^{L<speak·check>} 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a one-off and the guy is spooked, as said above, since he used his real name to vandalize. Lets just leave the Ezarik article semi-protected, and the next time someone "spank banks" it we'll know who may be responsible, and it's an easy RV and possible block them. Let him RTV.

t/e

07:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad protected, yet again

I appealed to the protecting admin (whose only editing periodically now) and posted an unprotection on

WP:RPP about this (at which point I was referred to ANI), so I'm here... again. Essentially, without repeating everything I said a few days ago and which was said by others on the talk page of the article, this article is not really being subjected to (much) edit warring. We mostly have a variety of a drive-by editors removing the images without any willingness to participate in the ongoing discussions on the talk page and/or heed past (even recent past) consensuses. As a result, most of these editors have been blocked (or they have merely stopped). That appears to be the most sensible route to take, especially because the level of disruption is dwindling; we currently have a manageable number of drive-by removers. We should just leave this article without full protection (but with semi-protection), then refer drive-by image removers to the talk page of the article. If they still persist in removing the images without any discussion whatsoever, they can be blocked. A similar proposal was made by, among several others, Daniel (talk · contribs). His proposal is mentioned here, but none of these proposals has every reached a solid conclusion. -- tariqabjotu

18:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult to come to a perfect consensus, but I !vote that the article remain semi-protected unless we see 4 day old accounts starting to edit war, then full protection. Wikipedia is not

talk

) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Useight entirely. Horologium (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You should remove the images , this website might get a "message" from some crazed out Islamic radical group or something. Does Jimbo Walles or the Foundation has a protocol for "anything" like that.Rio de oro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't censor out of fear about what some un-named radical might or might not do. While I personally would probably have removed the images out of my personal sense of propriety (so as not to offend someone's sensibilities), the community has decided that they're important to the article and should stay. No faceless, nameless, potential threat should deter us from intellectual honesty. - Philippe | Talk 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is going to stand there if OBL(Osma) or some crazed out nutjob makes threats to Wikipedia or the Foundation on that article here. Someone should removed the pictures. It the same thing with people putting pictures on paintings of the death of Christ. People dont want to see SHOCK. Is there a policy for this. I thought we cannt show images of the Prophet because we might get sued or get threats from Mr. OBL or his "buddies". If you pics of the Prophet Wikipedia is going to be in the news or in hot water just as that Danish-Cartoon BS in 2006.Rio de oro (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's actually made any credible threats, to my knowledge, so that's a theoretical argument. If they did, I feel certain we would involve the Foundation's legal counsel and appropriate law enforcement bodies. - Philippe | Talk 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me Osama has more important targets to blow up than some website he's likely never heard of. The apparent threat that random, unknown people will somehow harm Wikipedia's servers because the project won't bend to radical Islamic thinking isn't going to affect change. As far as the original topic goes, I'd support going back to semi-protection, if it hasn't already been done. There are plenty of eyes watching it, and we are weeding out the sleeper accounts. Resolute 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The relevant policy is

WP:NOT#CENSORED, by-the-by. WilyD

03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Osama's got better things to do with his time, and he's frankly far more likely than many of the so-called radicals that hit that page, to be aware of the variations in Islam that led to devout Muslims making that art. A lot of the 'radicals' here are likely to be teenagers in their middle eastern nations, finding that it's easy to vandalize WP, not much different that any other vandals. The few 'true believers' arent' the highly educated ones who could carry out any sort of attack. If they WERE educated, they'd understand the controversy. But how often do they assert that the 'wrong branch' of Islam made them? rarely, if ever. It's never a theological argument, just dogma. ThuranX (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Osama is dead [37]. In any case, this section is to decide whether we want to unlock Muhammad or not per Tariqabjotu's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the main article can be unprotected at the moment unless we plan on biting more new users than a swarm of blackflies. But one can always try for an hour or two to convince themselves of this. WilyD 13:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot?

I just noted a page in AfD called List of fictional barefoot characters that rang a bell -- I can't pin it down exactly but I remember reading a report of a persistent vandal who inserted references to the barefooted status of various individuals into articles. Could User:Darkfighterman possibly be a sockpuppet of User:Creepy Crawler? I know there's someone out there who knows more about this than I do, and I'm sorry my memory is so poor. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Creepy tends to focus on creating categories for comic book characters and soap opera characters, usually using capital letters to begin each word. Pairadox (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like BorisTheBlade (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems correct judging by previous contributions -- he may have disappeared upon suggestion of sock-puppetry, but if he pops up again, I think I know what to do. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page edits

Continuing issues here [38] and here [39], from 142.162.195.175 who makes similar and sometimes identical edits as the following:

• 142.162.190.217
• 142.162.162.87
• 142.162.197.114
• 142.162.199.228
• 142.162.200.61
• 142.162.200.61
• 142.162.193.68
• 142.162.161.46
• Provider: Stentor National Integrated Communications Network
• Explanations from others as to the inappropriateness of the edits are ignored [40], [41], and talk page histories [42], and [43] reveal the process. JNW (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been enlightened by this information regarding the puppet's scope: [44]. Maybe an administrator can help. Thanks, JNW (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Duke53 edit warring and being uncivil

civility

policy.

He has also recently edit warred at

UNC-Duke rivalry, though a resolution to that dispute was reached by some patient editors. Duke53's behavior is worst at articles on whose subject he has a strong point of view: these two articles, for example, are related to Duke University

, of which he is a strong partisan.

This comes a few months after a Request for comment on Duke53's behavior stalled, which happened after he basically dropped off the radar for a month or so. Upon his return he showed some improvement in his behavior, but this is a serious relapse.

I'm not sure whether to re-list the RfC (which was never resolved), to escalate this to Arbcom, or to let an admin here take whatever action they deem proper. Advice in this regard would be appreciated. I will notify Duke53 of this thread as a courtesy. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, alanyst, here you go again ... why don't you acknowledge exactly why you keep stalking my every move here at Wikipedia?

I view your continual haranguing of me as harassment ... you can call it whatever you choose. Did you ever stop to think that I make those edits because I am correct? Seems to be like the pot calling the kettle black; your behavior is worst on the pages where you expect everyone to accept your edits as gospel, even when there is much disagreement about what is factual.

We both know that this all goes back to the 'issues' at

Undergarment

and my not kowtowing to your attempt at censoring items because of so-called 'sacredness'.

Again I will tell you: "you do what you have to do and I will do what I have to do". What I don't have to do is accept any guff from you, so don't expect me to take it lying down. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. as far as "dropping off the radar": look to your own house first. Your M.O. seems to be 'attack & disappear'. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. I am just waiting for your usual 'gang' to start swarming this page. Have you notified them yet? Ho-Hum. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not your edits are correct, you are edit warring on Phil Ford. I would suggest that you actually try to discuss the sentence in question on the talk page rather than continuing to revert, as you will be blocked if you continue. I have no comment on the claimed incivility - the diff seems borderline incivil at worst, but obviously others may have a different opinion. Your comments here, however, are quite incivil and completely fail to assume the good faith of another contributor. If the two of you have problems this is not the place to solve them. If you do not, then I am at a loss to explain Duke53's hostility. Natalie (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from arguing anything here. I'm asking for admin advice or at least a look into the issue. If you want to start discussing things you know where my talk page is, and there's also the RfC page. If an admin has any questions for me, I'd of course be happy to respond here or on a talk page. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review my block

I indef blocked Crapitsalec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for attack page/inappropriate page creation as a VOA. Please unblock or reduce block if I was overly zealous. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 08:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good block based on the deleted contributions. Also, the user name is rather inappropriate so either way, that account's future isn't a bright one. --B (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Another block review: User:CBMIBM

I've blocked CBMIBM (talk · contribs) (former User:Wikinger) for a week for this and related stuff. This is a bit of a complex history involving various forms of disruption, a lot of sockpuppeting allegations (some true, some not), and difficult to see through for the outsider, so I decided to take the quick route and do the block myself, even though on a different unrelated level I'm currently involved in some content disagreements with this user. Therefore submitting for review here. Will gladly provide more background explanation if needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The unblock request reads"admitting that my retaliation was totally wrong, possibility of editing articles" DGG (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is: he was ostensibly insulting another user who some people believe is in reality a sockpuppet of himself. The suspicion is that he made those insults only in order to demonstrate they are not the same person. So, either it's a rather schizophrenic but quite elaborate sockpuppeting scheme, or it's a case of quite egregiously losing control of himself. In either case, it's a very deep-rooted personality problem. This guy reminds me of another disruptive user I used to be dealing with, who it later turned out suffered from Asperger's... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird contributions

Can someone have a look at this users contributions starting from the beginning of this month. Something seems a bit fishy looking at some of the contribs. Could another user/admin look at the contributions and see what they think? D.M.N. (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How very strange, few of this users edits seem legit, but they don't seem malicious. Perhaps a small child?--Jac16888 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Um.

Slowinski's Corn Snake‎, Red Owens‎ and Zeke Zawoluk. Maybe more than one person is controlling this account? D.M.N. (talk

) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really get that impression. It's a tricky one - one one hand, it looks as if all the edits are made in good faith, but on the other hand, much of what they're doing is disruptive (albeit in a fairly minor way). Maybe we should encourage them to

apply for adoption? Waggers (talk

) 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. However, the user has a lot of CSD warnings on their talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Some which have now evolved into at least usable stubs, others of which include a notable settlement in Senegal (but mis-spelled) and a reference to a Pokemon character, which arguably could have been at least stubified. The others, well, they are just nonsense redirects and come across to me as good-faith attempts to contextualise some local slang. I'd support adoption if the editor is willing, because some of his more complete articles have potential to be useful additions. * Meanwhile have advised editor of this conversation here --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my apologies, I forgot to do that. While scrolling through some more of the users contributions, this article creation seems bizzare to say the least. D.M.N. (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent. What I see is a new user, keen to get on with article writing, but unfamiliar with our policies and ways. Some of the templates may seem to him to be a bit

bitey, but he's still here. Other users might have given up in frustration. The above edit says to me that he's not familiar with {{inuse}} or {{under construction}} and wants to defend against having his article speedied. Hence the misplaced stub. I say he should have a chance, preferably with adoption, but once he knows what he's doing a little better, I see him being a useful editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk

) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the repeated creation of articles solely for the purpose of nominating them for AfD a bit concerning. On February 9th, s/he created

Tiger Bomb (February 7th) is still ongoing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

16:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unfamiliarity with {{db-author}} would explain this.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• How? The
  Tiger Bomb page was created with the AFD template attached. Its not like the user created the article, then AFD'd it 15 minutes after. The user created the article with the AFD template. D.M.N. (talk
  ) 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• CSD is usually within an hour; AFD gives the author five days to get it into shape. Desperate, perhaps, but I don't think it's useful to speculate further until we've heard from the editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That is partially the reason why I think the account is being used by 2 different people. S/he created Zeke Zawoluk, which seems to be a solid stub article a month ago, yet now seems to be creating what look like test pages, hence my concern about two possibly people using the account. D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's something that needs to be looked at, but I don't see any need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it's possible that the user misunderstands the purpose of deletion discussions and is trying to confirm rather than delete the articles? I had a peek at the deleted AfDs, and neither of those nor the existing one actually indicate a desire to see the article deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly a possibility, although it would be a pretty masochistic editor who understood AFD who would do this. As I say, speculation is unhelpful, but it may be that the editor, having had a few articles CSD'd already, is trying to have their articles peer-reviewed, using the wrong process. Can we see what the editor has to say before getting into too much mind-reading, as I'm trying to

work towards the best outcome here? I don't see any need for admin intervention at this stage. --Rodhullandemu (Talk

) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone here is not trying to

possible that we all are. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Anglepush

Andranik Pasha"), made some denialist statements and then deleted a large part of sourced text and bibliography on Armenian genocide denial [45]. Andranikpasha (talk

) 16:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Resolved

 – user unblocked, but placed under community ban against uploading images files

• Sportman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is requesting an unblock to their indefinate block. The block was instituted for repeated image copyvios, and repeated refusal to abide by Wikipedia's image policy. They have been blocked for months at this point. I have proposed that he be unblocked if he agreed to a community ban on uploading any files at all, since that was the particular problem that led to his block. The user would be allowed to edit articles in good faith. Would other admins agree to endorse a conditional unblock, under the specific rules that this user is not allowed to upload any more image or other media files, and that doing so would result in a return of the block indefinately... Comments? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock - Per
  WP:AGF. Agree to the terms. Tiptoety ^talk
  18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

*Decline unblock but implement the 2nd chance template. D.M.N. (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• • What good would second chance do? The user wasn't blocked for bad editing of articles, but for image violations... Second chance proves nothing with regard to reforming their prior behavior? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Totally with Jay here. Plus, 2nd chance sucks, it's impossible to review those unblock requests, and it's asking people to jump through aggravating hoops for no reason. Mangojuice^talk 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, he was blocked for image copyvios, not articles. Tiptoety ^talk 18:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry. D.M.N. (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock - Seems like I was wrong. I thought 2nd chance would be better so that he can prove himself before unblock, but either way I guess it doesn't matter. D.M.N. (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock. The user clearly still has no understanding of
  WP:IUP and so any image uploads are pretty much guaranteed to be problematic. But I think it is entirely reasonable to unblock provided the user refrain from image use or uploads. --Yamla (talk
  ) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock - After reviewing the situation, I have to agree with Yamla that the editor does not understand
  WP:IUP, however if the user agrees to stop the problematic uploads I am all about giving him another chance. --Kralizec! (talk
  ) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock - His comments still show a lack of understanding of policy regarding images (promotional photos ok for living people). Let him edit articles instead. Woody (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Based on the above consensus, I have unblocked the user in question. They have been informed that they are under a community ban against uploading any more image files, and have agreed to abide by these terms. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef block review of User:TlatoSMD by Rlevse

• arb · rfc · lta · socks
  )

• See here

I personally agree with this indefinite block, but I think because TlatoSMD has made some contributions worth keeping and has been an editor on the English and German Wikipedia for some time the ban should get wider review.

talk

02:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard to disagree with the blocking admin's rationale left on User talk:TlatoSMD. The disruption and incivility needed to be permanently stamped out. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I fully support this block, and would have advocated an indefinite block on Tlato long ago. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this block. Just as 3RR isn't licence to revert an article 3 times, everyday, no matter what, DRV isn't a forum to rehash every XfD that closed against one's interests. Also, the continued incivility from this user
  WP:GAMEING the system are a major issue. MBisanz ^talk
  03:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse the block per the sound rationale left by the blocking admin. TlatoSMD is a disruptive SPA who has tried so hard to game the system for weeks now, and has repeatedly disrupted deletion processes in an attempt to push a POV. The incivility is just icing on the cake. --
  desat
  03:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per my comment on the user's talkpage [46]. Disruptive and combative user. WjBscribe 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the indef block. An indef block is excessive - I would recommend a temporary block. (The following rationale for this has been copied from TlatoSMD's Talk Page)

While it's true that

PAW articles and their editors, for the past year or so. A great deal of misrepresentation is occurring, biases are clouding both editing and discussion, and a multitude of editors are refusing to engage in direct debate, preferring to completely disregard positions they personally disagree with. The fact that a number of admins have been either apathetic to TlatoSMD's situation or, in fact, engaged in the very same nonconstructive practices just mentioned has frustrated TlatoSMD quite a bit. Placed within such a hostile environment, and ignored by many regular editors and admins alike, TlatoSMD began to pick his words with less tact than is expected. Although some may be correct in asserting that some sort of block is in order, maybe even longer than several days or a week, indefinite blocking this individual would not benefit the project as a whole. Wikipedia will be hurt if it loses yet another intelligent, well-read, and usually civil editor, who's not afraid to speak his mind and to point out policy violations and POV-pushing when they occur, even at the risk of opposing many influential Wikipedians. A temporary block may be in order, so that TlatoSMD rethinks his approach to commentary and regains appreciation for civility, but an indef block will do nothing to improve the quality of Wikipedia or its articles. The controversial PAW articles will definitely suffer, and an indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Wikipedia, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense. ~ Homologeo (talk

) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, to respond quickly to the reasons provided by Rlevse for the indef block. First of all, I fail to see any conclusive evidence that TlatoSMD is a single purpose account. Although a great deal of this user's recent edits have focused on PAW articles, his contribution history, via both his current and previous accounts, clearly shows that he has edited a variety of articles. Besides, being an SPA is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for indef blocking. Next, his "snappiness" and (what can be deemed by some) uncivil behavior can be addressed with a temporary block - no indef block is necessary. Besides, this is only the third block this editor ever got, and all the blocks were recently received in regards to the ongoing discussions surrounding the deletion of the "Adult-child sex" article and of the various drafts that attempted come up with a quality representation of this controversial subject. Then, even though this is a very "icky" topic for many, TlatoSMD followed proper Wikipedia procedures in contesting the deletions just mentioned. Thus, his actions to this regard should not be grounds for an indef block. As for the supposed "canvassing," this behavior can be addressed by warnings or a temporary block - once again, no indef block is called for. Lastly, this editor is quite capable of editing articles constructively and civility, as his editing history clearly demonstrates. To assert that TlatoSMD is "not here to be constructive" is to blatantly ignore all his contributions prior to his controversial conduct in the recent debates. There's much that this editor can contribute to Wikipedia. And, yes, enforcement of policy and emphasis on NPOV are just two of the positives that TlatoSMD generally brings to the table. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're misquoting me, I did not say he was a sock, I said his admitted doppelganger account, see this prior version of his user page. Also, I protest your claim this is censorship, the issue is incivility and disruption. As for his good edits, that is not a defense, per Jimbo's link below. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading a part of your comment. I have now adjusted my response to account for the assertion that TlatoSMD is an SPA. As for the "doppelganger" comment, I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand. As far as I know, many editors mistakenly create several spellings of their username and only end up using one of the account. Since this is his primary account, and the combined contribution history of his current and previous account show editing in a variety of articles, I fail to see what makes TlatoSMD an SPA. Besides, as stated above, being an SPA, even if this was true of this particular editor, is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for an indef block. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also no assertion that your particular indef blocking of TlatoSMD is censorship. What I said was that this "indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Wikipedia, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense." I'm not saying that this is true, but it's foolish to deny that such observations are being made about the project, especially after a number of controversial indef blocks in the past year or so. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

TlatoSMD Review Break

• Has he been blocked or banned? Regardless, indef is def excessive. Firstly, he is not a Single Purpose Account as was said in the blocking rationale on his talk page. At least, not according to his contribs history. Blocking is not supposed to be used as punishment or to make a point, regardless of what Jimbo says. I'd say a timed block, as in 24 hours if he hasn't been blocked before to 48 hours if he's only been blocked once before to a couple of days or week depending on recent past block count, would be more appropriate in dealing with his incivility. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked, not banned. Even if one accepts the argument that he's not an SPA, there's still plenty to support an indef on this highly disruptive user. Short blocks have not worked. There is way more than his incivility. His statements (see quotes I made on his user talk page) show no sign of acknowledging the collaborative nature of wikipedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly, Avruch has my deep respect for bringing this here, even though he agrees with the block, because bringing it here for wider review was the right thing to do. Good call and thank you.
  • Keilana will of course support the block because TlatoSMD rightly challenged her deletion of a page without rationale.
  • When we are talking about a permanent ban on a user, we have to really look at it. Why? I have seen vandalism-only accounts and vandalism-only IP's blocked for 24 hours, only to go through the entire process again. I have seen the most aggregious name-calling and personal attacks go without rebuke at all. But TlatoSMD is uncivil and warrants a permaban? That is, quite simply, ridiculous.
  • So, why is this user being banned? Because he is right. Not entirely, and not always, but he is absolutely right in that he demands that Wikipedia policies be followed, and he has made no attempt to hide his feelings about clear policy violations. Pages that do not warrant deletion are being deleted. Personal attacks on him and others go without even warnings. And when he responds in kind, he is banned. What sort of precedent does this set?
  • There is the canvassing issue. Firstly, let's even assume it was canvassing (which it was not); is canvassing once worthy of a permanent ban from Wikipedia? Of course not.
  • TlatoSMD is by no means a Single-Purpose Account, and even if he had an uber-narrow focus, so what? Sockpuppet? No. Focused editor? Sure, why not? Who cares, though. His contributions have been very good and he has spent more time and effort on articles than some who only have worked to tear articles down. Are we going to start banning everyone who edits in a narrow range?
  • The bottom line is that this ban is egregiously over-the-top. I can agree that TlatoSMD has been aggressive. TlatoSMD has even rufled many feathers (gasp!). But to be permanently banned for this? Come on now... don't we all, as a community, have better things to do that force this issue? How about blocking intentional, blatant vandals for more than 24 hours at a time? TlatoSMD deserves time to cool off and continue editing constructively.
  • Let's drop this block to 24-36 hours, shake our collective finger at him, and move on...
  • VigilancePrime (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

For what it's worth, I'm not supporting the block because he " rightly challenged [my] deletion of a page without rationale". First of all, I did provide a rationale, which he disagreed with. Fine. He had every right to DRV the article. However, after the n^th incarnation, it became clear that he was an SPA. He has acted uncivilly, and the net gain to the project of unblocking him would be much less than the net loss from all the drama and incivility that follows him around. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It became clear he was an SPA? Have you not taken the time to look at his contribs? He is definitely not an SPA. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it did. I have read his contributions, FWIW. He has barely any article-space edits, effectively everything he does is related to this one article. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime--There's way more to this than Keilana and other edits. That three admins deleted that page shows there's considerable support to do so and that TlatoSMD is not correct in his actions. And again, he is not banned, there is a difference in a ban and an indef block. Your claim that he's being banned because he's right is ludicrous. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, even though he is not technically "banned," TlatoSMD is now incapable of editing articles, so how is this different from a ban? ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See

WP:BAN. Keilana|^{Parlez ici}

04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• The confusion there is probably my fault for naming the section "ban" - technically he is blocked, but if no one unblocks him it has the effect of a community ban.
  ^T
  04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's like the verifiability vs. truth argument. He may be right, but right is subjective, and his opinion of right has been shown to be against consensus. I have also refactored your comments' formatting and removed the annoying red box. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disruptive SPA sums it quite nicely. In my opinion, indef is a good call. – Sadalmelik (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed with this analysis (after having seen the user at a few of the debates). Orderinchaos 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly I support this block, he has been incredibly uncivil and disruptive and short blocks perpetuated the situation. WP is better off without users like this. Viridae^Talk 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keilana, replied to your note on my talk page. Thank you for asking and no, I don't think you're self-important.
• Second, the difference between Indef block and Ban is purely semantic. Spare me.
• Third, Keilana closed the original debate w/o stated rationale, and that caused a firestorm (on all sides, ultimately). That led to Tlato being less-than-kind toward her, and thus I would expect a certain dislike for him. I would be too, so that's not meant as a slight against her.
• Fourth, counting admins is useless. Yes, three admins deleted the pages. Just as many kept the original page, protected the original page, or agreed that the pages should stay. In fact, more. Spare us the "so-many admins (as if that makes opinions more valuable?) did this or that". Poor argument.
• When it comes down to it, "we" would rather protect those who intentionally destroy Wikipedia (blocking vandals for 24 hours at a time, no matter their history?) and wash ou hands of someone who is so committed to Wikipedia as to fight for it. I do not disagree that T's comments have been unnecessarily aggressive. But a lifetime ban? Come on now... let's use our common sense. If "we" want to set this precedent, can I bring you twice as much evidence about another user, who has in fact taken part in name-calling and personal attacks and you'll permaban/permablock them as well? Give the word and I'll give the links, quotes, and diffs. But make me that promise first.
• Let's set some sort of consistency. Everyone in this debacle has had some sort of culpability in it, including me. I haven't been the most pleasant at times (longer ago). Neither has anyone else, admins most often included. Let's not overreact here. I would recommend a few cement trucks worth of Good Faith just be poured over this entire situation.
• VigilancePrime (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 Question: What is the status of this page now? Its called "Der paedophile impuls" and is written in German, and it is apparently a copy of an article that was deleted on de.wiki.

^T

04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That would need to be brought up on de.wiki; it may have different standards and processes than en.wiki. --

desat

05:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The userpage is here, though. Its a copy of a deleted de.wiki article, but he's ported it here for translation.

^T

05:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to strike my comment after misreading it. The page should be deleted. --

desat

05:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done

Spartaz ^Humbug!

05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I also support this block, and would support a ban as well. This is a highly disruptive user who continually insults and attacks other users, even continuing to be so blatantly uncivil that during a block today his userpage had to be protected due to his outrageous behavior. TlatoSMD has attacked several administrators, accusing them of blatant lying [47][48][49], having “faulty rationale” and being neglectful by turning a blind eye to vandalism. TlatoSMD has acted in a disruptive manner in every
  Dreadstar †
  05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I simply can't see how this user can ever work collaboratively with editors they disagree with.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

While TlatoSMD may use excessively colorful words at times and has lately been upfront about his sentiments concerning others, his civility problems can be addressed with a temporary block, even a long one. An indef block is really inappropriate, especially considering that most criticism of his editing is directed at his commentary surrounding this one particular issue. This has been an upstanding, constructive, and generally civil editor in most other contexts. As for his critique of other editors and admins, and their editing practices - as long as this is done in a tasteful manner, and proper reasoning is provided, there's nothing wrong with such criticism. If it's established that TlatoSMD has been uncivil as of late, he should be blocked, but not indefinitely. I'm not sure how his constructive editing of other articles, and even of PAW articles before this messy situation, can be diminished by recent events and be completely disregarded. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility blocks have had no effect on this user - he was blocked on 4th Feb for 48 hours and was still being uncivil and offensive yesterday when I blocked him for calling another user a liar. I certainly didn't see any evidence from their talk page that they understood they had crossed a line. Quite the opposite in fact. Too much agression & refusal to moderate unacceptable behaviour is not collaborative.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

05:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Then, by all means, extend the block. But there's no need for idef blocking, especially considering the consistent constructive contributions on the editor's part in the past, before this messy situation. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, he has ~20 unrelated contributions since he joined. That's not at all consistent. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hardly a Single-Purpose Account.

Edits to

Pro-pedophile activism‎

, five of his edits, even though made awhile back, are still the most recent to their pages.

VigilancePrime (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the articles in your list are related to the "adult/child sex" topic. One edit to a disambiguation page is irrelevant, as are the few other topical edits TlatoSMD has made. TlatoSMD is a

Dreadstar †

06:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a word: this account may or may not be disruptive, but this particular act - that of submitting the user copy page to DRV was not "disruptive, abuse of process, and a WP:POINT violation". The MfD was a complex situation, with several different reasons brought up by different people in a long discussion. (I voted delete, incidentally, and still think that deletion of the material is best.) Riana's closing rationale was really, really, uninformative; and her justification in the subsequent DRV was simply appalling. You do have to have a bit of chutzpah to say that after that a DRV was out-of-process. Relata refero (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agrre that this editor has been an SPA, and even worse, has been an aggressive POV-pusher. I don't see any article that he's improved, and he's fomented a lot of disruption. I think a ban is appropriate and necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't disagree about the block, but I gotta ask (since it's been the subject of a few discussions of interest to me), what does being an SPA have to do with it? -- Ned Scott 11:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• He is here mainly to push a pro-pedophile POV based on his edits (and he is doing so in an uncivil manner, which is the basis of the other problems he has), and that is something that can't be tolerated. --
  desat
  19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but my point is that he would still be blocked even if he was pro-pedo and edited articles about apples. Being an SPA is unrelated. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I would hope that your assumption would be proven wrong, cause I don't see how an indef block would be justified in the scenario you just described, unless of course the editor finds a way to be disruptive when editing an article about apples. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess you could give him a topical ban so that he could still edit about apples, but wouldn't that offer be allowed to this user? Even if they haven't started editing other articles yet, we could say "you are free to edit other articles, but not the ones you have done so far". This is important because often we've reblocked indef. users who've come back under a different name to edit different articles, something that has always bothered me.
• But because the disruption was pro-pedo POV pushing, he would just be blocked over-all, regardless of other activities, because of a statement made by Fred Bauder. -- Ned Scott 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block, he's exhausted my (admittedly limited) patience and then some. People should be careful to pick the right fights; this was the wrong one on a number of levels. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block, per all the others that agree above. Whether he is or isn't an SPA is moot; the other evidence alone supports an indef. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - sorry, the DRV was pure disruption. Will ^(talk) 13:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block—a rather textbook block: the net negative effect of this user's contributions are far outweighing the positive effect. I fully endorse to
  talk
  ) 13:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block- This user has got enough "final warnings" and enough blocks and chances to reform edits. Users actions seems like he/she refuses to do so and thus deserves the blocks and some more. Sorry Watchdogb (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse this block, too. Unbelievably disruptive abuse of process over a single article... enough is enough. :/
  ✽
  00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse this block, after reviewing the situation, blocked editor seems to have reached a point of no concern for his/her actions.Taprobanus (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, but I don't oppose this block. I say this so that there is no confusion about this, considering my discussion above about the SPA concerns. -- Ned Scott 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I also endorse the block, but I do hope that eventually it can be lifted. Tlato is a thorough researcher that has been feeling persecuted lately. However, his everyone-else-is-biased-and-wrong attitude and the endless challenges to all attempts by the community to move on from the nasty situation have made it clear he wants to keep fighting. Well,
  Wikipedia is not a battleground. I don't think it's right to say that this is a SPA, but certainly his single purpose lately has been campaigning on one sole issue. Mangojuice^talk
  14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of TlatoSMD by @pple

• I strongly disagree with this block. TlatoSMD, though his disproportionate forthrightness to the extent of a bit uncivility may disturb some users here, no way deserves such tough punishment. my personal interaction with him told me that he is a progressive editor who remains a relentless devotion to the project. Human is not flawless; we at the same time have both weaknesses that need fixing and strengths to encourage. TlatoSMD couldn't be exempted from this logic. We as a community should open our heart to see from him the potential of amendment and good things he brought to the project rather than merely dig out all the mistakes to use them as the barriers impeding his chance of showing improvement. admin rlevse, with all due respect, made the wrong decision this time.

1. Reviewing his contribution log, I came to staunch affirmation that
   WP:SPA has its practice completely failed on this user. His editing activity, though not as diverse as many people's, is not in line with "single purpose". TlatoSMD is also an excellent writer who has made a lot of substantial edits to articles [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]
   , one of his strong points that is praiseworthy. I have carefully checked his edits, many of which are fully sourced and I don't find any PoV-pushing issues as many people alleged so. Allegation that all his mainspace edits are related to only one topic (adut-child sex) is even more inaccurate. I don't deny that his recent overenthusiastic involvement in debates may lead to misunderstanding of a SPA, but further scrutiny on his past contribs authentically refutes this. Besides blocking a user just because of SPA is fairly strange to me and undoubtedly a wrong decision.
2. Being disruptive warrants a block but an indefinite block for recent evidence of disruption is utterly unreasonable. It means that you brutally close the door on his chance to change himself towards the positive way. Tlato did try hard in discussions with good faith intention, giving thoughtful arguments with a view to achieving consensus , but the way he presented it and his uncontrollably fervent involvement that amounted to usage of improper words turned out to be disruption in the end. I think Tlato didn't do it on purpose, just something of quick-tempered nature that spontaneously bursted out when his reasoning was downplayed and made no effect to the discussion. I believe that every wikipedian must once experience this feeling because it is something that is unavoidable. AGF should be critically invoked in this case.
3. For the record, the first DRV questioning the afd closure was opened by User:Pharmboy, the second one on the issue of wrong speedy deletion of user subpage was credited to me. Subsequently, User:JzG brought the subpage to MfD and lastly it was Tlato himself that initiated another DRV, this time on the MfD closure result. Admittedly he took part in all the discussions but saying that he abused the process on account of his resubmission is an overstatement. His notification message of the ongoing discussion to multiple users carried quite acceptable content with little PoV pushed forward, though a bit borderline WP:CANVASS violation. However, all those actions don't warrant an indef block.
4. The civility issues as provided from the diffs appeared after he was aware of his being blocked the second time. This sudden block together with bad temperament was blamed for his improper reaction. We use indef block for constant disruptive behavior, not for a sole incident of misconduct.
5. I also favor rlevse's decision to unprotect the talk page.
6. I conclude that this user has the potential to become a constructive editor, as long as he has the chance to have a new start. I unblock him now and I'll take on the responsibility for his subsequent actions. If any valid concerns raised from his behavior thereafter, as a guarantee, I will endorse the indef block and have my sysop access automatically revoked for one month as a correction to my mistake as appreciating the wrong person. @pple complain 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

@pple, this was completely against consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly, you opened one of the discussion debates and closed another. I object to your unblocking - but not because you have been involved in the issues that have not endeared TlatoSMD to the community, but because consensus was so clearly against your actions. A crowd of users and administrators above you strongly endorsed this block as necessary to prevent further disruption and as inevitable in any case given his seeming pro-pedophile point of view. And yet you unblock him, quite awhile after most of the comments in this thread. It just seems strange, and I'm at a loss for understanding your actions in this whole situation - from your strident reaction to my questions on PeaceNT's talkpage, to your involvement in the various deletion discussions, and finally to this action against clear consensus.
  ^T
  19:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• That is an outrageous unblock against consensus. You do not appear to have made contact with the blocking admin, aprt from anything else. Please reblock straight away. Black Kite 19:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a bit late to this one but I totally agree - consensus overwhelmingly supported this block and it seems borderline disruptive to unset it without raising an opportunity for consensus to be obtained first in a venue such as this. Orderinchaos 03:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm counting over half a dozen admins and at least 1 crat who endorsed the block. You did not give any time for anyone to respond to your reasoning for unblock. This seems to tread very close to
  WP:WHEEL by unblocking against known and recognized conensus. MBisanz ^talk
  19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: User:Tlatosmd has ALSO been unblocked by @pple. MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reblock straight away - this was completely against consensus. This isn't a wheel war - just a really bad admin action. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Big mistake. Totally against consensus of multiple admins and one crat. Not to mention you never contacted me. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Sounds like another ArbCom drama is about ready to fire up. What is going on with administrators the last few months?! —Wknight94 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reblocked based on all the above comments objecting to @pple's action, plus all those endorsing the block in the first place. I would have loved to hear @pple's side of the story here but @pple appears to have stopped editing Wikipedia for the day, and based on his/her edit patterns we may not hear from him/her against for some time. Mangojuice^talk 20:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was just about to do the same, per my message on
  WP:WHEEL
  , given
  • that it was an obvious unblock against consensus
  • User:@pple is an involved editor in this dispute
  • No attempt was made (apparently) to contact the blocking admin.

I have other concerns about this admin's recent conduct, as exemplified by this diff [59] where he calls a user he is in dispute with "ignorant" and his editing "nonsensical" and "vandalism". Black Kite 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at [60] I'm really hoping this action by @pple wasn't the "plan" VigilancePrime was referring to. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't, the conversation about the plan was with Keilana and concerned a civility parole.

^T

20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, where has all the good faith went? ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo, I think it would be fair to say that the history Tlato's edits and behavior have given good reason for that to no longer be the case. AGF is valid until a user shows us otherwise and TlatoSMD/smd has managed to do that. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt about that, but I believe Homologeo was referring to MBisanz's posting about @pple, rather than TlatoSMD. Black Kite 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still

WP:AGF about Vigilence and @pple. It was just suspicious that one user would post about a potential "plan" with admins to unblock and then an admin presents an unblock rationale overriding consensus. MBisanz ^talk

21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

AH, I see now. I can see where MBisanz has concern since @pple had not particicpated in this discussion as far as I recall and then took unilateral action that was totally against consensus. I agree that VP's "plan" was probably referring to his talks with Keilana, though. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

@pple brought up a lot of good points. We're really quick to condemn people on AN/I, and I would certainly like to see this get some more attention. ArbCom sounds like a great idea, and we shouldn't see it as drama at all. It would be nothing more than a calm and productive way to review the situation. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime

I'm becoming concerned about this editor. The lawyering to the point of trolling is just the tip of the iceberg - a cursory glance at his talk page with sentiments such as "Call the WAH-mbulance!" "Undeniable Admin Abuse", "More (Typical) Admin Abuses of Peasant Editors", etc shows me that he will rarely, if at all extend the courtesy of

WP:AGF. Several warnings by admins have been ignored. What do we propose to do? Will ^(talk

) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean all the collapsible boxes and content contained within? That would probably be something that could go to

WP:MFD if the user declined to remove it and you felt it was disruptive enough to warrent action. MBisanz ^talk

20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That, and the conspiring to get Tlatos unblocked. Will ^(talk) 20:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well right now we only know he was attempting to conspire to unblock Tlatos, there is always the possibility he failed and gave up and @pple decided on his own to do this. MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's have some good faith here. Besides, there's nothing wrong with a little criticism. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• If Will has more evidence, I think it should be presented. I also agree that "Call the WAH-mbulance!" "Undeniable Admin Abuse", etc aren't the best way to phrase things — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Though User:Rlevse is a neutral admin, one month block will serve the purpose, not the indef.Sudithar (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

User unblocked in response to feedback. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I have blocked PouponOnToast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours (originally 3) for disruption. His recent behaviour has been far from civil, he has been attacking Durova and has now decided to troll the Matanmoreland RfC. Block was originally 3 hours, but when i checked my watchlist to post this notice (quick link rather than typing) I notice he had re-added the trolling after it was removed. Thus block was extended to 24 hours. Viridae^Talk 08:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock. Editors are allowed to disagree with me. We were having a civil difference of opinion. I would have complained if I thought he'd gone overboard. Durova^Charge! 08:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That went beyond disagreement, and is just one part of his recent problematic behaviour. Hd has been very caustic about the whole issue, so in the spirit of Jimbo's recent "tough on incivility" stance I blocked. I would liek to hear some more opinions however. Viridae^Talk 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This (inserted twice despite being reverted) is pure trolling for instance. Viridae^Talk 08:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)He's also asked me to courtesy delete the section of my user talk, and promised to walk away from the conflict. I'd prefer to have people come to me with their opinions and express civil disagreement without fear of getting blocked for it. Please do a good faith unblock. Durova^Charge! 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Viridae is on the opposite side of the dispute with PouponOnToast...he is NOT a neutral admin in this situation.--MONGO 08:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

leave it out MONGO, I appear to be in a dispute with the whole site in your eyes. Viridae^Talk 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I second Durova's request. Or going back to the original 3 hour block. Maybe he can think and edit more clearly then. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 08:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Unblock. "It's a witch, burn it," is neither uncivil nor disruptive under the circumstances.

talk

) 08:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking. Durova^Charge! 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(40th bloody ec tonight)NOte that was one of many exchanges that caused the block. He is now unblocked however having agreed to stay civil. Viridae^Talk 09:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea...next time, (and there is bound to be a next time), don't block anyone you have been in a dispute with again.--MONGO 09:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a dispute MONGO...Will you EVER get that one? Viridae^Talk 09:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

persistent personal attacks and deliberate vandalism

Resolved

 – again,

User:LaraLove has blocked them for a week

--Jac16888 (talk

) 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been subject to persistent personal attacks from user User:Masalai who has taken exception to my edits of articles of Saskatchewan. Evidence of personal attacks can be found from edit summaries of [61], [62] [63], [64], [65] and a few other occasions. this user persists with the notion that I am not a native English speaker, which I clearly am as noted in the most recent personal attack on me [66]. Their recent revert changes refer to my proper labelling sections as "Notes and References" as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions which Masalai continues to revert in deliberate violation of these rules and I believe solely because of my role as a contributor. I have tried to ask this user to stop with no success. [67]. Masalai was given another warning today as well by another user [68] Masalai has previously tried to attack me as another user warned them about this last year. [69] Michellecrisp (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin... but the edit summaries of Masalai's edits look downright idiotic. :\ JuJube (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as the disruptive behavior and personal attacks, they are utterly ridiculous. The user has been warned. Another incident should result in a somewhat lengthy block, in my opinion. I'm looking further into the content issue.

Love

14:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Masalai has restarted his editwarring, complete with attacking edit summaries, [70], [71], [72], [73]--Jac16888 (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And persisting with personal attacks on me in Talk Pages of other users [74] Michellecrisp (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Gaogier

Resolved

 – IP tagged as suspected sockpuppet, Gaogier warned for removing content from a user's home page, and also provided with final warning on using multiple IPs--VS ^talk 08:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Editor has now been blocked - for using multiple sock puppet accounts and disrupting wikipedia.--VS ^talk 10:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega.  Doktor  Wilhelm 

22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This may not help much, but you could request that your user page be semi-protected. Bovlb (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• It appears to me that there is a strong likelihood that
  User:Gaogier will also receive a warning as to his editing style. Please contact me directly if you wish some further help and I will do what I can.--VS ^talk
  08:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Transformers vandal is back at 74.46.211.155

Resolved

 – IP blocked. MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This anonymous guy was blocked last week for making up nonsense in Transformers articles, at a different DNS, but he's back making up things again. Can anyone block him?

Mathewignash (talk

) 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. –

Steel

23:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, what you meant to say was By the Matrix, I've defeat that meance! --Fredrick day (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash sockpuppet

Resolved

 – The Placebo Effect administered a dram extra of digitalis. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 04:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I said that in case a nonadmin noticed him first; The Placebo Effect (talk · contribs) already threw this sock into the moth closet. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sock-puppet disrupting pages

Resolved

 – blocked Woody (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please take notice of this [75] ? User:ZmaGhurnStaKona is now a confirmed sock-puppet of a banned user, but he still hasn't been blocked.--07fan (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - both of them - Alison ^❤ 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

IP vandalism by User:86.46.78.159

Resolved

 – User blocked Woody (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been vandalism by this IP user, whose IP appears to be a vandalism only account. This user has editing by inserting racially insensitive comments such as this edit to Cory in the House (a Disney Channel series), Bill Cosby, and after I reverted his Cory in the House edits twice, my user page. I had just given him a final warning and am requesting action to be taken. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, see

WP:AIV in future. Thanks. Woody (talk

) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Viridae

1. 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Athoughtforyou (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
2. 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked OrionClemens (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
3. 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Slintfan (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
4. 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Academic38 (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
5. 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Drstones (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)

No, these were single purpose accounts with no contributions other than to stir up a problem we have with Oxford Round Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

More to the point, Viridae has an agenda against me and has a habit of undoing my admin actions, including undeleting a

WP:CSD#G5

by request fo the banned user with discussion solely on Wikipedia Review. I think Viridae should not be undoing my actions, given a stated (again on Wikipedia Review) agenda against me.

I also think we need single purpose accounts like we need holes in our collective heads, but I'm happy to see what Carcharoth's discussions bring forward on that. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: How can you judge whether an account is a SPA if it has been created for only 2 days, makes 2 edits and is then blocked. A wee bit of good faith is always helpful. I make no comment on the dispute between you two. Woody (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant. Admins should not undo the actions of other admins with whom they have a long-standing dispute. And a single purpose account can indeed be diagnosed if it is registered in order to take part in a deletion debate on an article which is itself merely a vehicle for an off-wiki dispute. But I'd not have objected if it had been someone else, the problem here is Viridae's repeated actions against me, which are starting to look just a little personal. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not an admin, but aren't you guys not supposed to revert each others' administrative actions without discussing it first? I think I heard that somewhere. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:33, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Guy care to look half a dozen sections up where a request that those accounts which were not CU confirmed sockpuppets be be unblocked was made, which I happened to catch and perform. Also nice of you to notify me of this - I caught it on my watchlist. As woody said, you can't determine a single purpose account on half a dozen edits - every account to start editing WP would come under that banner at first. Viridae^Talk 09:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you should've linked to that discussion in your summary, contacted Guy on his talk page, or otherwise made clear your reasons for the revert. "incorrect block" is flip and a wheel-war invitation. In my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:40, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that it WAS an incorrect block, I was in a hurry - as evinced by the fact that I asked Ned to do the non-admin apologies. I work in science and frequently have short breaks in the day while something is incubating in which I log onto wikipedia. Sometimes I block someone reported on AIV, sometimes I check the requests for rollback and grant that if necessary - this time I saw the request for unblock, and having followed the previous discussion decided that these accounts were clearly good faith (anyone denying that?) and should not be block for a second longer. We do not need more of the academic establishment driven away while wikipedia argues with itself. As tro contacting guy on his talk page - he has taken to deleting anything I put there anyway so that is entirely pointless. The edit summary therefore came about because I was somewhat at a loss as to what to actually put there. Viridae^Talk 09:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have the time to carry out an admin action properly, then you should leave it to someone who does. I'm sure there were others who saw the same discussion you did, and there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:51, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)

It was carried out properly, the only part of that that was actually an admin action was the unblock. The apology for the unblock could have been dealt with by anyone - and that was done quite sucessfully by Ned. While there may have been no huge hurry in the grand scale of things, had the wait cost us some very qualified editors wikipedia would have been so much worse off. Viridae^Talk 09:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of an admin action needs happen in conjunction with that action by the admin taking the action. They aren't two separate acts. If you revert another admin, you need to communicate your reasoning to them, preferrably before you even take the action. Again there are no emergencies, and that includes the potential to lose valuable editors. If you couldn't communicate, you shouldn't have acted. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:09, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Actually Guy knows exactly why those were overturned as he was involved in the original discussion, there was no need for further communication that would almost certainly be ignored given recent history. And yes, it is always urgent to unblock a potentially valuable contributor. Especially one with academic qualifications - a species of editor wikipedia is sorely lacking. Viridae^Talk 10:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have "history", ie. an ongoing dispute with Guy then that's all the more reason not to take it upon yourself to revert his actions. Perhaps you should steer clear of policing that particular admin for a while, and let others be the judge of his actions. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:17, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Other WERE the judge, did you not see the lengthy discussion further up the page? Viridae^Talk 10:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The leave it to the others to do the action. You should not be reversing my admin actions, you have an existing agenda against me. If others agree, let others do it. I suppose I should be grateful that at least this time the discussion took place on Wikipedia rather than Wikipedia Review, but somehow I'm not. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda Guy, you just think I do. Yes I dislike you, yes I believe you frequently make rash/incorrect decisions (like for instance deleting something as a G5 when it has significant contributions from other people) and yes I find you possibly the most uncivil person on the project at times but that does not make it a longstanding dispute. I have no grudge to bear however, this is my personal opinion - I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe you have never performed an admin action on someone you dislike or overturned someones admin action when you dislike it. Smarten up and fly right (assume good faith and stop attacking other people) and I will no longer have a problem with you. That is NOT a longstanding dispute. Viridae^Talk 11:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think given the obvious illwill here between Guy and Viridae, that keeping out of each other's way where possible is advisable; that means don't get involved in each other's actions, at all, period - not to reverse them, not to comment on them, nothing. If there's any actual concerns then present them (sans commentary) to

☎

11:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is silly. Nothing in the blocking policy justified these blocks. Undoing them was the right thing to do and making it about Viridae obscures the issue. The issue is whether or not we can expect non-Wikipedians to read tree leaves to determine our policies or whether we should attempt to engage them before hitting the block button. If someone is a flagrant vandal and is replacing pages with nonsense, ok, I really am annoyed with the "you can't block them without 4 warnings" crowd, but these were good faith users who were simply unfamiliar with our policies. Blocking them is bad. When some of them requested unblock, declining those requests without attempting to engage the user compounded the error. I don't really give a flip about assessing blame, but I think we need to make clear this isn't how we do business and there's a difference between a flagrant troll and someone who just isn't familiar with our policies. --B (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There's 1,488 other admins on Wikipedia. If Guy has made a bad block, one of them other than Viridae can unblock, as anything Viridae does (irrespective of intention and making no judgement as to who is or is not "correct" here) now upsets Guy.

☎

12:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy has been given chances to communicate about his admin actions before, and is almost always either argumentative or dissmissive. ANYONE overturning one of his actions gets this response, so frankly I don't care whether it upsets him or not, if he makes an obviously bad call and I am in the position to deal with it, I will do so. If guy wants the lines of communcation to be opened again before I do so as I am quite happy to do, he can be civil and actually respond to queries. Viridae^Talk 12:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just post your concerns here in future rather than acting on them - please?

☎

12:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil, this is a red herring. A month or two ago, I nominated a template for deletion that happened to have been created by Guy. I had no earthly idea (didn't look, didn't care) who created it, but Guy accused me of nominating it as retaliation because I had disagreed with a block of his in an ANI discussion. It was utter nonsense, but the point is, it was refocusing the issue from one of whether or not the template was appropriate and trying to make it into merely a personal issue. Most of us really don't care one way or another about Wikipedia factions or personalities or anything like that. We don't sit here and debate political expediency and whether the blocking admin is someone we like or don't like. This is an encyclopedia, not a grade school club or a MMORPG. If Guy is right, we'll call him right - if he's wrong, we'll call him wrong. That's all there is to it. --B (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking should be discussed with the blocking admin. I am as guilty as anyone of broaching this on occasion. Anyway, Guy has decided he doesn't like Viridae for whatever reason, and whenever Viridae does try and contact him, Guy tells him to "go away". So I have suggested that instead of just countermanding Guy's admin actions, Viridae posts them here for review. I am neither defending nor agreeing with Guy's actions - that is a seperate issue. I'm simply asking Viridae to refrain from directly reversing Guy's admin actions, as the drama it creates tends to obfuscate the issue.

☎

13:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"...whenever Viridae does try and contact him, Guy tells him to "go away". -Actually, he tells him to "fuck off", but I don't want to argue semantics.  :-D daveh4h 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Neil's suggestions. I'm not familiar with the relationship between Guy and Viridae though, have other means already been taken to prevent this sort of stuff occurring? Rudget. 11:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys seem to be forgetting to do something here, so I'll start it off:

• Standing Ovation. Thank You Viridae for having the courage to stand up for the rights of the many. A lot of admins seem to feel that blocking people is an adequate solution for almost anything, when the truth is that it is only meant as a last resort. And, frankly I don't see any real cause to even get that far. --BETA 12:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, now sit down. There's a difference between "standing up for the rights of many", and specifically targeting the actions of an admin based upon discussion at an attack site. As already stated, there are well over a thousand admins here; any one of them would have been a better candidate to analyze Guy's actions than Viridae. This sort of cowboy play doesn't work well either for developing consensus or developing community. Reverting admin actions without discussion is the sort of thing that inevitably leads to desysopping; are we sure that's the direction we want to take this? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

JP there was endless discussion on this page about these blocks, which is why I was so quick to overturn them when the request was made because I fel there was some agreement that they were incorrect. I didn't bother to contact Guy directly because 1. he had already been involved in the discussion of his blocks and 2. part one meant there was no point given that he would just ignore any notification/attempt at communication anyway. Viridae^Talk 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think many of the original blocks were a violation of
  WP:CIVIL. That needs to stop. *** Crotalus ***
  19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Good, then that could have been discussed. Reversing admin actions without discussion is not acceptable behavior. That needs to stop. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Per Viridae's original response, these unblocks had already been discussed and per the results of a checkuser a request was made a few sections above. Does every request for admin action need to be carefully scrutinised to ensure the sysop preparing to action a request will not upset the sensibilities of another involved admin? It will seriously dilute the effectiveness of this board if this is the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If reversal of admin actions must always be discussed, then admins must always be willing to discuss their actions, even if they don't like someone. You can't have it both ways. -Amarkov moo! 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt that Viridae and Guy have an ongoing dispute, so Neil is correct that it would be best if Viridae had posted notice here and gain consensus to revert Guy's blocks. Jpgordon is 100% correct...admins shouldn't be reversing other admins just because they can, and in this case, the reversals appear to be done to incite Guy. This is far from the first examples of questionable admin actions made by Viridae.--MONGO 00:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"be best if Viridae had posted notice here and gain consensus to revert Guy's blocks", Rough consensus was already established in the above threads. --BETA 14:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

MONGO you believe everyone who has ever disagreed with you is in an ongoing dispute. You now appear to be trying to try that on with Guy. Viridae^Talk 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They do not have an "ongoing dispute". Guy has just decided that he does not like Viridae. Now, there's no obligation to like every admin. But that doesn't mean Guy can say "I don't like you, so you're never allowed to talk to me again, HAHAHA". -Amarkov moo! 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd...here Viridae clearly states he doesn't like Guy...so reversing his admin actions was obviously done to incite Guy.--MONGO 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course! That's the only possible explanation for undoing an overzealous admin action that wasn't backed by CU evidence. Jossi (talk · contribs) must have been in on it too, since he also performed an unblock. — Scientizzle 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Amarkov, you are wrong. Viridae openly declared a dislike for me on that other site where you both hang out, and the dispute started when Viridae honoured a request from Gregory Kohs to undelete an article on one of his clients that he had created with a sockpuppet while banned, which I deleted under

WP:CSD#G5. That undeletion was discussed only on Wikipedia Review, the request was made by a banned user while banned and acceded to without on-wiki discussion by a Wikipedia administrator - about as clear a case of unacceptable wheel warring as you can get. That is the foundation of this dispute, as far as I'm concerned, and subsequent reversals of my actions by Viridae before this action, again also without any discussion outside Wikipedia Review, have served to entrench it. That is why Viridae is not welcome on my talk page, especially given what's on there at the moment, and it's also why Viridae should be leaving it to someone else to review these blocks. Guy (Help!

) 18:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you're bringing up a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with the unblocks here. If you're not willing to

deal with your underlying disupte appropriately, then drop it. You don't get to choose which admins fix your mistakes or otherwise perform any administraive action (similarly, I would reject any potential claim by Viridae or someone else that you should be verboten from reconciling any of Viridae's actions). You don't like each other; we got it. Were these unblocks wrong? I have yet to see any indication by anyone here that they were inappropriate. For someone with this on his userpage, you're stirring up quite a bit. — Scientizzle

20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing was discussed in depth in a thread that has now been moved to

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford Round Table. There was no unblock without discussion or any such thing. There was no agreement that the non-socks should be blocked. We engage users - we don't block first and ask questions later. This is doubly important since some or all of these users are academics and certainly have a lot that they could contribute to Wikipedia if we reach out to them rather than chasing them away. The arbitration committee hounded valued admin Adam C out of the project for a questionable block of a marginally disruptive user where Adam had asked for and thought he had ANI approval before making the block. Contrast that with blocking users for commenting on an AFD opened by the blocking admin. I have a real problem in the consistency here of going after Viridae for undoing obviously inappropriate blocks. --B (talk

) 01:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with B's excellent comment immediately above. This is stupid.

Summary of account activity resulting from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones came back with a list of clear socks as well as accounts that were unrelated from any others, including those listed here and in the ANI archive

. Guy, if you can provide a valid rationale for these accounts to be re-blocked, please do share. If not, what's the problem?

The shoot-first action of blocking a slew of accounts from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table had some significant collateral damage...We don't block accounts for being single-purpose if they're not clearly disruptive; it would have been much better to have done the checkuser first. I reject the idea that any sysop should necessarily recuse themselves from undoing another's action just because there's some sort of personality conflict. Guy, you admitted that your actions weren't perfect (please do "keep the definition of single purpose rather more focused" in the future), so why does it matter which of us 1500 admins took care of your loose ends? It seems pretty clear from the prior discussion on this matter that there was little support for these accounts to stay blocked (Guy even softed his stance) and at least a few questioned their validity. — Scientizzle 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Viridae for unblocking users who were in exactly the position I was when I first edited, all that time ago. Ideally someone else would have done it before you, but thank you for making sure it was done. Merkinsmum 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As several other users have pointed out, Guy's allegation that there was no prior discussion is FALSE. There may not have been direct one on one discussion between Viridae and Guy, but there is no requirement, and there is no reason to have a requirement, that after a community discussion has occurred in which the blocking administrator participated (or declined), another admin has to have a separate one on one conversation with the blocking admin before unblocking. There was no community support for Guy's block, he knew that, he had had opportunity to explain his actions. No foul was committed by Viridae, even though it would have been better if another administrator acted sooner. Guy's complaint here looks like him prolonging a battle, and Guy, you need to stop this behavior of never letting go of old battles.

GRBerry

20:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pax Arcane

Pax Arcane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), despite several warnings by three editors: User_talk:Pax_Arcane#AN_notification, User_talk:Pax_Arcane#A_caution, User_talk:Pax_Arcane#Don.27t_do_that, he continues disrupting [76]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would object to the very existence of this account, as it closely resembles mine. That the user is misbehaving might relfect poorly upon me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

AntiVandal Bots and the Bot flag

I thought policy was that AntiVandal bots under no uncertain terms do not get the Bot flag? Has this policy changed? Q ^{T C} 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, they have the bot flag set so they can edit faster. Their edits are not marked as bot edits, though, so they do show up on the watchlist. Policy seems to be "anti vandal bots have a bot flag, but their edits don't". Kusma (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case for all bots. Q ^{T C} 09:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Kusma's understanding checks with what I know. AV bots didn't used to get the flag, so that they would show up in recent changes (etc) for some measure of supervision. With rollback in particular, there was some interest in getting them bot flags so that they could be exempted from the rollback rate limiting; with that in mind, an optional URL parameter was added to allow bots to flag particular edits as non-bot (the idea being that AV bots could get flagged, but mark all edits as non-bot, thus hopefully having their cake and eating it, too). Is there a specific bot you're asking about, by chance? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, just working through

WP:VF and was curious as why some bots weren't showing up anymore. Q ^{T C}

10:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not an account has the bot flag or not has no effect on whether it shows up in the IRC Recent Changes (which VF uses). It's possible that VF automatically whitelisted the bots—you might want to remove them from the whitelist if that's the case.

Gracenotes^T

§ 15:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's what it was, some of the AV bots getting added to the greylist since they have the bot flag now. Q ^{T C} 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

143.235.215.* harassing Ckatz (talk · contribs)

A range of IP addresses seems to be coming around simply to harass Ckatz (a prospective future admin) and interfere in articles he's involved in. See [77] (deceitful edit summary) [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]. Very likely socks of banned user EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another revert. JuJube (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Article has been semi-protected. — Edokter • Talk • 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Consistent edit warring/POV pushing, pesonal attacks, 3RR violations, etc.

Someone please tell me what we should do with User:Esimal. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Esimal. He unapologetically edit wars against consensus and pushes a fringe point of view (see Talk:Religion in the United States‎), accuses everyone with whom he agrees of being a "radical Evangelical", and just willfully violated 3RR using socks at Religion in the United States (for which he was not blocked, because I'm less interested in reporting him than seeing a solution). That being said, I'm not entirely convinced we can work with this user on en at all unless we get some major promises of attitude adjustment. For admins, just look at the deleted versions of his userpage to get an idea. I'm reluctant to report this here at all due to the fact that the comments are certainly meant to illicit a m:Don't be a crybaby effect. Some help? And, BTW, please actually read the comments at the Talk:Religion page before commenting here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The account has barely been used since December, though the IP's are obviously and admittedly related. They're not obligated to log in, but if there's an issue with edit-warring then the options are to block the IP or to temporarily semi-protect the page. I'm not sure what else can be done beyond encouraging the user to utilize the talk page, which has already been done. Is there a particular action you think is appropriate at this point? MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ovi Online Magazine

Can someone look into

WP:COI issues here. Mangojuice^talk

18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious COI issue, take a look at Ovi ace's contributions. D.M.N. (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on Whois, ovimagazine.com is the original. It is older and is actually registered to one of the names in the about us section of the website. The other site, theovimagazine.com is two years younger and is registered to domainsbyproxy. IrishGuy ^talk 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Harassment and inflammatory disruption by JustaHulk (talk · contribs)

1. Warning given to
   WP:ANI by Jehochman (talk · contribs
   ).
2. Harassment on Wikinews
3. AFTER the warning notice by Jehochman, JustaHulk posts again - to talk page of Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). JustaHulk calls the subject heading: "Wikinews is a crack whore".
4. Twice calls me a "propagandist"
5. JustaHulk claims to Jehochman that he is done with his inflammatory actions, admits he reneged on Jehochman's warning
6. Justanother notes that his own comment to Thatcher was trolling
7. That then gets reverted by Thatcher
8. JustaHulk creates an attack page (That page was deleted by Jehochman (talk · contribs) with the comment: "Appears to be an attack page with no encyclopedic purpose." )
9. Again making disruptive comments at talk page of Jimbo Wales

Durova (talk · contribs) comments at talk page of Jimbo Wales: JustaHulk, twice now you've proposed that Cirt is a "paid propagandist". Do you have anything more than an edit count to support that very serious accusation?

More recently,

WP:NPA

.

1. "prolifict propagandist" inflammatory wording at userpage for Justanother
2. "prolifict propagandist" inflammatory wording at userpage for JustaHulk
3. He calls attention to his "announcement" at the talk page for Jimbo Wales

This user does not seem to be able to stop, even after comments from Administrators of both Wikipedia and Wikinews, and a recent warning from Jehochman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have posted this here, due to a comment by

WP:AE. Cirt (talk

) 21:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that this is also being discussed at
  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#JustaHulk (talk · contribs). -- ChrisO (talk
  ) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is where
    GRBerry (talk · contribs) commented, and it is due to that comment that I have posted this here. Cirt (talk
    ) 22:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:63.95.64.254

Take a look at this. Look's like a vandalism only account. I reccommend a permanent block. Doubt it will be granted but I thought I should report the user. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking for

WP:AIV, cheers, Tiptoety ^talk

01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism from 198.109.249.27

Suggesting an IP block for 198.109.249.27. The user has changed the names of the main characters in Retribution (novel) to some non-sense. As seen on "User talk:198.109.249.27", he's obviously just a bored vandal.

PS: Not sure if we have a bot for it, but you might want to reverse his past edits. Pages like Retribution (novel) simply aren't viewed often enough by people, who know the names of the characters, etc, to be cleansed from vandalism via the classic method. Thank you. ~~MaxGrin (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Once he's been sufficiently

WP:AIV —αlεx•mullεr

01:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry of Solumeiras?

For as long as he's been a member here, there has been a cloud of suspicion from some editors (myself especially) about Solumeiras (talk · contribs) and his connections to past users. A checkuser was brought back as unrelated, but this looks like it may have been because of stale data on the past accounts (see the now-courtesy blanked Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SunStar Net).

It's always been a suspicion that he's been related to TheM62Manchester (talk · contribs) for similar edit patterns and general focuses. Both display a love for templates. Both focus on articles that involve cars. Both focus on radio articles (see TheM62Manchester's deleted James Kerr (radio presenter) which is on a Q103 presenter and Solumeiras's Q103 edit as well as two non-notable radio presenters up for AFD Sheri Staplehurst and Lara Rorich‎).

But the edit that sent all my suspicions over the edge today is this: Solumeiras added a controversial tag to Talk:Girls Aloud with this edit. This is exactly what TheM62Manchester did here on the same article. In fact, TheM62Manchester had a very fond liking to adding controversial tags to non-controversial pages (see a large sum of his talk page edits). This edit is so minor and unnecessary in nature that it is extremely unlikely two unconnected editors would make the same edit. It seems that Solumeiras is taking on a similar interest in controversial templating with 3 added today ([85] [86] [87]).

And while researching this just now I discovered yet another remarkable discovery. Solumeiras has taken a strong liking to Police Camera Action! as a point of edits. Guess who else did. Here's the talk page archive with TheM62Manchester and Solumeiras both featured and here's the article history for hte last 500 edits. Note that in addition to Solumeiras and TheM62Manchester, you'll also find User:Sunholm who was connected to TheM62Manchester.

I believe that with all this evidence laid out, we definitely have a sock situation at hand. TheM62Manchester and Sunholm were part of a large good hand, bad hand accounts that even went as far as Willy on Wheels. With his edit nature, I wouldn't doubt the same situation is in place with Solumeiras where he is the good hand with other bad hands out there. Thoughts? Metros (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And I forgot to mention Solumeiras loves to edit the pages of banned/blocked users like Special:Undelete/User:Sunholm and Special:Undelete/User:TheM62Manchester. Metros (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My question: does it matter?

list of banned users. Is there any evidence that Solumeiras is using abusive sockpuppets currently? Is Solumeiras causing disruption to Wikipedia at this time? We're supposed to act proactively, not punitively. I don't care if Solumeiras was or was not a misbehaving user in the past. What matters is what he/she is doing now. The bottom line is, based on current activity, is this person a net benefit or detriment to Wikipedia? *** Crotalus ***

05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The belief is that Solumeiras, like the past carnations of this vandal, was using a good hand/bad hand system. Solumeiras would be the good hand in this situation. So while the Solumeiras account might not appear as a vandal, the person behind it is acting as a vandal. Metros (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And yes, there has been disruption through Solumeiras personally. He has been making nonsense edits like the controversial tags, creating inappropriate articles like the two "radio personalities/models", he has been requesting unprotection on pages that are not going to be unlocked (

Lindsey Lohan being two prime examples), and some other issues as well including this Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Solumeiras/VfD where Solumeiras was using his own AFD template which was creating deletion discussions at Votes for deletion instead of Articles for deletion for, what he deemed, "nostalgia". Metros (talk

) 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at this with CheckUser and I can confirm that Solumeiras (SunStar Net) is very likely the same as Sunholm/Sunfazer, who I gather is probably the same as TheM62Manchester (though I don't have records on that one).

t

05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

His requests for unprotections lately are interesting.--MONGO 09:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one of the unblock requests was for Wikipedia, which was vandalized three times within an hour of removal. He seemed to be looking for long-term protected articles and asking for them to be unprotected, simply because they had been protected for a long time. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe he's a sockpuppet of any of those users, nor is he being deliberately disruptive. Dmcdevit, I don't think he is likely to be the same as those users.

Crotalus, I agree with your point though. Anyway, leave the guy alone, people, do you want him to become another {{

talk · contribs

) was, ages ago.).

I'm only really a sporadic editor here, but I'm commenting anyway purely because I have a bias: I know the guy in real life. Also, Metros, you're violating

WP:AGF

- you're treating him in the same way as the Armenia-Azerbaijani editors in that Arbitration case.

Please leave him alone. --Windmill 000eh (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• One more thing... he's not a good hand/bad hand account, and is a separate user from them.

You might think I'm a

courtesy-blanked his user/user talk pages for him... nothing wrong with that. --Windmill 000eh (talk

) 10:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing:

Clean start under a new name

• If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. Note that the "right to vanish" does not cover this, and repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as improper.

The most common two concerns and their usual answers are:

• I'll be noticed: If you change your behavior, and also the articles you work on, there is no reason for a connection to be made. If you continue on the same articles or your writing style is so distinctive it will quickly be noticed, or you return to problematic editing, then it is likely a connection will be made whether or not you change account, and any perceived concealment will probably be seen more negatively when discovered.
• I'll be identified by checkuser or accused of being a sock puppet later: Checkuser is used for suspected breaches of policy. If you don't use the old account or engage in problematic conduct, there is little reason a request would be made, and a request without good reason is likely to be declined for lack of cause.

(That said, if future usage does draw attention by concerned users or administrators, then it is likely the connection will be made. See alternative account notification for how to reduce the likelihood of problems.)

--Windmill 000eh (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's funny how when we discussed the Sunholm/Sunfazer and TheM62Manchester accounts on this here noticeboard, the same thing happened. Socks/SPAs/friends etc came out of the woodwork to tell us that the user was a good editor. Come on, Solumeiras. This is too pathetic and transparent for words. Log into your account and come and talk to us properly. Sarah 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• But I am not Solumeiras, honestly. He'll probably be editing today, I don't know. But I'm a sporadic editor, not a SPA. --Windmill 000eh (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe you...once bitten and all that. for example: [88] Meybe you can staart tiping liek a unliteatable prson. Either you're Solumeiras or you're a meatpuppet here at his request. Either way, we've seen this dance before. As Matt said eighteen months ago here "I have blocked the IP that Sunholm (former Sunfazer, it is claimed) uses, since the promises from last time it was blocked that no more vandalism or sockpuppet creation from this IP would occur have been proven to be lies, and the old tricks are back.

I ask that no admin unblock this IP without talking to me. Vandalism and sockpuppetry from this IP has been going on for at least nine months; despite numerous blocks and promises to reform, the behaviour returns each time. The person/people behind this IP are playing us for fools; don't let them do so again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" If Solumeiras is Sunholm/Sunfazer and this crap has been going on for another eighteen months then enough said, I think. We've wasted enough time on this and that IP over the last couple of years. By the way, if you're going to be maintaining the claim that you aren't him you shouldn't be retiring him on his behalf. Sarah 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, this "friend" is on the same IP as Sunholm, TheM62Manchester, and Solumeiras.

t

11:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just got an email from User:Doctor Nigel Lewis. This user's been blocked since March 23, 2007 as a compromised account. Who was the person the person to tag this user's user page as a compromised account? Solumeiras. Now, suddenly after all this time, the user claims it's not compromised. If that doesn't prove that good hand/bad hand is going on, I don't know what does. Metros (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Metros, that person emailed me, too. Look at User talk:Sunholm, the person/people behind that account claimed to have compromised some old account by guessing the passwords. I really don't think we need to tolerate this rubbish. I would support a community ban of the people/person behind these accounts. Sarah 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This behaviour (good hand/bad hand, protestations of innocence, claims that the IP is now OK although yes it was a source of bad edits before ("it was my little brother", "it's a library", "It's a school", "my roommates did it but I've spoken to them", etc), unwarranted and keen interest in CUs and the process of CUing and other people who have been CUed, vandalism of admin pages after an admin takes action (often on other wikis), creating impersonator accounts, offers to be a CU/crat/admin/steward on one of their personal wikis, and a host of other things too long and bizarre to mention in detail here unless it's necessary) is not confined to en:wp... This user is a frequent topic of discussion on the CU mailing list and has been blocked on and off under various guises on many many wikis to the point that it's almost a running joke (as in "what has he come up with THIS time??"), so it strikes me that it's time to permanently block the IP, with account creation disabled, on en:wp at the very least. (I am aware this will probably get me some angry protestations of innocence in my mail, and possibly some vandalism of some of my pages somewhere). Note also that this IP and its accounts are poster children for bugzilla bug: 8707 Support global blocking ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What now? Block? Ban?

What is the best course of action from here? Something is clearly up and it seems indisputable that one user is responsible for all these accounts. Do we go ahead and block Solumeiras indefinitely for the disruption? Do we then ban whoever is behind all this (I'm assuming we're calling this "Sunholm" in terms of who it is, right? Obviously this can't keep happening and frustrating us all. Metros (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ban the person behind the accounts, block Solumeiras and any other still not blocked accounts and reblock the IP as Lar suggested. I'm not sure if the IP is still 82.42.145.158 or not. Sarah 14:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Solumeiras and his alternate accounts. What's funny is that each of his alternate accounts were tagged with {{

User Alternate Acc}} which was heavily edited by...Sunholm, Windmill 000eh, and Solumeiras. It doesn't get any better. Metros (talk

) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He's now started emailing unblock-en-l with the most utterly bogus stories claiming to be someone else unrelated who wants to claim the SunStarNet username but funnily enough they include the claim that the "SunStar Net" username originated from a university project which, of course, is what User:SunStar Net used to say. Ugh. He helpfully identified an IP that I've now blocked...it would be nice to have that confirmed but interestingly until today it had a notice on it saying it was Solumerias's IP, 'please don't block'. [89]. Sarah 01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Metros, do you know if the User_talk:Ashford1982 account has been CUd? If not, I'll follow that up as I think there's a good chance that's another sock. I've also received private evidence that 82.42.237.84 is the IP that has been used for mass disruption and vandalism across numerous wikis. Sarah 04:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I left Dmcdevit a message [90] asking about that. I also told Nwwaew to email that evidence to Dmcdevit. So we'll see what happens from here. Metros (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Message sent to Dmcdevit, with everything I've gotten so far. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry

I'm sorry to say, this user is doing more sockpuppetry. I need an admin to e-mail me, so I can release sensitive information I have on hand from another website. Additionally, I have evidence that may prove that Doctor Nigel Lewis is a sockpuppet. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tigereye1240

The user

WP:U. Compare contributions of this user (deleted) and Tigereye1240 (deleted) and the symmetry is almost uncanny... Could an admin please investigate and consider blocking the master account? Since there is only one child account which is already indef-blocked, this is probably an ANI case rather than SSP. haz (talk

) 22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. Presumably DJIRREMIXES was blocked for a Username? That isn't explained on the block explanation. And tigereye1240 is not blocked at all, so Haza-w's "sockpuppeteer" template on tigereye's User page was inappropriate. If DJIRREMIXES was blocked for username, that doesn't mean that he can't use another Username, it just means he shouldn't use one that violates the Username policy. Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The account DJIRREMIXES was created after Tigereye1240 was given a final warning for disruptive editing and recreation of deleted pages, both of which DJIRREMIXES proceeded to do. haz (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Over the last month,

WP:CABAL attempts to discourage, in its own light-hearted way. This made me wonder whether Wolfkeeper might be trying an experiment. So, assuming good faith, I asked him, as politely as I possibly could. My question was unanswered, and when I pressed the point, my contributions to his talk page were removed. Twice. The most recent diff is here

, which rather confirms my concern.

I've only been very mildly involved in the

WT:LEAD discussions myself, but I've been involved enough that I don't feel it appropriate to take action myself, so comments from uninvolved editors would be most welcome! Geometry guy

23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted your rather creepy edit to my talk page; and it confirms nothing whatsoever.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin who just took a look over there, I think a neutral admin or two should go take a look and maybe try to reign things in a bit. Wolfkeeper seems to be bordering on edit warring over the guideline and is claiming consensus for all of his edits, when the number of other editors arguing with him would seem to say otherwise. While normally content arguments would go elsewhere, as

talk

) 01:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone should give him a courtesy notice that he is being discussed here. I would but I'm a recent target of his accusations of caballing, for which I gave him an AGF and CIVILITY warning on the guideline talk page. I agree that this could be a problem in the making...but then again it might not blossom into a full-fledged problem. Wikidemo (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I've left him a courtesy notice.

talk

) 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice, I just spotted this, without being notified. I utterly resent the contention that I am edit warring, on the contrary the admins involved here are warring; they are simply reverting every single edit. There is a discrepancy between the Polices in

WP:NOT and this guideline, and whenever I point this out, the admins 'don't understand'. I'm sorry, but I'm not that smart, and they're not dumb. I have been unbelievably reasonable and civil, over a long period to an absolute fault. I cannot say the same about some of the people I am discussing this with. It's also bizarre that the admins editing the WP:LEAD claim not to be aware of the policies involved; I checked and the policies involved have almost complete consensus going back 6 years. My point about consensus is that policy consensus trumps guideline consensus every single time; particularly such old, old policy.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk

) 02:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The word 'define' where it applies to the subject of an article has been systematically removed from the guideline (except one place where they talk about uncommon terms, which is quite different), and yet policy talks very clearly about defining the subject, and diferentiating it from other subjects. etc. etc. (see

WP:NOT). Is it completely unreasonable for me to expect that a guideline should, at the very least, point out the applicable policy to the editors?? Because all my edits that make this or similar points have been systematically removed.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk

) 02:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If the

making a point, then he will not be the first person to do this, or the last. I'm assuming he is not, but the evidence suggests otherwise, and I, for one, would like to know. Geometry guy

08:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All the changes I have made have been in good faith, with no intent to disrupt, have not violated any of the rules or guidelines of the wikipedia, and are in accordance with consensus policy. None of my edits meet the definition of disruption as laid out in

WP:POINT, nor would I do so. I continue to find geometry guy creepy ("so sue"), but I absolutely do not believe there to be a conspiracy against me.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk

) 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

civility problems and copyright violations and exposed a person's real name

[91][92][93][94][95][96] EBDCM is a newbie but is making uncivil remarks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#copyright_violation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Safety_issues The safety issues section has a text dump of copyrighted information.[97]

I fixed the text to reference it properly. You could have done this for him, too, QG.

WP:AGF, okay. -- Dēmatt (chat)

04:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not okay.[98] That is a copy from the website. Please explain how is it okay. QuackGuru (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you telling me about

WP:AGF when I was attacked and spotted copyright violations? QuackGuru (talk

) 05:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look here.[99] EBDCM has put a link on the talk page claiming he knows who I am and by clicking on the link at the website exposes a real person's name.

Regards, --QuackGuru (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A brief look at the edit history of chiropractic and the talkpage will show I have also been the subject of abuse from EBDCM. I have pleaded with him and other editors have advised him to desist. He has not done so. Mccready (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes,

WP:Bite he wouldn't have to be so defensive. I've been trying to work with him because he seems to have some knowledge and good writing style. Give him a chance. -- Dēmatt (chat)

04:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Dematt:

User:EBDCM has a good writing style. Copyright violations and deleting well sourced information is not a good writing.[100] QuackGuru (talk

) 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have erred on the side of giving EBDCM some slack by virtue of being new and entering a war zone early in his/her Wikipedia career. His approach is far too combative, but there is a real learning curve - I was much more combative (believe it or not) when I started out. I have a lot of confidence in Dematt, so hopefully EBDCM can be directed toward the light side. The above sort of confrontational and combative behavior from EBDCM is inappropriate; let's note that, and give him a chance to improve. If there's no progress, then we can revisit the issue. MastCell ^Talk 04:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides, we all know who really is Stephen Barrett now, don't we :-) Shot info (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has dealt with copyright violations before, I would say they are a really serious issue and it is imperitive that editors understand this and don't introduce them. When they are noticed like they were in this case, they can be dealt with easily but when you only notice them several months or years later, it is very annoying having to delete large chunks of an article, which has often been worked on quite a bit, because it was a copyvio. If EBDCM doesn't understand copyvio issues, I suggest he/she get a polite but firm explaination ASAP. Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologize to Mccready and quack guru for my, at times, curt tone. I feel however, that I was being unfairly targeted by some posts and the copyright accusations against were IMO weak at best due because of a formatting technicality (I am still new). Nevertheless I have learned an important lesson and am adapting to the politics here at wikipedia. As always, my primary goal is to be a good contributor to the project and bring in a high referencing and writing standard. Please feel free to comment on my talk page if there's any additional questions or concerns. Good night.

talk

) 07:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Berman, videos or BLP?

Over at the Chris Berman page, there's been a lot of activity lately. Several videos of Berman in embarrasing situations have popped up on YouTube and other places, leading to someone (usually anon IP editors) adding them to a new section on "Controversy."

I thought'd I'd ask for clarification on this, since it seems to be up against the line for

WP:BLP

. On the one hand, Berman is in the videos saying some pretty embarrasing things. However, none of the references discuss where any of the "controversy" is coming from, they're only links to the videos, sometimes with detail on the various questionable things Berman does in each one. There's no references to secondary sources detailing any controversy.

I've tried to start a discussion on the talk page, but no one seems to want to talk things over before rushing to add the videos and descriptions. Is this appropriate, or a violation of

talk

) 06:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll hop by the talk page to offer some extended thoughts, but I imagine that one should be able to find references to secondary sources discussing the controversy; ESPN has, in fact, apparently, albeit in an e-mail, and one reproduced on a blog (a blog, though, that is prominent and, if not a reliable source for the underlying matters, a reliable source toward the prominence of the controversy), released a statement about the videos. Joe 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As hilarious as they are, we don't link to sites that violate others' copyrights (he took these photos as an ESPN employee - ESPN owns the copyrights) and Youtube isn't particularly verifiable. If mainstream (not blog) media is reporting on it, talk about it and link to the story, but I don't think we need to be linking to the youtube video. --B (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise,

WP:NPOV requires that any topic not be given undue weight in an article relevent to its importance to that topic in mainstream media. People do goofy shit all the time, and many of them get YouTube videos while doing it. I don't see ANYTHING here worth reporting AT ALL about these videos in the Chris Berman article. To put anything at all in the article would be providing undue weight to some silly vids with no real importance to the person or why he is notable in the first place. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

07:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I work in the business, and that kind of stuff is honestly commonplace. The only thing noteworthy about it is that it showed up on YouTube. Somebody cuts in front of my prompter, and I'd yell, too.

talk

) 07:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

When those YouTube videos become themselves prominent and the source of controversy reported/referenced non-trivially in prominent publications (certain blogish media are prominent publications, of course, especially where they are essentially reliable online news sources [e.g.,

BLPN. Joe

07:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though ESPN has been successful in asserting copyright and getting YouTube to remove the videos. I'm sure they're available elsewhere, but we should definitely not be linking to blatant copyright violations. — Satori Son 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand

Nothing to do here; image was copyrighted and redundant to another (see deletion log comment for image). In addition, uploader is a sockpuppet of banned user T» 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A user named Betacommand has been acting very rude to me. I uploaded an image: talk ) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC) That's because you don't realize you're wrong. You have to provide a vandalism. --Haemo (talk ) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) Betacommand isn't doing anything wrong. You inappropriate removing the notice from the image without adding a fair use rationale (which the warning clearly states) and you ignored multiple warnings that you were violating policies in doing so. Also you are not allowed to use non-free images on your user page, so if it is not going to be used in an article, it should be deleted, otherwise yes, it does violate policy. talk ) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Or alternatively, people could stop acting like unhelpful dicks round here? When someone says they can't add an image due to their account being new and the page being semi-protected, don't blindly quote policy. How about asking them what page the image should be on and adding it yourself? One Night In Hackney303 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I don't have a lot of patience for people who pretend to be new users so they can needle Betacommand about "biting" them and such. --Haemo (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. I was contributing valid content to your encyclopedia and was acting in good faith. The only person acting in bad faith is you. It doesn't need a rationale, anyway. All you two seem to care about are rationales. That's the most important thing in the world to you. Add it yourself since you know so much about policy instead of vandalizing the article and insulting me. See if you can contribute something useful to the site.-- talk ) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (EC)this is not a new user. this is a long time user coming back under a new account. they threaten me with βcommand 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Yeah, as no existing users ever complain about your civility or makes other complaints on ANI.... Let's not forget how many times you reverted to the orphaned tag before claiming it lacked a fair use rationale - one, two, three, four. Then 90 minutes later you claimed it lacked a fair use rationale. One Night In Hackney303 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC) sorry I only pointed out one of several errors with that image. it was flagged by BCBot as orphan so that is what I tagged as. once it was used in an article then it needs a rationale. you cannot have a rationale for a usage that isnt there. Once the image was used without a rationale I tagged it as such. either way I was correct. βcommand 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I've blocked User:Guywithdress for 24 hours for 3RR (actually 11RR) after several warnings to stop removing appropriate tags from Image:Cultofgreed.jpg. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC) My views on this are as follows: Endorse 3RR violation block of Guywithdress for repeatedly improperly removing the DI tag 11 times. In response to One Night In Hackney, edits considered to be vandalism - including the improper removal of CSD and DI tags - nullify the 3RR. And then, another question: If Sign ) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Holding bots to a lower standard than we hold human editors is a bad idea. This user isn't the only one complaining, and the bot isn't working as well or providing as necessary a service as its apologists pretend it is. User_talk:BetacommandBot has several discussions happening now about the bots shortcomings, none of which its creators seem all that interested in fixing. Torc2 (talk ) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I don't have a lot of patience for people who pretend to be new users so they can needle Betacommand about "biting" them and such. Well, maybe if he didn't WP:BITE people, he wouldn't get "needled" for it. —Random832 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Random832, nothing I did was BITEing. the user in question has made it clear that they are not a new user. All I did is tag an image for deletion, and revert obvious improper deletion tag removal. nowhere did the user ever have questions. all the user did was revert and threaten. βcommand 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot blocked

I've blocked BetacommandBot again: it's failing to follow redirects when trying to decide if an image has a valid rationale or not. See [101] for an example. --Carnildo (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

you know Carnildo you could have shown me a little respect and left me a talk page note about it. Please unblock and ill look into it.

β^_command

05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Has the bot stopped running? Are you going to fix the problem? --Carnildo (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He just said he'll look into it... I think it's reasonable to assume that means he's stopped it and is trying to fix it. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:21, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Im looking at what the API gave me as redirects to the article in question, and they are not the same information.

Image:Angyali udvozlet.jpg
Lenght:752
Rationale:False
Regex 1:(Angyali\sÜdvözlet|The\sAnnunciation\s\(film\))
Regex 2:(Angyali_Üdvözlet|The_Annunciation_\(film\))
Time:True

but

β^_command

05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll unblock as long as the bot doesn't do any image-rationale work until this bug and the μTorrent bug mentioned on your talkpage are fixed. --Carnildo (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Carnildo, there was no need to block the bot in the first place. Like I have stated several times to you. Leave me a talkpage notice and Ill stop the bot. I said im looking into this and will see if I can figure out if its fixable on my end. As for the μTorrent issue that is a seperate issue.

β^_command

15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Betacommand here. Why do we feel it neccessary to block this bot the moment someone has "an issue" with the bot? Woody (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Any bot should be immediately blocked if it makes serious mistakes (like here, tagging images for deletion that shouldn't be deleted), as restarting the bot is far easier than checking all of its edits. Kusma (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a quick easy way to make it stop. It's not remotely a big deal. Friday (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Friday, when people hold it against the bot in every argument, and a talkpage notice would do the same thing. and Ive asked Carnildo repeatedly to do it before blocking it, and he ignores my simple request. Leave a note and give me 5-10 minutes to kill the bot, instead of blocking. If I dont respond then feel free to block it.

β^_command

16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking bots that are malfunctioning is standard practice. Why should yours be treated differently? Natalie (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalie, when there are as many improper blocks on the bot as there is, people saying there "BCBot is malfunctioning", when they dont understand policy. and I have repeatedly asked this user to discuss it prior to blocking (you get about the same speed results) and the user repeatedly ignores my request I have a problem with that.

β^_command

17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear, however, to be making a general request of everyone: that they not block this bot without first telling you the issue. Since there's no instaneous way to know if a user is online, you're essentially asking any admin to contact you, hang around while they wait for you to answer, and then block if they haven't received an answer from you in some indeterminate period of time. Why is it such a problem to block, tell you the issue, and unblock once it's sorted out? Natalie (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

waiting 5-10 minutes is not that long. its a problem when the "follow redirects" is not the issue. and its been ~15 hours since the bot was blocked and its not been unblocked. this was sorted out over 12 hours ago and the bot is still blocked. admins are quick to block and very slow to unblock. its a pain in the ass to work with a block when a 30 second post to my talkpage would do the same thing. Ive repeatedly asked the admin to post to my talk page but he refuses a simple request.

β^_command

20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the bot, since you say it's been fixed. I have to say that I agree that blocking it isn't an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with problems (particularly if the block is set to indefinite, as it was in this case), but you haven't provided much of an alternative. Perhaps you could implement a shutdown feature that would allow admins to tell the bot to stop if it's causing problems? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Betacommand: I can see why this is frustrating, but in my experience at least it's pretty unusual to have to wait so many hours to have a bot unblocked. I would say that, in these cases, any admin could unblock a bot once the issue was fixed. The sticking point for me is that bots have one operator, but any admin can unblock. The chances of getting a hold of a specific bot operator are naturally much smaller than the chances of getting a hold of any admin, so the block-contact-unblock arrangement makes more sense than contact-wait-maybe block. Natalie (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I have repeatedly said when the bot is operational my normal response time to an issue is under 2 minutes. I have an IRC tool that pings me on certain things. editing my talk page or or the bots triggers a loud "Ping" from my computer. Natalie, its not contact-wait-maybe block, its contact, wait 10 minutes, if I have not responded block. is that too fucking much to ask? Ive asked countless times. when ever BCbot is blocked its always a pain in the ass to get someone to unblock. I have a great method for bring up issues but instead Carnildo has to be an ass and repeated ignore my simple request.

β^_command

22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to ping me to review a bot block next time. Any idea how the code ended up with a capitalized version of the redirect name? Gimmetrow 23:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Im still looking into the nightmare that is

β^_command

23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I solved this Unicode problem. if there are any others please bring them to my talkpage.

β^_command

01:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blocking a malfunctioning bot isn't a big deal--Carnildo acted correctly here and any administrator should feel free to block a bot that clearly isn't acting as intended. But we don't have to have a huge off-topic thread on this page every time a bot is blocked. Betacommand has a talk page and, if there are bot control matters that should be discussed, they can be dealt with in the appropriate forum. This noticeboard is, in principle at least, intended for incidents requiring the attention of an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blocking the bot is a fast effective way to stopping it, and unblocking the bot is fairly painless. My only grievence is not telling the owner of the bot and making a spectacle on AN/I about blocking it again. Next time Carnildo, I would advise just dropping a note on Betacommands' talk page, letting him fix the bot, and then unblocking it later. There was no reason to making the drama more serious than the problem by posting the note here. —

†

22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand

Nothing to do here; image was copyrighted and redundant to another (see deletion log comment for image). In addition, uploader is a sockpuppet of banned user T» 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A user named Betacommand has been acting very rude to me. I uploaded an image: talk ) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC) That's because you don't realize you're wrong. You have to provide a vandalism. --Haemo (talk ) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) Betacommand isn't doing anything wrong. You inappropriate removing the notice from the image without adding a fair use rationale (which the warning clearly states) and you ignored multiple warnings that you were violating policies in doing so. Also you are not allowed to use non-free images on your user page, so if it is not going to be used in an article, it should be deleted, otherwise yes, it does violate policy. talk ) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Or alternatively, people could stop acting like unhelpful dicks round here? When someone says they can't add an image due to their account being new and the page being semi-protected, don't blindly quote policy. How about asking them what page the image should be on and adding it yourself? One Night In Hackney303 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I don't have a lot of patience for people who pretend to be new users so they can needle Betacommand about "biting" them and such. --Haemo (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. I was contributing valid content to your encyclopedia and was acting in good faith. The only person acting in bad faith is you. It doesn't need a rationale, anyway. All you two seem to care about are rationales. That's the most important thing in the world to you. Add it yourself since you know so much about policy instead of vandalizing the article and insulting me. See if you can contribute something useful to the site.-- talk ) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (EC)this is not a new user. this is a long time user coming back under a new account. they threaten me with βcommand 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Yeah, as no existing users ever complain about your civility or makes other complaints on ANI.... Let's not forget how many times you reverted to the orphaned tag before claiming it lacked a fair use rationale - one, two, three, four. Then 90 minutes later you claimed it lacked a fair use rationale. One Night In Hackney303 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC) sorry I only pointed out one of several errors with that image. it was flagged by BCBot as orphan so that is what I tagged as. once it was used in an article then it needs a rationale. you cannot have a rationale for a usage that isnt there. Once the image was used without a rationale I tagged it as such. either way I was correct. βcommand 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I've blocked User:Guywithdress for 24 hours for 3RR (actually 11RR) after several warnings to stop removing appropriate tags from Image:Cultofgreed.jpg. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC) My views on this are as follows: Endorse 3RR violation block of Guywithdress for repeatedly improperly removing the DI tag 11 times. In response to One Night In Hackney, edits considered to be vandalism - including the improper removal of CSD and DI tags - nullify the 3RR. And then, another question: If Sign ) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Holding bots to a lower standard than we hold human editors is a bad idea. This user isn't the only one complaining, and the bot isn't working as well or providing as necessary a service as its apologists pretend it is. User_talk:BetacommandBot has several discussions happening now about the bots shortcomings, none of which its creators seem all that interested in fixing. Torc2 (talk ) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I don't have a lot of patience for people who pretend to be new users so they can needle Betacommand about "biting" them and such. Well, maybe if he didn't WP:BITE people, he wouldn't get "needled" for it. —Random832 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Random832, nothing I did was BITEing. the user in question has made it clear that they are not a new user. All I did is tag an image for deletion, and revert obvious improper deletion tag removal. nowhere did the user ever have questions. all the user did was revert and threaten. βcommand 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)