Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive450

you can see the opening ceremony here - I'm hoping for an ethnic soup of a dance with a light show and Jimbo being lowered on a wire..... we'll see! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing the purpose of this video? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's live streaming from Wikimania... there's also a feed available here which works better for me - courtesy of the 'Wikipedia Weekly' team.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think this is the purpose of ANI. Regards, —

Discuss

07:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - what I meant to say was that there's an Incident occuring in Egypt right now! live! There are board members talking about administrators, and about all sorts of wiki related stuff, and I think some eyes and ears on the situation would probably help.... you can see what's hapenning here :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard; the community portal, or at the very least AN, would be a more apt place for this. —Kurykh 07:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ban privatemusings from ever posting to ANI again? Please, relax people. He was simply giving us some information. No need to get all nuts about it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The User:Baron1984 account was recreated approximately 10 hours ago. In that time the account has preformed a large number of POV pushing edits and/or edits with misleading/uncivil edit summaries.

In the two ~2 hours, the account has started to add unsolicited templates to User_talk: pages, which maybe misleading/confusing for those receiving them. In the last ~1hour, the account has started to be involved with what are turning into edit wars. The level of talk responses that this account has already attracted is quite large for the time period that the account has existed. Special:Contributions/Baron1984.

Could somebody with some outside expertise dive in and review the edits, summaries and User_talk:Baron1984 comments; possibly allowing a cooling off period and checking that the account is not a sockpuppet/continuation of an earlier account. —Sladen (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wafulz has terminated his membership. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

I'm an admin on FA:WP.

We usually base our policies on EN:WP. So I thought I'd ask you guys, instead of Meta.

Are there any EN:WP policies regarding users that exhibit pro-Nazi edits? Or users with pro-Nazi user names?

I have a user on FA:WP that has awarded other users a barnstar (actually a Nazi medal insignia) with a swastika on it.

How would you guys deal with such occurences? Are there any laws anywhere that addres such issues? Thanks.--زرشک (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we're pretty much laissez-faire with people who hold such opinions, as long as they are kept civil and neutral in the article space. For example, we have an admin, El C, who has a self-admitted left-wing slant, but at the same time, he keeps civil and doesn't let his feelings influence his article contributions. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, that is not correct. Usernames which may cause problems can (and have been) blocked, and barnstars with inflammatory imagery have been deleted. Horologium (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Our username policy (Wikipedia:Username policy) specifically prohibits "Offensive usernames (that) make harmonious editing difficult or impossible.", and I would term some of the more pro-nazi usernames as meeting that criteria. As for userboxes and barnstars, I think an argument used previously in deleting such things was that it "did nothing to contribute to the building of the encyclopedia", which is true as far as it goes. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No barnstar "contributes to the building of the encyclopedia." Beam 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, yes they do if they contribute to the morale and act like a carrot to improve editing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't read the thing about usernames, sorry: yes, they can be blocked. But as far as opinions, as long as they don't interfere with building an encyclopedia, they're okay. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparing pro nazi with left wing is comparing apples and oranges by a few orders of magnitude. A user who made pro nazi edits and awarded another user a barnstar with a swastika would get an indefinite block from me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the preceding sums it up rather well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the barnstar issue, I found this in the recent archives:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive152#Offensive Barnstar. It was nuked. Horologium (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, barns stars are generally seen as one of the ways that the community interacts with each other - and it's generally accepted that all communities need some "glue" and this is one such manifestation. While the article space needs to be NPOV, the reality is that userspace is not for a lot of fairly complex reasons. The community gives people a lot of freedom in their userspace *but* it has it's limits and part of that relates to disruption. Leaving aside, the contempt most of us having for Nazi ideals, the presence of a barnstar using a swastika as a sing of affirmation and "reward" would be disruptive and would be nuked from space as soon as it was used here for that very reason. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately if I were to block this user for awarding another user a Swastika barnstar, many folks would demand to know on what policy is my decision to block the user based on. Are there any policies to base this on, or is it merely the perogative of the admin? Again, any thoughts are appreciated.--زرشک (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That racial divisive barnstars are disruptive and do nothing to promote the core goal of building an encyclopaedia. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no specific policy at en.wp, but there might be at some of the other languages. While it's not hard-and-fast, many of the language sites (German, Polish, Norwegian, and so forth) are dominated by members from a single country, and that country's laws may influence policy. It's not at all far-fetched to imagine that the German Wikipedia would have policies specifically banning such activity, as German law is quite strict on that issue. Perhaps you can find a bilingual (English/German or Farsi/German) user who can find that out for you. (Sorry, I speak about two dozen words in German; I won't be able to help.) Horologium (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the intersection of Category:User de and Category:User fa seems to be empty. :-( You might like to look at just the members of Category:User de, I guess you at least have English in common with them (if they're editing on en-wp, stands to reason they speak the language). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

← Look, I'm just one admin, but I would readily block someone making "pro-Nazi" edits and awarding Nazi medallions as barnstars, and not think twice about it, wikilawyering notwithstanding. The day we need to cite chapter and verse of policy to block someone who's come here to promote Nazism is the day this project officially becomes unworthy of volunteer effort. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

People making pro-Nazi comments, or anti-Semitic comments, or denying the Holocaust, or having an obviously Nazi-sympathetic barnstar or other indication are routinely indefinitely blocked. There isn't a policy about this, per se. Its just standard practice, similar to how the ArbCom routinely blocks or supports the indefinite blocking of pedophilia activists or self-professed pedophiles. Its important to respect varying points of view, even those that are in some ways objectionable, but certain positions are anathema to a collaborative environment.

18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, editors self-identifying as Nazis and making edits promoting fascism, etc., are blocked as a matter of practice rather than explicit policy. I guess that's because such editors are also typically disruptive in some way or another, and are blocked for inserting racist slurs into articles rather than for identifying as Nazis as such. That's probably why we've never needed a policy to that effect. There is consensus, though, that divisive and inflammatory extremist behaviour in general is not allowed, as reflected in e.g.

WP:CSD#T1.  Sandstein 

21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We may have an issue here with differing standards by different communities. Without attempting to characterize any editor on any particular wiki, I would imagine that most of the users on the Farsi Wikipedia are Iranian. The current Iranian government has actively promoted some of the more odious elements of Nazism's views towards Judaism, and that may be aggravating the situation. I understand Zereshk's frustration in attempting to identify a policy under which such antics can be grounds for dropping the banhammer; I don't think one exists here. It isn't tolerated at all here, through community consensus rather than formal policy. Do we have anyone who is active on he.wp? I suspect that they have a formal policy on the topic. Horologium (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What happens when reports filed at

nor the person assigned, but I'm not seeing the value.

Very brief and sporadic vandalism (no AGF here, the contribs which I've reported are falsifying dates and other information). It's like a splinter under your fingernail. I'd like to get it taken care of, but

17:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a range block work here? It's a sufficiently narrow range.-Wafulz (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would request a range-block, but I'd be concerned about diffs like [1] [2] which are valid (good faith) edits from an IP in the same range, so I'd suspect it's a different person at that point (or perhaps another person in the same household, I'm getting the feeling that this might be a very young child. no real evidence, but just a hunch).

Yngvarr (t) (c)

18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see if and when the ISP has been contacted, and what the replies have been if any. If there hasn't been any replies yet, it might be a good idea to mail them with a last warning, along the lines of "if you are unable to take action, we are forced to block the range. In the block message you can tell them to bug their ISP, but in more suble wording. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The worker on the case marked about half of my earlier IP reports as done, so I'm going to take it that there was some sort of ISP contact. Should I nudge the worker on the case? I'd hate to be pushy and all that, but the last action posted by the worker was a little short of two months ago.

Yngvarr (t) (c)

19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd that there would have been contact about part of the IP's. The whole point of these kind of things is that we contact the ISP, to help with things we can't do. In this example, find out who was at the adress, if it was the same person, and take action against that person. The ISP would need all the adresses for that. A friendly nudge to ask how he is doing on the report, and if there has been any email contact yet could just do the trick. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

) 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him until he has a chance to confirm his identity to OTRS.

talk

) 04:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you did a right thing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be prudent to unblock per the user's request for Wikipedia:Changing username? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, because he's also asserting on his user page that he's the ballplayer. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[5] I don't see the claim anymore. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I removed it.

talk

) 06:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, is it really wise to block someone who may actually be the person in question? It might be tenuous, but perhaps discussion would have resolved this. Or

WP:RFC/N Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 07:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, either he is the person in question, in which case I don't expect that he'd mind being asked to prove it, since it's for his protection (and I did ask quite politely) or he isn't, in which case he shouldn't be unblocked under any user name. I haven't dealt with the unblock request because it should be dealt with by an uninvolved admin, but I don't see a lot of reason to unblock.

talk

) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Silly question, but what is the threshold for blocking a user who claims to be a famous person unless they verify?

T

) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast threshold. I would put it as simply, "enough name recognition." —Kurykh 07:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Do they have an article?" is the most sensible way (why create another set of criteria when we have one?), although this presupposes our notability criteria are effective and at the right level.

☄

09:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it is likely that User:Josh Hamilton is an imposter. He supported the RfA of User:Finalnight[6] few minutes after creating his account. Why would Mr. Hamilton, a baseball player, be interested in the RfA of Finalnight? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He also "proved" his identity by providing me with an official sounding e-mail address...for a domain that was registered yesterday. I'd say we can mark this resolved.

talk

) 02:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a fine line between assuming good faith reasonably, and being silly about it. In a related story, I am actually Babe Ruth. You only thought he was dead. Trust me! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Our old Korean-Japanese hotspot article Liancourt Rocks is flaring up again, after being quiet for about half a year. The suddenness of the disruption (multiple disruptive throwaway accounts making either lame revert edits on the article or disruptive POV rants on talk, from both nationalities) leads me to believe there's again a coordinated campaign off-wiki. Please help watch. I've been blocking anything on sight that looks like part of the campaign, going as far as immediate indef-blocks with no warnings after a single edit. Given the intensity and stubbornness of disruption we've seen on this article, I stand by this rather extraordinary measure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There's been some sort of recent news stuff about it [7] - I expect that has something to do with it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Condoms, will people ever learn? Beam 12:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia has historicaly been viewed as a battleground for this issue yes. Can't find anything in english but there are korean and perhaps japanese blogs floating around that meantion the article that suggests there may be some online campaining specific to the article.Geni 15:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah here we are a group called VANK are probably involved. Sigh can't we just use the island for nuclear testing and have done with it?Geni 16:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And this would appear to be the appeal.Geni 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear testing would probably leave some bits and pieces above the water. We need something that would cut the islands off well below sea level. --Carnildo (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We could try air-dropping a copy of a few WR-related ANI threads on the islets, perhaps? That should finish them off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Only if we could send a few of our most "famous" vandals there prior to the air-dropping.

talk

) 21:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Help Desk is catching it in the earhole; personally I don't want to touch the entry in case I get people shouting at me, but maybe somebody should have a word with the angry mastodon? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this disruptive title moving vandalism by a new editor can't be done by none but Japanese. I believe

Korean Strait and all are all in this same vein. --Caspian blue (talk

) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is sudden disruptive activity from both sides, that's for certain. Anyway, thanks to Geni for finding that Korean link. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone ever notice the astonishing similarity between the map of the East and West Islets to Jonathan Swift's drawing of Lilliput and Blefuscu? Antandrus (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jokes aside, it needs to be said that

11:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think FPaS gets half the thanks he deserves for being the one who takes on quelling so many of these nationalist flashpoint disputes. Thanks FPaS.

☄

11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks :-) (/me bows deeply.) But please help watching the area too, it takes at least two or three dedicated admins to do such a thing successfully. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have

☄

12:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, is Spartaz really not coming back? He was doing a good job to the article too....-Caspian blue (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Some spammer is adding this external link www.ccnacertificationguide.com/ccna-practice-exam-questions.php FREE CCNA Practice Exam Questions] to

I reverted these edits and gave a general warning not to add them again each time. At the third instance , I gave a Final warning at - 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the fourth attempt today -- Tinu Cherian - 14:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's a problem, I suggest you file a spam report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, instructions there. The URL to be blacklisted is likely to be ccnacertificationguide.com. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Or you go over to

WP:RFPP and request semi-protection of the indicated page. --PaterMcFly (talk

) 14:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna spam-blacklist the url locally, since other IPs seem to be contributing on the article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. When I reported this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, I got a message that it is already backlisted. Is there anything I should do ? -- Tinu Cherian - 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be fine, we'll keep an eye open, but if they are persistent they may change domain to go around the blacklisting. If that happens, just poke

WT:WPSPAM again. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Dirk Beetstra, another attempt by a registered username was reverted. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to, as a community, decide how we are going to handle the situation of a page in user space that, while not quite an attack page, exists for airing grievances or making a point about specific editors. I know it is theoretically prohibited under

point #9, but it doesn't seem to always work out that way.

There are at least four borderline cases I am looking at right now. In each case, other editors raised objections to the material in question,

was pointed out, but the editor with the user page feels the page is allowed and refuses to budge. In a couple cases I have sought admin enforcement, but there does not appear to be a consensus among the admins on how to deal with this.

So now I am forced to tell people, "Well, I think it's against policy, but I can't get anyone to enforce it, so... uh... maybe we can beg him to compromise?" Not fun.

The following links all contain content to which at least one user has objected, which I feel runs afoul of

, and which the creating editor refuses to remove:

• User:GHcool/Views (previously on User:GHcool, initially ad action was taken but it is now floundering)
• User:Abd/Allemandtando (ongoing MfD, but do we really need an MfD for this sort of thing?)
• User talk:Posturewriter#The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics
• User talk:Romaioi#Summary of Events Concerning False Sock Puppetry Accusations against User: Romaioi

(Even though the last two are in User talk space, the user has made it clear they wish it to remain a permanent fixture of their talk page and do not wish for other users to reply in the same section) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GHcool may still be on vacation, so maybe we should continue to wait on that one. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, let GHCool have his little propaganda page. His command on "references" makes him a "good" editor, so I don't see him going away any time soon. Not that I'd even want him too! Beam 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

my case should not be discussed here as is now the subject of a suspected sock puppet case and that case should take primacy. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The page,

talk

) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You left out User:Nishidani. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

@Beam: I never suggested for a second that GHcool be sanctioned, I just question whether it is appropriate that the "Views" page calls out specific editors -- more than one of whom has complained about it.

@Jayjg: I just took a look at Nishidani's user page for the first time, and while it's a bit

WP:SOAPy

, I don't see where it calls out specific editors, which is my main concern with the four pages I brought up here. Not that I'm saying it's perfectly fine, I just think it's potentially a different problem.

@Everybody: Well, the lack of response is telling me that the community is not interested in enforcing

WP:UP#NOT if we're not going to enforce it, though... --Jaysweet (talk

) 13:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Chillum

13:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, sorry... I noticed that about the same time you did, and I went through all of the places in this section where UT was mentioned and replaced it with UP -- and accidentally changed your comment too because I didn't notice you'd added it. Sorry!

I had looked at the relevant section via the shortcut shortly before posting this, and somehow I figured it wasn't UP for User Page, but UT for User Talk. My bad. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh I have context. Now, if the page serves no other purpose than to attack another user then

Chillum

13:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There was an MfD on GHcool's user page quite some time ago that resulted in no consensus. An ongoing MfD on Abd's page got stalled because of other circumstances, but it wasn't look very good either. MfDing the other two would be awkward at best, because it is a single section of the User Talk page that is the problem. I could try that, but I'll bet you a hundred WikiBucks that it doesn't result in any action. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If the community does not decide the content should be deleted then that is the way it goes. I don't understand the bet you offer, if the MfD didn't turn out how you wanted just go to DRV. Some policy is enforced by the opinion of one person, ie CSD, other policies are enforced by consensus such as

Chillum

14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not one of those four pages has any purpose in building a better encyclopedia. It shouldn't have to go to MFD, and the wikilawyering by some to get their rubbish kept is tedious, to say the least. I also have no idea why Jayjg thought it was a good idea to creat

☄

14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, yes and no. There is no need to re-establish community consensus for every policy enforcement. Or perhaps we should start a new !voting process called

WP:UP#NOT

does not seem to reflect the ambiguity. People come to me and say, "Hey, 'perceived flaws' aren't allowed on user pages, but this guy lists perceived flaws," and I say, "Yeah, he does, but all I can really do is ask him nicely to remove it." And surprise, most people say no.

Note that none of this involves me personally. I'm just growing increasingly frustrated because I'm not sure what to tell people to do in these situations. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Neil, the community has repeatedly rejected the idea of deleting pages due to

Chillum

14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try MfD, but when inevitably someone asks me, "Why is a user talk page at MfD?!", I will say, "Chillum made me do it!" (Or perhaps, I could create a page User:Jaysweet/Chillum made me do it.... It's not speedyable as long as I have at least one section on the page used for something productive, right? Hmmm... ;p ) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't say "Chillum made me do it!". Say "Policy requires that deletion based on this sort of policy violation should be based on consensus". Come now, lets get to the heart of the matter, it is not me, it is the way we have done things for a rather long time now. Ideally the closing admin would take into account the fact that a person's argument demonstrates a lack of understanding of policy.

Chillum

15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I am not literally going to say "Chillum made me do it"  ;) However, I am also not going to say "Policy requires..." because my interpretation of policy and past community consensus is different here. First of all, I did not think XfD was the proper venue for removal of a section of any page. Secondly, I have seen content that violates other parts of

WP:UP#NOT

removed on sight.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'm not convinced that you're right either. So, what I would likely say in that case is neither "Chillum made me do it" nor "Policy dicates...", but rather, "It was suggested to me based on [permalink this ANI thread] that MfD was the proper recourse for violations of

WP:UP#NOT

." Fair 'nuff?

In any case, I am giving Posturewriter and Romaioi some advance notice that I plan to do the MfD, in case that makes either one of them change their mind and decide to remove the content in question on their own. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you can point me to a specific policy that says "Inappropriate content on a User page or User talk page should only ever be removed by consensus via the MfD process," I'll apologize profusely and then shut my mouth. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I see also

WP:UP#NOT points 7 & 8. Ceedjee (talk

) 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've known some user subpages to be deleted unilateraly as not useful, not with any XfD. (Not saying that should happen here, just saying. I think it might be a bit rude actually to delete stuff in someone's userspace except in exceptional attack-pagey circumstances.) Sticky Parkin 01:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone seems to have replaced the page with some vandalism I can't find. It's been replaced with a Celtic cross and the message "This is Zodiac speaking. I have recently bean informed about your litle website. You canot ex cape me.". Any idea how to fix it (or how to find this person)? --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A vandal hit one of the templates used in that article. --Golbez (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. But which one? Most of them are protected already. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's been fixed. It was {{who}}, and User:BettyLouJensen did it. Thanks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The same thing is happening at User:Nousernamesleft/desk/qin. Which template is it? Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is something wrong with the page. This is not ordinary vandalism. Need urgent admin attention.—

00:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem (not to say it is not there). Can you describe it? -00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Page hasn't been edited in two days.

masterka

00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Template. WJBscribe fixed it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Look like it is fixed.—

t

00:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As of member of the

03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't require admin intervention. Try engaging the user on their talk page. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 03:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish to bring to attention to the admins, the AfD for the article

) 04:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the commenter in the AFD noted that the information that was included in

The Nobs was already present in the target article, at Led Zeppelin European Tour 1970, which appears to have been the case. Another editor has added to it, from the looks of the history there, which is fine, but it would appear the basic information was already included. Nothing was lost by the merge/redirect. I probably would have left the AFD to run longer rather than closing it so quickly, to be honest, and I'll mention that to TPH, but beyond that I'm not sure there's admin attention required here. Tony Fox (arf!)

04:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That was done so by Anger22 only after I mentioned this to him a few hours ago, not TPH. Had I not left a comment on Anger22's page I seriously doubt that information would have been added. MegX (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I still feel the deletion/modification of the original article is unfortunate - AND it should also be noted that significant information regarding the origin of "The Nobs" name was removed. I'm certainly not an everyday contributor to Wikipedia, but when I do contribute, I attempt to provide insightful and interesting information for the public at large. For those who participate more frequently (and are professional in this endeavor), it's easy to recognize the frustration involved when your work is mutilated. For those who tried to assist in salvaging the original article, I sincerely appreciate it. Yobbo14 (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it permitted to make false statements about other users on RFA?

If yes, please ignore this. Yechiel (Shalom) 05:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My, what a fatuous appeal for help. You already replied at the RfA, which is the place to do so. However, this little stunt earned you another oppose.nevermind, you already failed, got RfA and RfAr confused. I'll be opposing at your next one, then. ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, I would suggest that you be a little more civil in you comments. Comments such as "However, this little stunt earned you another oppose.", "...you already failed", and "I'll be opposing at your next one, then." don't help the situation at all. nat.utoronto 05:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)`

Hey, i'm being honest. A guy upset about problems at an Arb report comes here instead of handling it there, as he's supposed to, and that Arb is in part about his RfAdmin? It's reasonable to say that someone who seeks to forum shop and circumvent procedure shouldn't be an admin. it's really simple like that, and hardly incivil to say it. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you talk to the editors in question? —Kurykh 05:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of this. Daniel (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling off the dogs on this one. I blanked the RFC. Yechiel (Shalom) 06:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, ThuranX, I didn't think during the RFA to check for all the false statements made about me. The whole RFA was done in 12 hours. I have a right to be upset about it, and the community has a right not to care. Yechiel (Shalom) 06:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. Those comments are really beyond the pale, and I think a 24 to 48 hour block wouldn't be out of the question. Jtrainor (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User RFC

Having created an RFC about himself, is it in order for the OP to unilaterally withdraw and blank it? Mayalld (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs doesn't specifically address self-RFCs, but (N.B. I'm not an admin) I would say it's OK if there was no ongoing discussion, the participants don't object, he's taken on board any comments made, etc etc; business as usual really, except that the nominator and subject are the same person. :-) If users want it to remain open then the closure can be reversed, but I think it's OK to give some latitude to any user who's shown enough maturity to open an RFC on themselves in the first place! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's codified anywhere but simply; if someone else has created an RFC on you, you cannot withdraw it as it's someone else asking for third party input on you. If you create one on yourself to get feedback for your own purposes, then yes, you can withdraw it. Usually it should just be closed and archived - unless it is uncertified, or has some other good reason to be deleted or blanked (such as you wanting to

vanish). Ncmvocalist (talk

) 15:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He's vanishing now anyway (see

WP:AN

) so it's a moot point.

Very sad. That RFC/U was about the most ill-advised thing I've seen by an intelligent good faith editor in awhile. Ah well, such is life I suppose... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm terrible at finding this stuff, so could somebody fix

) 05:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also

talk

) 05:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything. Have you purged the cache?

t-c

) 05:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Have I whatted the what? Let me go through Firefox help and see if I can figure out what you're talking about. What I'm seeing is that Zodiac Killer nonsense.

talk

) 05:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The cache purge dealt with the issue at Monte Cassino, but not Tuvalu.

talk

) 05:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so confused... where specifically is the vandalism? nat.utoronto 05:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to indef full protect all the pages in Category:Subtemplates of Template Rnd, one of them was the target, they are technical templates called by a lot of other templates to perform basic formatting functions, I've done some but need to get some sleep. MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Would cascade-protecting

Template:Rnd work? I don't know exactly how cascade-protection works, but I'm pretty sure that that would be an easy, on-click solution. J.delanoy^gabs_adds

05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, while you're at it, you may want to look at Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert. I'd imagine those are used quite a bit as well. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)they were on Template:World_War_II and Template:Rnd/b. Both are reverted and protected now. I think I'll look around and see if I can find any more heavily used unprotected templates... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Commonwealth realms was also vandalized with the same thing. —Kurykh 05:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A

t-c

) 05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, Calvin, I haven't understood a word you've said this entire thread. You seem to know what you're talking about, though, so I'll bow out and leave this to the more technically proficient among you.

talk

) 05:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

t-c

) 05:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

t-c

) 05:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

All that MBisanz hadn't yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Calvin (and this is probably the only technical thing I know that you don't), if an edit would cause more than 500 changes to the software (expanding templates, re-coloring links, etc), it is tossed in the job queue. The queue may take several days to fully process, as is seen with re-categorization edits. Usually a whitespace edit to a page with a vandalized template will fix it. Also, this is why it is important to find and revert the vandalized template as quickly as possible, since the longer timeperiod between the vandal edit and the revert, the longer each article will be vandalized, as the job queue progresses. MBisanz ^talk 06:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He's back again, see Special:Contributions/217.15.121.102. Hut 8.5 18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I blocked 200.44.156.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) & protected the targets. — Scientizzle 23:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Full protection, however, is counterproductive and interferes with the development of many templates. And in this case, simply knee-jerking reactionism. It only results in cutting off those who maintain and develop those templates for no gain what-so-ever. Semi-protection would be a much better alternative. --Farix (Talk) 12:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to bother you, but it seems to me that in protecting his own edit, seicer may have been contravening general Wikipedia practice. Can you advise me on what to do? Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that posting here was the right thing to do, since, 31 minutes after protecting the article, seicer has now reverted to the previous version. Hopefully, this sort of thing won't happen again in future. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I gather that your complaint about the article is that it doesn't say enough about illegality and costs, and you've got a point. You should write up a prospective paragraph on the subject and post it on the talk page, if you have not already done so. I think it belongs in the "safety" section, because most of the folks doing this are probably kids who think they're immortal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• [ec] The only text involved is a POV tag. The POV warrior appears, on the face of it, to be you; I'm with Bugs here, you need to provide sourced text not simply assert that the article is POV because it doesn't adequately reflect your POV, however right you may be. You seem to be extremely agitated on the talk page, to the point of suggesting some kind of conflict of interest, which I'm sure is not what you intend. I suggest you calm down. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I gather that the complaint about the article is that it doesn't say enough about illegality (trespassing) and costs (rescue efforts, etc.), and he's got a point. He should write up a prospective paragraph on the subject and post it on the talk page, if he has not already done so. I think it belongs in the "safety" section, because most of the folks doing this are probably kids who think they're immortal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

EC'd on a clarification above. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My impression from looking at the contribs, etc., is that Seicer's reversion had more to do with you contacting him on his talk page to express your concerns... which I note you didn't do until after you raised the ANI/I report. I'm glad everything worked out, but in the future you may find that merely contacting the person you have a grievance with will solve more problems than an AN/I report. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I unprotected it before Papa contacted me, and I was not made aware of this thread on ANI. I stepped out into a meeting and just now came back to see a comment (not about this thread, though) on my talk page. I'd be more than happy to discuss this, but POV-warring is not the way to go about it. I've left it protected for one week; if there have been no more substantial comments, I'm removing the tag. seicer | talk | contribs 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The page was last edited on the 15th of July and has this bizarre message from "The Zodiac" in various characters (from that movie with that Jake Gyllenhall guy? The message appears in code, nonetheless.), and the page has been inverted in colour as to make it unreadable.

This shows up on IE6. Not sure about other browsers. The source didn't seem to show anything, so I dont know how it was inserted.

If I did this wrong, I apologize. This is the first time I've posted anything at all to Wikipedia.

Prometheus-BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus-bc (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Linky: Soviet Union. I'll have a look. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything unusual; unless it was some cryllic characters that didn't render properly, everything looks OK. Where in the article did you see the odd text? I'm thinking it might have been a template that was vandalized, and the location would help narrow it down. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

vandalized template was Template:Redirect6. IP blocked as an open proxy. Thatcher 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I know where this guy hails from; I'm

WP:DENY and to defend the person who gave me this info (if it came out he gave me this info, he'd be desysopped himself. All I will say is that he is not a Wikipedia editor). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!}

) 21:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Fog

Can someone check the edit history of the article on

) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Was just template vandalism on

Template:Refimprovesect; User:(:Julien:) beat me to fixing it, bah! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖

16:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to spread the word about what template vandalism is so that people can more easily identify and reverse it; I've noticed that the users reporting it frequently seem to not know what's happening. Maybe one or more of

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly, Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly, Wikipedia:Wikizine, or Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost would be interested in reporting on it? I'm afraid I don't normally interact with any of those, so I'm not sure. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖

16:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about

WP:BEANS, but if there's consensus that a signpost article would be of value, I can write one, if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the recent wave of fools doing template vandalism means that the cat is out of the bag, so BEANS isn't a major concern. I'm not an janitor myself though, so please contradict me if you think otherwise! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor do I have the mop, but I am opposed to publicizing it until we have a better way of fighting it. Right now, going through the list of all of the non-protected transcluded templates on a page to find the one with the vandalism is a real pain in the butt, and most users are not going to do it.

If there were a button that said, "View Recent Changes to pages transcluded on this page", then I would support publicizing it, because we can get widespread community help in fighting it. But until it's that easy, I think you'll end up recruiting more bandits than you will deputies.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point... That sounds like something that could be cooked up on the toolserver, doesn't it? Is there a specific page where we can put forward suggestions for new toolserver tools, or just the technical Village Pump? I'd try it myself, but I'm a bit busy at the minute and haven't even used the toolserver before. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Can AWB do: "View Recent Changes to pages transcluded on this page"? (I think not, but I thought I'd ask.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Under general profile of illegal immigrants the first of the sentence of the child rapists. Other than not abiding by wiki's policy at neutrality it makes no sense can an editor please fix it and "illegal alien" is not appropriate just as "undocumented immigrant" is not appropriate. Change it back to illegal immigrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The proper way to make this request is by creating a section on the talk page and putting the template {{editprotect}} at the top of the section. In this case, I think you definitely have a point, so I would go ahead and make the editprotect request. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Jaysweet. Alternatively, you can go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection which might get a quicker response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Gregg has been protected and a section documenting an important and relevant event has, in my view, been improperly deleted. Could a few admins please review and undo the deletion? Thanks. cannona (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not wise, considering that the removal was nothing more than correcting a

BLP issue, and is the subject of OTRS #2008071410044846. The article was also being heavily socked, so I am endorsing the protection and removal of the BLP issue. seicer | talk | contribs

17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that the sources noted are the Pirate Bay itself (not an independent source in relation to a dispute with the Pirate Bay) and the subject's blog (ibid), I concur with the removal. Have you taken an opportunity to discuss the matter with Phil? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty easy fix - find the reliable sources as requested, otherwise, between BLP and a high-level OTRS issue, you're completely out of luck. Shell ^babelfish 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have only a passing interest in this, and you folks have much more experience with such things than I, so I respect the above opinions. However, I am curious. What issues are in question? The PirateBay obviously posted her emails, because they are on their site and that link has been provided. Indiana Gregg has mentioned this fact on her blog, so it is clear that the emails were from her. Several blogs have posted about this issue, though no mainstream media sources have, most likely due to the relative obscurity of the artist. Finally, it is difficult to see how the section in question could be read as inflamitory or libel. What am I missing? Again, this is not so much about the article as it is about my trying to understand the reasoning.

Thanks. cannona (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much truth; it's quite likely that the information was accurate. However, it's about a living person (Ms. Gregg), and thus must be backed by independent, reliable sources. Given that there is an OTRS ticket on this matter, I'd say that goes double. If there ends up being mainstream media coverage, or even not-quite-mainstream coverage (a news website, or some such, for example), then I'd say you're fine. Failing that, though, we almost always go with the safer option, which is the removal of the material. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you for explaining. cannona (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note this result. My questions for this board are as follows: 1) When the results of a checkuser are likely, should the account be blocked? And 2) what should we do about the various pointed AfD nominations that the checkuser confirmed likely indef block evading account nominated as I also asked

17:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not totally sure about the rest, but typically (or at least as far as I've encountered) if an AfD runs its course, even if the nom was made in bad-faith or by a banned user, the community is considered to have "spoken" on the subject and the outcome stands. Shell ^babelfish 18:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussions in question were hardly unanimous and thus, if the block evading account played a significant role in influencing the discussions, I think we should be concerned about that per precedent. --Happy editing! Sincerely,

Tally-ho!

18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Absent some sort of clear and obvious fix, I think that

WP:DRV is the place to go with these concerns. -Chunky Rice (talk

) 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to do multiple AfDs in one DRV or should each case be dealt with individually? As indicated above, I've contacted that closing admins and hope that they will agree to overturn or relist in some manner, but there is still the larger issue of whether or not a "likely" result means a block for the account in question as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely,

Tally-ho!

18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Allie was doing good work, so let the AfDs run their course. "Likely" socks are not always socks, as was the case for instance with User:Coldmachine, who was later exonerated completely. Why does Abd care? I appreciate Allie's work 100% and if he is a blocked user (which he denies) I think he should be unblocked, as he was removing stuff from the wiki which I consider to have been of unprofessional/poor quality. Sticky Parkin 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Why not just take this to DRV? I would be pretty beefed if the outcome were voided on the basis of a "likely" return from a RFCU, given that the community did decide on these issues. Also, accusations of

WP:POINT, Single purpose and sock aren't to be thrown around lightly. The phrase "confirmed likely" should jump out as a contradiction immediately. If and when he is banned or blocked, we can make statements like "sock". even then I'll contest accusations that nominations were made to prove a point or that they were somehow against policies and guidelines. Protonk (talk

) 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AfDs, if started, and if there has been comment in them, should generally not be closed on the basis that a block evader started them. If there is no comment, they could be closed, reverted out, as can any content provided by a blocked user. -- or likewise if those who have commented consent. I'd say, though, that if an AfD has been filed, and there is no delete vote, but one or more keep votes, the AfD could be closed. If there is a Delete vote, I'd ask that voter if they want the AfD to stand, in which case they become, in effect, the nominator. As to closed AfD, unless the sock closed them, the remedy is DRV, that is very clear, and allegations that evidence had been distorted or improperly influenced (such as by tendentious debate by the sock in the AfD) would be considered there. Yes, it is possible, I'd argue, that if there is a single cause, there could be a single DRV for a series of AFDs, but I'd ask on the AfD talk page, with a specific example, so that people aren't just commenting in a vacuum.

Now, as to the user. Sticky Parkin elsewhere commented showing that he did not realize that checkuser came back likely' for Allemandtando being the blocked user Fredrick day. If he does not already know, I'd advise a little research into the history of that user, he was highly disruptive and, yes, he was an ardent and uncivil deletionist, and, yes, a fair number of people apparently didn't like that he was blocked. But he was blocked for harassment (the offense that he and now Sticky Parkin have either accused or implied has been mine) Why do I care? Because Fredrick day had essentially harassed and driven off the project one of the better writers we have had, has attempted much more than that, and because uncivil deletion is truly poisonous to the Wikipedia community. This is not about deletionism vs inclusionism, but deletion has a problem that inclusion does not have to such a degree: people get really angry when content they have spent days putting together is deleted in seconds. They may not know about Wikipedia sourcing policy and notability policy, and, if their content is going to be deleted, it should be done with scrupulous civility, not with contempt and incivility. It should be done with a sense of building community, not of excluding "fans" and "POV-pushers." It's crucial, it's important, and I hope that answers the question about why I care. Allemandtando has now been IDd as Fredrick day, which makes him eligible for immediate block. He's "retired," but I suspect that was an attempt to avoid checkuser, which could risk other assets of his. He's claimed to have other accounts, but they would probably only show up in checkuser if he slipped, which he occasionally does. Allemandtando should be blocked to seal this particular case. If people want to bring him back, there is process for that. Find an admin willing to unblock and take the heat, because, indeed, it would come out all that this user has done. He has not yet been banned, though, I'd say, it's probably about time.

Some will claim that the ID isn't certain. That's correct. Given the behavioral evidence, I put the odds against this not being Fredrick day at about a million to one, or, more accurately, not him or, say, a very close friend who thinks like him, writes like him, and shares the same ISP, living close to him. It doesn't make any difference. If, somehow, some injustice is done by blocking, it can be undone. This is not a clueless user who is going to go away in a huff if blocked. He knows the ropes. Remember, he was obviously -- and acknowledged being -- a "returning user," highly sophisticated on day one of registration. I can say this: if I did what he's done, I'd expect to be blocked, period. I think he expected to be blocked a month ago, when sock puppetry was first suspected -- not by me! -- when he also "retired," probably to avoid checkuser, just as Fredrick day pleaded "guilty" in his SSP case, probably to avoid checkuser.

Of course I know it has come back "likely", I have commented about it on one of the SSP pages. This is not conclusive and also it doesn't matter, to me his work is good, I hope he stays or comes back and deletes more stuff from the wiki that doesn't belong here IMHO. It's not

WP:POINT to put up for AfD something you think is unencyclopedic or not helpful to the standards of the wiki. He said he was a returned user who's last account has a clean block log but he'd changed it due to security issues, which does not imply any wrongdoing. Sticky Parkin 23:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC) P.S- I have commented about Allie's edit summaries in the first ANI about him and said I thought they were uncivil. But that's only worth a short block at the very most. Sticky Parkin

23:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I must say, it's tiresome to keep seeing this defense against a charge that isn't being made. Nobody has claimed that wrongdoing was implied by being a returned user. However, it raises normal suspicion, when an experienced user pops up like that, and especially when the editor refuses to cooperate with private confirmation -- as then-called Killerofcruft did -- that the user is indeed a blocked returning user, and a quite high percentage of such, in my experience, turn out to be so. In the original AN/I report, where there was a lot of call for blocking him, I stated that I thought the evidence insufficient. But I hadn't noticed his registration timing, it was a piece of evidence (certainly not conclusive by itself) that he was following a Fredrick day pattern. Had I seen that at the time, I *might* have suggested checkuser then. And maybe not, it was still fairly thin. But over the next month, I had many opportunities to see this user's behavior, and it was the same incivility, the same contempt for fans and ordinary editors who don't understand sourcing requirements. And he was disruptive. In the early days of the account, he edit warred with two different administrators over AfDs, see my account of the AN/I report filed by one of the admins, User:Abd/MKR incident. (The first time was with User:Shereth over the AfD that he had apparently registered in order to vote in.) He was aggressive with regard to any effort to examine his behavior, and I finally RFCU'd him because he was demanding it and I realized that certain evidence might be expiring. What, does Sticky Parkin think it was just a lucky guess? Sure, "likely" isn't the same as "Confirmed," but it is still very unlikely to happen by accident. Fredrick day, unless he slipped up, would be unlikely to be Confirmed. Did we know, before the checkuser report, that Allemandtando was using the same ISP as Fredrick day, using the same IP range? (That is the most likely meaning of "likely.") I estimate the coincidence of IP at somewhere around 1 in 10,000 false positive. I'd put the behavioral evidence at 1 in 100 false positive, though certainly there is room for argument there. Thus my estimate of one chance in a million that Allemandtando isn't Fredrick day. Yet some editors, who think that he did "good work" -- I'm sure he did, there was some going on today, I'm pretty sure -- are clinging to ... what?

Today, if I read the records right, he was changing dates like July 16 to 16 July, in biographies. See my comment on it in

talk

) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This AN/I does not provide precedent to overturn deletion results where one user was previously banned. That was an AfD where multiple new SPA's were generated (on an offsite forum linked in the debate) and consensus was clearly imperiled. What we have here is one user who may or may not be a new account of a previously banned user. No where near the same thing. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's cause for an overturn exactly, but good reason to use discretion for a relist to have an debate without the prejudice from the nomination.DGG (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 02:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 15:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

William Howard Taft

This page seems to be badly vandalized, in a way that I can't revert, but curiously the vandalized version is only visible when I am not logged in. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. There've been no major changes in the article recently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Catch up, Will - we have a vandal who's been hitting templates. --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In this instance 80.248.10.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); logged out users see cached material much more than signed in. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks pretty vandalized to me; I think 194.171.56.13 is right--it's only visible to people who aren't logged in. 69.26.216.147 (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not specifically to do with being logged out, it's just that pages that transclude the vandalised template are cached for logged-out users (logged-in users don't see cached pages). To clear the cache for this particular article one goes to the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Howard_Taft&action=purge I think we need a mechanism whereby an admin, when clearing vandalism from a widely transcluded template, can tell something automated (ideally server side) to invalidate the caches for all the pages that include that template. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Purging the template doesn't do that? --Random832 (contribs) 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not related to the incident, but the "Administration and cabinet" table in that article looks really ugly! – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes. There was some strange stuff in there. Feel free to make more... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good - some day I will understand Wikitable formatting. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Top of the shop

Please could folks look at the first section on this page, where Abtract is continuing to contest my indef block of him - I wouldn't want recent excitement to mean he misses a chance of review. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In light of possible IP socking and numerous statements in the past that alluded to cooperating with others and reforming, I am not inclined to support at this time. If the IP socks do prove that it is not Abtract, then sanctions against the editor may be more viable (i.e. topic ban, etc.). seicer | talk | contribs 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an open WP:SSP report, as those effected are not inclined to wait on the backlog while Abtract remains indef'd. Would your review be any different without the consideration of the ip's involvement? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say how highly unfortunate and objectionable it is that an IP editor giving his genuine, good faith view—one similar to that given by many who are familiar with the RFC filed in relation to this user—is accused as a sock, with that accusation used to muddy the waters and support an indef block against another editor? I am at a loss to know what evidence besides my being an IP editor is being used here, and I deplore both the echo chamber effect whereby that accusation (first voiced by Collectonion, the original complainant) is perpetuated, and the implication that I should stay out of project space while continuing to contribute to building the encyclopedia, merely because I do not wish to register. I'm also deeply disappointed by LessHeard's endorsement of a conversation about me on Collectonion's page. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Without crossing

WP:BEANS, I'll just say I still approve of the block, especially with the current circumstances. Dayewalker (talk

) 05:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditional unionist unblock review request

(posting on behalf of User:Traditional unionist, who is currently temporarily blocked. He just wants the greater admin community to take another look at this. I am not involved and have no particular opinion either way - Alison ^❤ 20:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC))'

In early May I expanded the

Remembrance Day Bombing article on my userspace

and added this to the article on May 27th. A couple of weeks later Domer tagged the reference to Taylor's documentary as failed verification. On July 14th I requested an outside view on the article, which

User:Malleus Fatuorumvery kindly agreed to do. I reviewed the article myself, noticed the tags, and removed them. Domer reverted this "per talk"

, and I reverted his edit as the citations were valid. Domer then left it alone.

The next day BigDunc became involved. He cited

WP:WEASEL in removing the disputed text referenced to Taylor. Not being in possession of the documentary at that time, I found a partial reference and re added the information. Dunc reverted partially claiming that the source said it shook the IRA to it's core, and not that the event was a calamity. In fact the reverse is true (PDF)

. I still haven't verified the "shook the IRA to its core" quote. I probably will be able to, but I don't feel this is overly important to the issue at hand.

On July 16th, simultaneous to the dispute, Dunc posted on the article talk page: "I've been watching the documentary and I can't see how the previous sentence was properly sourced. Please provide exact quotes that support the wording, and a rough time they appear in the show please." I contend that the first part of this is untrue. I have since discovered that the documentary is available here. In the 53rd minute, Peter Taylor clearly states that the massacre was "an unparalleled calamity for the IRA". If Dunc had watched it as he claims, he couldn't possibly have missed that.

My reinsertion of referenced information that he removed here prompted him to report me for 3RR at 19:41, 14 mins after the 4rth revert as he claims. This was 23 hours after the first "revert", an edit removing unjustified tags added by Domer three weeks previously. The second revert was again to remove the unjustified tags. The third was 22 hours later to replace information removed citing an irrelevant policy, with a readily verifiable source, this time by BigDunc. Yet Dunc was clearly aware of the two edits the previous day. Since my block, Domer has removed a cited and attributed description, citing synthesis.

This is clearly evidence of tag team editing.1 2 3 edits by Domer. Then he disappears. But look who is around the corner to help out! It's Dunc! 1 2 3 edits by Dunc. One reaches the limit, the other wades in to help out and technically stay within the rules. I have complained about this sort of behaviour by these two in the past, pointed this out to the blocking admin, who ignored me.

I have raised concerns in the past about Dunc's COI issues. His inclination to take a source that verifies one of two statements, and pick not only the wrong one to believe is verified, but one that takes the unfavourable statement about the IRA away, is deeply worrying. It is also worrying that I was blocked on the basis of clear tag team editing with the intention of having me blocked, and despite requests that they do so, admins did not see that this had happened. Domer gets to three edits, then Dunc wades in. Does this strike anyone as odd?

I submit this with four questions:

1. Exactly how disruptive was my editing, particularly in light of the behaviour of Dunc and Domer?
2. How justified was my block?
3. Does the community feel that Dunc and Domer's behaviour is acceptable?
4. Why do these issues continue to occur after the Troubles arb com?

I have been blocked from editing my own userpage, as one admin feels this report can wait. I don't so I have emailed this to an Admin, who I thank in advance for posting it.

Traditional unionist

(Posted by - Alison ^❤ 20:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi TU, IMO, I believe that (1) your edit was disruptive (2) you block was justified. However, Dunc and Domer's actions were clearly unacceptable. IMO, if anything, the actions that should have been taken were: (1) fully protect the article (2) or block all participants of this edit war as all parties are at fault. nat.utoronto 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I cant see the point of this thread except a disgruntled edit warrior not happy with another block for edit warring (6 in total). All I can see is an editor refusing to see that edit wars are disruptive period. Also his tired old mantra of ‘tag teams’, come on, an article that happens to come under

WP:IR of which we are both members and I’m sure is on both of mine and Domer48 watchlist, so we both edit it wow what a coincidence. And where’s the assumption of good faith, this seems to be a concept alien to this editor. And as regard COI, I have declared that I HAVE NO COI on any article I edit. This can not be said for TU as he has a confirmed COI. And as to the reason for his block he reverted 4 times against policy that is the long and short of it. If two editors think that your edit is wrong perhaps it is time for some reflection that maybe you might be wrong instead of just edit warring. TU also seems to be admitting to synthesis on the article he says ‘In the 53rd minute, Peter Taylor clearly states that the massacre was "an unparalleled calamity for the IRA’ but the article said because of the extreme and provocative nature of the attack, and an "unparalleled calamity" that shook the IRA "to its core", and I am concerned he is synthesising at least two points from the show together to present a point not really present in the narrative. This is a content dispute, and TU does not attempt to use dispute resolution and rarely discusses his edits, he just keeps edit warring no matter what changes I make BigDunc^Talk

21:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The block is fine. That's a solid four reverts and the content dispute is not so clear-cut that we can afford to waive 3RR. He's been indisciplined in his editing, so he can hardly have any complaints when proper discipline is reinforced.

I agree with one thing he says, though. Troubles articles do need better enforcement. If his opponents are persistent tag-teamers this does need to be looked at. Bad-faith editors who refuse to be honest, or rational, or engage in dispute resolution need to get their kickbans ASAP. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)As there were two edits each for two different situations, two for tags that TU felt inappropriate, and two for taking care of a sources question, I don't see 3RR in the conventional sense of making over 3 reverts to keep a single part of an article in 'your' position. Further, it looks like TU did the legwork for substantiating the sources, as seen above in his summary. I think he should be immediately unblocked. I do, however, note that in the RfArb for The Troubles, as linked above, the same 'others back him up' problem was attributed to TU, and given the tendentious and combative nature of the topic and articles, I think it's just as likely that Domer and Dunc are just supporting each other to push their POV, much as TU's side does the same. However, Given that his 4 spurported reverts were in different sections for different purposes, he needs to be unblocked, otherwise no article can be improved rapidly, because any editors making progressive (forward moving) edits with sourced support could be hampered by those who feel that they're on the 'opposite side'. (after EC:agree with Moreschi, the articles need tight reins.) ThuranX (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the need for enforcement of arbcom remedies. My perception is that BigDunc and Domer48, the other two editors in question here, might as well be joined at the hip whenever an edit war gets going. Per

Wikipedia:Probation

by any uninvolved administrator". Probation all round? I don't see any mitigating circumstances. All involved should know better.

As an aside, Domer48 is currently banned from editing the

Great Irish famine article. If this ban merely serves to move the locus of disruption elsewhere, I would favour making it indefinite and extending it in scope. I would not, however, favour a general topic ban for any of the three editors involved here. Angus McLellan (Talk)

22:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just want to point out that Domer complained and complained, and Angus McLellan did nothing, so it's curious that he's so keen for quick action here based on a complaint about a content dispute. His actions here tell a story "An apology was not a condition for an unblock", when what you said was "You're blocked for 31 hours, or until you apologise unreservedly". Shouldn't mentors set an example, especially when it comes to telling the truth? BigDunc^Talk 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The block is good; TU is being disruptive and has managed to push people far enough to protect his talk page. Why is this request here? Its pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Define 'good', in light of Two reverts each on two very different topics? Or is it your position that only Pro-Your Side editors can make more than three edits to an article in 24 hours? I see two editors provoking, intentional or not, a third into getting into a spot where they an agitate for a 3RR, when in fact the tactics they used were dealt with once, they switch to a second, which is again dealt with, so 3RR. This is rewarding unethical behavior by Domer and Dunc. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding tags for material of disputed sources is unethical? Removing synthesis is unethical? TU refuses to discuss, he just edit wars then complains until his talk page is protected when he's blocked for edit warring. He's welcome to discuss his edits at any time, or use dispute resolution if he feels that the discussion isn't working. But he refuses to do that, then blames others for the consequences of his own poor behaviour. BigDunc^Talk 22:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree with TU on much (and 'tag-teaming' is not unique to Domer/Dunc) - but this block seems dubious to me. What is a "kickban"? Sarah777 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if you look at the timeline of events you will see that TU claims it is sourced then admits that he hasn't got them handy so what does he do, almost instantly, remove tags, and couldn't produce the quotes. He then say "Not being in possession of the documentary at that time". so how did he know it was sourced so quickly? Also I want to emphasise that "properly sourced" means "free from synthesis", something he's been pulled on before on that exact article. BigDunc^Talk 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks more to me like you're standing in the way of any progress by continually obstructing an editor with whom you have some basic, OFF WIKI political problem. This isn't the place to continue the terroristic bullshit both sides have spent the last 90 years engaged in. Act proper or log off and don't come back. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a complete and utter load of bullshit you have just said above and in your edit summary, why because myself and TU are Irish we are terrorists and cant blow each other up anymore so we argue here. I dont speak for TU but i'm sure he abhors the violence that this country suffered just as much as I do. I find these comments a personal attack and a breach of civility rules on wiki. BigDunc^Talk 22:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's the same arguments and conflict, you've just moved to a less destructive venue. And as Angus McClellan notes, you two do seem to be jumping around to avoid the topic ban backing each other up. I'm tired of POV warriors from all over the world bringing it here. None of them has the sense a mule's born with, and twice the stubbornness. You two guys get probation on Irish topics in one aspect, so you jump to others. LAME. Unblock TU, and like AM above, I favor expanding the ban. ThuranX (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Get your facts right would you before you say something. I have never been blocked on wikipedia and I have never had a topic ban so why would I jump around? Can the editor you are defending say the same 6 blocks for edit warring. BigDunc^Talk 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a pattern from TU that can be seen here it's a content dispute, the claims of disruption are frivolous, TU just claims any edit he doesn't like is "disruptive" and again nothing was done and it leads to this thread. BigDunc^Talk 23:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing but a content dispute. I've made some comments here about the sourcing and other issues, perhaps if TU tried working with other editors rather than just disagreeing for the sake of it, things would run more smoothly. You only have to look at his talk page to see how he doesn't see anything wrong with edit warring, and how hostile he is with the blocking admin. 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 00:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, please take another look at

WP:3RR

.

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Any three reverts and the circuit breaker is tripped. This rule is meant to be a means to and end, the end being preventing edit warring. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So you approve of gaming it, like they tag teamed to do. Duly noted. Now I know how to hang any page on Wikipedia, and push POV. Simply get one other wikipedian to share their 3 reverts with me, while I play a good game of 'bullshit' with my opposition, establishing goalposts, then ,when that's been reached, setting new ones, over and over till my opposition is 3RR'ed to the benches, lather, rinse, repeat. They gamed him, and rewarding them is sickening. ThuranX (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thuran: I think you need to ratchet it down a few notches. This isn't helping resolve the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

very strange behavior with one article

There's something very wrong with the Alabama's 2nd congressional district article. There's a message from someone claiming to be the zodiac killer defacing the article, even when I try to edit it. I've uploaded an screenshot of what is happening to flickr here [not sure what else to do]. Any ideas anyone? cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism, now fixed. Algebraist 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's all fixed. May be a while before the fix shows up for you.

t-c

) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, which templates were being vandalised? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We spotted it on {{

Steve Crossin (contact)

21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also hit {{Party shading/Republican}}, {{Iso2country}}, {{Dynamic list}}, {{Bibleverse}} and {{WPFCevent}}. Algebraist 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

All of them have been fixed and protected, let us know if you spot any more.

Steve Crossin (contact)

22:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask Jeske, above he indicates that he knows exactly who the vandal is, and refusees to identify him. ThuranX (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know his true identity; all I know is secondhand, but I'm pretty certain that I know where he comes from. However, I do not want my source to be attacked, thus I'm not going to divulge what I know unless sent an email, and I'm not sure what help the info will be. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 04:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who is behind but I have seen this from:

• RGaikowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 80.248.10.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 58.137.115.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 200.43.67.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The first 3 have been blocked and the last got off with a warning so far. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• All template vandal IP addresses should be checked for open proxies. Thatcher 03:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So far, most are proving to be open : see

t-c

) 03:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bible

Resolved

 – Template vandal blocked, template fixed

Anyone care to have a look at the Bible article, just had a look and it looks hacked, I'll try and revert/investigate, but if someone else can get to it before me that would be appreciated. ^Khukri 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Same thing that I was talking about above? Zodiac killer message? cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Already fixed. Algebraist 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK cheers, what was the transclusion, first time I've seen that, and didn't think to look above. ^Khukri 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalized template was {{

t-c

) 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Been away from Wikipedia for almost 2 years.

Resolved

 – No administrator attention required here. seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I used to be a editor back in '06 but right after i started I got sent to prison. I've just been released after serving 20 months for a violation of felony probation (aggravated assault). What do you think I should read up on to fill me in on what i've missed? Has wikipedia changed a lot?

talk

) 23:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the

WP:N-notability- has toughened up too. Sticky Parkin

23:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. I already have been harrassed by

talk

) 00:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit of advice: try to keep yourself from crossing swords with Chrisjnelson. He has had a "past" here at Wikipedia, and it'd be best to stay away from him. When he gets involved in a "situation" it usually turns into a full-blown war. Believe me, I speak with experience. Ksy92003 (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't they give prisoners internet access? There are more than 2 million people behind bars in the US. Just think about how many wikipedia articles they could write per day  :) Count Iblis (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Prisoners in Florida get some internet access if they are on good behavior and classified as low-risk. I was in what they call "close custody" for most of my sentence. What little library time I had I spent reading in the prison law library.

talk

) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything here that requires administrator attention? Welcome back, but if you're just looking for general assistance, you may want to try the

a/c

) 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah come to speak of it that Chris J. Nelson dude was rude to me.

talk

) 02:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Yeah, BLP, as Sticky says above. In addition, issues have grown around POV-pushing in nationalist, scientific and political areas, and indeed around reactions to the perception of such. Concerns about outside "attack sites" have largely abated or at least become more nuanced among the project space community as a whole. And there is an RFC open on the Arbcom.

Try to be more peaceful in future, eh? 86.44.28.16 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "more peaceful?"

talk

) 02:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't land yourself into trouble, and watch out for people who try to bait you. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dually agreed. And I am going to go ahead and mark this as resolved because this doesn't require administrator attention. Best of wishes to you ADam on being able to edit Wikipedia again, though. seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the aggravated assault : D 86.44.28.16 (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

About the changes since 2006, I think that the science articles have improved a lot. Although many articles from many different categories have made it to Featured Article Status, the science articles are considered to be so reliable by scientists that they use them as reference, see e.g. here

it is one thing to think maybe a recursion equation would be useful here, it's another thing to actually remember the damn equation. I'm generally not a good equation-rememberer, and I wasn't lugging any reference books with me. (I was in a bar, remember?) But I was lugging my laptop with me, and there was wireless internet. So naturally I looked up the equation on Wikipedia, and there it was! I checked it against some more conventionally reliable resource once I got home, but the Wikipedia page was perfectly accurate. (Nobody finds it worthwhile to vandalize pages on special mathematical functions.)

Count Iblis (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A repeatedly banned troll has just gotten your attention. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons Dvds page

A lot of IP's are adding in release dates for Region 1 and three times I had to remove them because there is no confirmed source (Which I had been checking personally), I would request either a partial protection or just someone that could watch the page every now and then. -71.193.181.210 (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kylu (talk

) 06:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and recently there was 1 more incident since I posted this message and on a related note User: 220.240.67.161 who was involved has a done nothing but vandalism edits and a warning would need to be sent. -71.193.181.210 (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

KingActor, now reincarnated as WriterMJ

In some ways I admire his tenacity, but this user is proving problematic creating hoax articles in a somewhat delusionary vanity spree. He's vandalised past final warning now and a report to

WP:AIV

would be one way forward, but I think this is slightly more complicated - I'd be hard-pressed to "keep [the explanation] short" as requested, and in any case he has today reinveted himself as WriterMJ.

Before I became aware of his activities he created Zack Miller, Zack miller and Zak Miller at least 9 times in total. More recently he also created Talk:Zak Miller as an article page because Zak Miller itself is SALTed - and this showed a birthdate the same as he gives on his own page so it is near certain these articles were supposed to be autobiographical. Unfortunately the claims stretched credulity somewhat.

He created

WP:BLP

. WriterMJ has just recreated this.

He also created The Insane Miller Brothers - another aparrent hoax about a forthcoming tv series starring Zak Miller and also claiming the involvement of Miley Cyrus and Victoria Justice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Insane Miller Brothers)) plus The JJVM Boys (speedily deleted) and Internet Show (a term coined in The JJVM Boys). He created KingActor past a level 4 warning.

KingActor always talks about Zak Miller in the third person but they are clearly one and the same (showing the identical birthdates appears to have been a bit of a gaffe). He is going to a huge amount of effort to suggest The Insane Miller Brothers is real, even creating a website for it (which, sadly, protests that it is not a hoax rather too much) but in reality The Insane Miller Brothers are just camcorder pranksters (link to YouTube video showing said prank now unavailable).

Generally out of character, there's a couple of examples of more straightforward vandalism (on his own user page) here and here.

Clearly he's determined and his enthusiasm might get him somewhere, but filling WP with misinformation isn't the right way to go about it. Now that he's reinvented himself as WriterMJ and a report of KingActor to AIV is pointless, can an admin deal with that as they see fit?

talk

) 08:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a CU could check whether there is a single stable ip address behind the various accounts, and if there is perform a block with account creation disabled. Once the active accounts are blocked then there would be no way this individual can create more accounts. There are obvious limitations to such an action, but I won't spell them out in case our friend is reading. Try a request at

WP:RCU. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 09:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the accounts be indefblocked? Neither one of them is, yet, and they've never done anything but vandalize. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Insane Miller Brothers was a BLP violation and I deleted it and closed the AfD. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• No need to bother with check user. KingActor created Image:098.JPG and used it on WriterMJ's page. That is good enough for me. There is no point in blocking - the kid will just create another account. Putting him on watch lists is the most we can do. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for the responses, all. It looks like the block on KingActor has caused a block on WriterMJ too. If that block is removed I will continue to watch.
  talk
  ) 16:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikipedia by suggesting unsourced change of article titles

There is apparently a game

properly cited, in this case requiring confirmation by the original author. Should Historiography be renamed into Historiography by Wikipedia consensus

?

In any case, I would like to have the three editors in question reminded that despite their positions and awards they do not have the right to disrupt production of articles because they don't like the names of operations given by the Soviet General Staff.

PS. A reminder for

comms

) ♠♥♦♣ 09:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Three of the four editors who have commented on the name of this battle oppose the use of the name '

talk

) 12:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Please goto

some form of dispute resolution. There is no admin action warranted, marking as resolved. Beam

13:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR

check-list applicability

• Editor assistance - none required
• Ask for a third opinion - none required, asked the author
• Ask about the subject - none required since the subject is the subject of the discussion
• Ask about a policy - none required since naming proposed is fictitious
• Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard - it would be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (see below)
• For incivility - only in perception of one editor
• Request a comment - none required because the existing title is well referenced
• Informal mediation - non required because there is no dispute given all agree that was the original name
• Formal mediation - as above
• Conduct a survey - none required because this is the only name used, excepting book titles

Well, its not actually a content dispute, but a procedural disruption.

Content dispute was resolved when I moved the name of the article to the correct name, something Nick failed to mention.

What Nick also failed to mention is that current name was the PRIMARY SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION prior to the move, and that the name of the operation can not be decided by consensus as it is the one and only name of the operation. 'Operation August Storm' previously used was not an "unsuitable title", but a title derived from a title of a book, and reused by several authors in ignorance of the real name of the operation on assumption that the original author in English used the correct name.

I am not the only person arguing in favour of the current name because it is the only name available to choose from, being the exact translation into English from Russian. I should not have to argue to use the correct name of an event in a reference work!!

One can not "oppose" the name given to an event, such as for example the Boston Tea Party, because that was the name given to it during its occurrence.

I was opposed in this moving strenuously by Buckshot06, to the point when he contacted the author of the original title himself because he would not believe me after I had contacted the author to confirm that I was correct in my initial proposal to retitle based on 25 years of unverified research by multiple authors.

Buckshot06 never believes me. In every instance bar one starting from several months ago, he had immediately sprang up to oppose any suggestion I have made, usually with no supporting evidence or inadequate references, preferring to vote rather then discuss, hence my reflection on his behaviour given no sooner a proposal countering something I said or did was made, where there he was voting "yes" for it. He claims me being "uncivil" at every opportunity, but to quote "Civility policy is abused so much and needlessly. I almost quit the 'pedia over claims of me being uncivil, I wonder how many already have?" (guess who said that)

User:Raul654, an editor that had not participated in editing the article since November 2007, or the discussion on renaming, decided to "suggest" a name change based on

United States of America

, can I start a straw poll for renaming that also? This is in fact disruptive, because it takes up my time from editing to have to argue for retention of an article title that should not need any discussion, given the discussion that had already taken place. That is why I deleted the straw poll; it is contrary to the existing Wikipedia-wide consensus to use them, and was only used in the attempt to legitimise a baseless and disruptive attempt to retitle the article.

I can't very well take the matter to the

comms

) ♠♥♦♣ 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to deal with the people you disagree with. Try to find someone to mediate. I removed the resolved tag as you seem to think it isn't resolved. Good luck. Beam 15:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

)

During the past three days, there has been ongoing disruptions at Talk:Guangdong and Talk:Nanyue. A highly dynamic IP editor has been adding condescending comments (some of which were highly inappropriate) such as the one found here: [26]. All attempts to remove his disruptive edits have proved fruitless since the IP editor either comes back to cause more trouble or HkCaGu turns up and reinstates the comments (an example being [27]), claiming that they are 'valid' or that censorship is 'not appropriate'. The IP editor has already been reported for suspected sockpuppetry. As for HkCaGu, someone needs to explain to him that his acts of reinstating the IP editor's comments, while well meaning, only serve to encourage more soapboxing edits to talk pages by IP vandals. David873 (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a need for a neutral editor to scrutinise the aforementioned talk pages for any instances of soapboxing and to refactor, summarise or outright delete inappropriate comments as appropriate. David873 (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive tag spamming

User, openly affiliating himself with extremist skinhead organization

National Rebirth of Poland [28], keeps indiscriminately inserting multiple tags into article about this and related organizations with incivil edit summaries [29]

[30] [31] [32] [33]. Some background [34], [35]. The user was warned and blocked for behaviour like this before [36][37].

M0RD00R (talk

) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Both users involved in the conflict support disruptive POV pushing, just from a different angle, and don't shy from revert warring. If they war over an article, protecting it may be the best option.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So far it is not one POV vs other, but rather Reliable sources vs No RS, if you're finding some sources POV I'll gladly look into your argument on relevant talk pages. Cheers.

M0RD00R (talk

) 16:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Erich Honecker

Resolved

Can somebody have a look at this article please. It seems to have been vandalised by altering a template, but I can't figure out how. Some users claimed that it had been fixed, but I am still seeing it with a purged cache and even in a completely different browser. If it is still there the vandalism is very obvious. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I went to the edit page and clicked save and now it seems to be fixed (even in the other browser). Even though my save is not recorded in the history (because I didn't change anything) it seems to have done something I don't understand (I guess it refreshed the server cache). Cheers TigerShark (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You made a

purge. This vandal has been active with more than 10 IP's and accounts so it's conceivable that some pages have been vandalized, fixed, and then vandalized again via another template. PrimeHunter (talk

) 17:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Joseph McCarthy?

Resolved

Something strange is happening at Joseph_McCarthy. There is a large black banner at the top of the page that does not seem to be related to anything in the page source. Can someone else check it out? ATren (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I did the same as above, and it seems to be OK now. Seems a template/category was vandalised and the server cache of the pages with the template/cat need refreshing. TigerShark (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be fixed. Marking as resolved. Thanks. ATren (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of West Virginia - EDIT WAR

After trying to resolve an issue between two editors and the Grand Lodge of West Virginia article, it has been suggested to move this to this Incidents page. Below is the text that has been copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Can someone please help resolve this. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---Start of copied text---

edit wars continue. It's probably time for an admin to investigate and take appropriate action. Thanks. Truthanado (talk

) 04:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If it still has neutrality problems, then I must continue to add the templates. I was never asked if my problems with its neutrality were resolved; the tag was just blatantly removed. Over half of an organization's article, who's history must by necessity date from the 1860s-1870, if not from the 1700s (due to it must having been split off from the Grand Lodge of Virginia), being about a negative event can not stand. The only reason for this edit war is because user Doncram has making a nuisance of himself towards me for almost a month now, trying to torpedo many of my DYK nominations and whatnot, and this is his latest phase. If I hadn't commented on it on its DYK nomination, Doncram would not be the least bit interested in it. If this keeps up, I feel I must recommend it for AfD.--Bedford ^Pray 04:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford was asked on the talk page and by edit comments to participate meaningfully on the talk page, which he has not chosen to do. It is asked there what on earth is the story, the source, any info at all which is available but which is not reflected or is being suppressed by anyone from the article. Bedford may have access to other sources, but the official public website of the organization is scant, and the organization chooses not to comment about the lawsuit which has been in the news. So, a new article does tend to show the available news. If that news was so bad, the organization would choose to respond publicly, which it does not.

Bedford's last big revert (which i eventually reverted) returned the article to a clearly inferior state, stripping out the development based on the official website of the organization which I had added, and returning it to show both "Under construction" and "Neutrality" tags. Since Bedford had not before and has not since contributed to the article besides tagging it and removing well-sourced material, i believe that his effective posting of a new "Under construction" tag was erroneous and careless at least. It's a perfectly fine new article, very well-referenced on every statement. So I don't get why he continues to tag the article and to make threats.

I appreciate that Truthanado stepped in to try to fix matters. I have provided the article with additional research and think it should now be cleared of Bedford's tags. doncram (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be moved to

WP:AN3. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk

) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---End of copied text---

Some more intervention related to DYK nomination of this article may be warranted. Bedford has been asked to add material to the article and to identify any source, story, material that anyone else is preventing from being added, to tell some potential "other side" that he projects is needed. However, I do not expect that he will contribute seriously to the article, because he is opposed to its development and in particular to the JWSpencer's nomination of the new article for DYK listing. The I expect in Bedford's mind, he wishes to "win" by causing delay; he has shown great stubbornness on other matters at DYK where he is himself quite a DYK medal-collector.

Another complication is potential COI that Bedford has with this topic. He has not answered a direct question of whether he is himself a Freemason, or to describe what is his association with Freemansons. I asked that on the DYK Template Talk page for the Grand Lodge of West Virginia article (it shows under Expiring Noms, July 12, in this now current version of the Template Talk DYK page. Bedford is associated, at least, in that he is interested enough in Freemasonry to have written an article on a Freemason memorial at Gettysburg, and self-nominated it for DYK in the July 17 section of the current DYK Template Talk. Further, in that DYK he has nominated a picture of himself posing with the memorial as illustration, which he would like to see displayed on the Mainpage of wikipedia. This seems perhaps associated with his extreme reaction to dismiss the DYK nomination for the West Virginia article, to disqualify it by stripping the WV article down to one sentence (too short for DYK), and to oppose it by coming up with new critical tags.

Although Truthanado indicated agreement with Bedford that there were neutrality issues in an edit comment, Truthanado's subsequent edits indicated to address neutrality have essentially rearranged material in the article, without finding as slanted any source or any particular information that would have needed to be removed. Other comment in the Talk page of the article has not found there to be a problem. So I ask for more speedy review of this article, and to demand that Bedford add material for balance to the article immediately and/or remove his DYK nomination opposition. doncram (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ultimately a content dispute that should be settled through

dispute resolution. It doesn't require administrative action. --Farix (Talk

) 15:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not abn admin, but I'll take a look at it, as it's in my topic area. MSJapan (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

GFDL confusion or just plain trolling? Can you guess the puppeteer?

Resolved

 – User indef blocked

A new account, Jerusalem53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just surfaced and has been adding the full text of the GFDL license to article pages. There's also been other vandalism.

This is clearly a sockpuppet of someone who's been around here before. My question here is: who? Does this meet a familiar pattern? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

PS On the the very slim chance this is not a reappearing long-term troll, I've given a last warning, not a block.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. If people would more consistently notify when they revert vandalism, might have been caught sooner. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just indefinitely blocked this account after another incident.

I'm still curious about the pattern if anyone recognizes it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)}

Right decision. It's a vandalism-only account. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is likely that it's a sock of someone. I've not found any familiar pattern. I think we should close this case. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter if its a sock? Are we going to super-block it if it is? Its a vandalism-only account people, report to AIV, block, move on. Mr.Z-man 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Super-block"? No. Just curious, that's all. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nur110

{{resolved|... - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 15:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)}}

User:Nur110 is a likely sockpuppet of User:SecretChiefs3, who has engaged in:

• Creating
  attack pages[38]
• Talk page vandalism [39]

This pattern fits that of a particulary bellicose and belligerent sock User:Thamarih. That editor blanked the warnings in June. See the older version for the whole story. MARussellPESE (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm...

• That is not an attack page.
• That is not talk page vandalism.

It looks like a malformed Sockpuppetry report. I've fixed it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unresolved this, per concerns of the complainant. I'll just say that if you are not engaging in sockpuppetry, then you've got nothing to be concerned about. SSP reports are somewhat common. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed User:Nur110 is a sockpuppet of User:SecretChiefs3.

WP:ATP says that "A Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. As the subject of Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/MARussellPESE, I'm asking that it be deleted. MARussellPESE (talk

) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:T-rex trolling AfD

T-rex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Once again, User:T-rex is trolling AfD discussions. After being particularly disruptive here, he has taken to trolling this current one. I think it is obvious from his talk page that he does not take AfD discussions seriously, and intends to be purposely disruptive. DarkAudit (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not trolling. In the first AfD you linked to my comment was "Keep - appears to have a considerable following, and to be notable within his expertise." in the second AfD you liked my comment was "Keep". how either of those are out of place at an afd is beyond me. However if it really bothers you that much, I won't comment on a single afd for the next five days --T-rex 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency here are all the afd's i have commented on within the past two days. [40] [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81]. If you see a pattern of trolling there feel free to let me know... --T-rex 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You neglect to mention the rest of the exchange in the first AfD, which not only adds nothing to the debate, but clearly shows intent to disrupt. The message to your talk page after your reasonless "keep" in the second, combined with your reply also shows intent to disrupt and not meaningfully contribute. DarkAudit (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people asked questions, so I answered them. They may not have liked my responces, but thats not my fault. An exchange is not a bad thing, but for what AfD is designed for, it is supposed to be a discussion. If there is any trolling here it is you bringing this to ANI just because you disagreed with me on the deletion of some article. I am done discussing this. --T-rex 16:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. First, Dark Audit, don't start a post with "once again" without a link to the "once", it's rather accusatory, presumptious, and bad faith. When was T-rex previously "trolling"? (to use your words) (its a rhetorical question). Second, T-rex, stop replying to everything at AfD. Yes, its a discussion, so if you "just have to", do it nicer, your opinion might actually carry some weight. The Steve Terada posts of yours were a titch aggravating, but not completely unreasonable, and I daresay, they were not "trolling" (that's a word thrown around way too much.). This is a editorial dispute, I have no idea what you would like administrative assistance with DarkAudit. It's a big wiki, those two afds are rather lame/tame/mild compared to some of the other more ridiculous ones. Don't you think that if any editor says "It's notable, I checked, and no I'm not going to link my evidence here, go get it yourself" is going to have their "opinion" weighted accordingly by the closing admin? This does not need to be on AN/I. Keeper ǀ 76 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to second the thoughts on "trolling": it's one-word assumption of bad faith, the use of which would only be (rather weakly) justified by (a high standard of) proof that the primary intent of the alleged offender really was to aggravate and provoke. Alai (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I read the links provided by the accuser (not the TL;DR diffs from t-rex). It looks like T-rex needed to be upgraded about his behavior in the first afd, which he was. the second link was just absurd. Nothing in that link showed trex being provocative or uncivil. He made a comment at afd, the comment was disputed. the exchange that followed was terse and sarcastic but nothing like trolling. The fact that this went to AN/I seems a bit much. It shows a failure to assume good faith and a failure to solve things at the lowest level possible. I'm not endorsing trex's comments here, just chiming in with some thoughts. Protonk (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Absurd to not giving in to his expected response? I'm sorry if I didn't play along long enough. DarkAudit (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, absurd that that exchange in particular led to the AN/I. I expected an exchange like that to be linked by T-Rex as evidence of his ability to comment in an AfD without trolling, not linked as an accusation of his incivility. You don't need to play along with him. If he irks you then just ignore him. If you try to ignore him and he seeks you out (either on your talk page or elsewhere), then you should bring it to AN/I. Otherwise you should try to solve this at the lowest level possible. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree some of his comments are less than helpful, given the other AFDs he listed, I fail to see how one can come to the conclusion "that he does not take AfD discussions seriously, and intends to be purposely disruptive." I think a reminder that the burden of evidence falls on those wishing to keep the article is sufficient. Mr.Z-man 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion nominations by single-purpose accounts

This seems clearly actionable to me, but I invite comment lest I give the appearance of being unduly "involved" in an earlier iteration of this matter. We have a deletion nomination of

new prog by the confusingly-named and self-confessed single-purpose account DeletionAccount. Any reason not to speedily close and block, respectively? (This is partly a matter for inappropriate user name, partly of deletion process, and assorted other stuff besides, so I'm splitting the difference and bringing it here.) Alai (talk

) 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for the username, anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The user had agreed to a user page note clarifying they aren't an admin. I don't see the name as inherently blockworthy. The

CBM · talk

) 17:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The name is inherently misleading - "deletion account" incorrectly suggests it is a human or bot agent within Wikipedia with an official charter to delete things. Since the problem is intrinsic to the name, the disclaimer doesn't cure it. Even with the disclaimer it suggests that it's okay for an account to exist on Wikipedia with no purpose other than deleting articles, and I'm not so sure about that. Is it okay per

sole purpose of making non-snowball deletion nominations? Seems disruptive and a likely good hand/bad problem. Wikidemo (talk

) 18:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As the editor usually uses an IP username (not logged in), they can't create AFD noms under their usual account. I agree the name isn't optimal, which I why I worked out the disclaimer with the editor earlier. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps they should not be starting AfDs. Are IP accounts allowed to create socks in order to participate in controversial meta discussions in which only registered users are allowed? It seems to me there's an active discussion issue and an Arbcom ruling discouraging use of socks on meta pages. Or turning this around, is a controversial editor allowed to use an IP sock for their uncontroversial edits? At a minimum they ought to disclose their IP account, in which case there's no point using an IP. Wikidemo (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The moment of cogdis that I experienced on receiving the message suggests to me that it's misleading in exactly the way Wikidemo suggests. Since the editor in question was far from helpful in resolving that aspect, I support Gwen Gale's action on those grounds, at the very least. If people wish to let the AFD run its course on merit, that's fine by me, so as an 'incident', this is essentially resolved. On the wider issue of SPA accounts for deletion, I've left a comment at

WT:AFD. Alai (talk

) 19:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

From the folks that brought you "Keith Steve Howard"...

• "Yu-Gi-Oh! - The Abridged Series" (a popular fandub of the aforementioned anime) has said in its latest episode "Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged; according to Wikipedia, we don't exist". Now there seems to be a lot of efforts to get an article created under a variety of titles. I recall marking two different titles for speedy deletion in the past two days. We should probably be on the lookout... in America. ._. JuJube (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall that quite a few versions of the title are already salted. (in America) shoy (reactions) 18:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat

Resolved

 – Phone calls made, e-mails sent. Unless one can track down the locale of the IP addresses/user, then not all that much else can be done. seicer | talk | contribs 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Suicide Chump" You say there ain't no use in living
It's all a waste of time
You wanna throw your life away
Well, people, that's just fine!
Go ahead and get it over with, then
Find you a bridge and take a jump
Just make sure you do it right the first time
Cause there's nothin' worse than a suicide chump!

--Frank Zappa

We have another suicide threat which has been posted at [82]. Can someone look into this? —

^B

01:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking the IP now.

a/c

) 01:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(further comment) Looks like someone's just ranting to his girlfriend/wife/significant other... anyone care to take this further (*cough*Bstone*cough*joke*cough*) or just

a/c

) 01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this here from the Help desk:

"Someone should check this out [83]. Remember (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)"

I know there are ways to find out the physical locations of (some) IP addresses, but I don't know what they are. See Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm; it says "Wikipedia responders have consistently contacted local authorities in cases of apparent suicidal users. Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat. Please make as prompt a report as you are able to." Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

See also: 142.163.22.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 142.163.22.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 142.163.211.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Seems to be generic vandalism, but to be on the safe side... seicer | talk | contribs 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to call the cops. It's either a person who needs help, or a person who needs a wake up call that this kind of stuff is not tolerated. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you find out what country that IP is in? Or should I call the local police where I live and let them forward the info to wherever? Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure you're not duplicating reports... *merges*

a/c

) 01:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in contacting law enforcement, the IP is actually originating from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, through Stentor National Integrated Communications Network. Can't give you anything better than that.

a/c

) 01:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling... seicer | talk | contribs 01:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) —

^B

01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Seicer. Sorry for the duplicate thread: I thought I had searched this page for the word "suicide" and didn't find it, but must have mistyped it or something. Thanks for catching the duplication, Hersfold. Coppertwig (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happens fairly often, as you know. Thanks for calling, seicer. Best of luck with that.

a/c

) 01:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for calling. Keep us updated on what happens. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of completeness, the text was originally posted by AngelofFadness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on 24 June. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As AngelofFadness has been active today, I've indef. blocked the account. seicer | talk | contribs 01:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Called practically all available lines and was redirected around but I finally made the case aware to one individual who logged it. I also sent an e-mail to [email protected], which is what the individual recommended and per Bell Aliant's web-site. Try calling in the morning and seeing if anyone else has any more luck. seicer | talk | contribs 01:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bell Canada also panned out, and given the vagueness of the locale, there is not much else that can be done. They could not locate the abuse number (outside of the e-mail), either. seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, how can someone threaten suicide? It's not really a threat, because they're only killing themselves... Beam 02:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'ts more of a threat against the people that are emotionaly attached. It is also a threat because suicide cleanup is very expensive. Stanley Steamer does not do "crime scenes". You have to hire an expensive and specific company to do it. The nicest suicides are when people just "disappear" themselves in the woods. No drain on public resources. --mboverload@ 02:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually saw a show on the Discovery channel about people who cleaned up crime scenes. Anyway I know this isn't the exact greatest place to discuss it, but if those who "threatened" suicide were not given the attention they do get, these "threats" would be reduced in number of occurrences. Of course there are those who are actually going to do it, and are honestly just letting people know about it. Those people will probably have a better chance of surviving with outside intervention.

One other strong feeling I have about suicide "threats" is that if one wanted to really kill himself, why would he give people an opportunity to stop them? Even an ip suicide notice here is treated to the whole nine yards as far as contacting authorities. The editors here are actually good at discovering who to call. Anyway it's kind of attention whoring, in a lot of cases, to claim an impending suicide. Meh. Beam 02:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, people who really do commit suicide do leave such notes, that is one of the reasons we take threats of any kind very seriously. I don't think threats should be dismissed because they may not be sincere.

Chillum

02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, always a quick judgment eh Chillum? As I state there is a portion of those who claim suicidal intentions that have their lives saved by actions like what fine editors here practice. Beam 02:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so long as threats like this are taken seriously.

Chillum

02:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this one. I wasn't online since Friday afternoon. Thanks for swiftly and appropriately dealing with it. Bstone (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User talk:Rove2

Resolved

This is going to be very controversial, so sit down and get ready to read for a while.

User:Rove2 was recently blocked by User:Sam Korn, as he identified Rove2 as a sockpuppet of the Avril Vandal through the Checkuser tool. The related case is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Avril Vandal, however Rove2 is not mentioned anywhere on the page. Just a short while ago, I noticed an unblock request from this user and took a look. I originally declined the request, citing our policy against open proxies, but mentioned that if the user had a good reason, they could ask for IP block exemption according to our policies and the precedent set by User:Giggy's exemption. I made my first mistake here in not checking the user's own block log, having seen the autoblock removal request and thus assuming that they were not directly blocked. Rove2 later posted another request, stating that they are a missionary in China and unable to access Wikipedia due to the Great Firewall, and can only get to the site using Tor nodes. I (again) reviewed the user's edits and found nothing objectionable, so asked for some opinions on the #-admins IRC channel, not looking for a consensus necessarily, just advice. Before I was able to grant the exemption myself, User:Werdna gave the exemption to Rove2. I logged the reasoning here, noting that I supported the exemption. Shortly thereafter, Rove2 posts another unblock request, saying he is still blocked by username. Now I finally check his individual block log and find the sockpuppet checkuser block. Whoops. So, under a hail of "what were you thinking" type comments in the IRC channel, I decline the request, go to revoke the exemption only to be beaten to it by User:Prodego, remove the log entry, and come here for further discussion and input.

My opinion in this matter is that the Avril Vandal could have very well used the same Tor node as many otherwise innocent editors, and that the checkuser report could, in this one unusual instance, be incorrect. Other administrators feel that the Avril Vandal is exactly the type who would try to make us give them IP Exemption just to be a nuisance. I will take no further action on this account myself, but invite everyone's input into this situation. Sorry for making such a mess of things previously, and for not coming here in the first place. I accept full responsibility for this; please do not accuse Werdna of any misuse of the tools or ignorance, because it was my stupidity that led him to granting the exemption in the first place, and as I stated, I was about to grant it myself anyway.

a/c

) 06:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith and give him the exemption. That said, if Sam Korn gives a reason for the block that hasn't been noted above things could be different, but for now it seems he was blocked for using Tor which would make a CU block somewhat shaky. —Giggy 06:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While the situation as-stated could very well be the case, Sam is a competent checkuser and should certainly be given the benefit of the doubt in this case: We're second guessing someone who blocked the user not the ip or range. I would suggest asking Rove2 to please wait until we can get Sam's input on this thread, or at the very least, another checkuser to double-check the situation for us. Kylu (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no rush here, and given that the Avril vandal has been active, I suspect the CUs have a wealth of data on separating him out from other run of the mill tor users. Lets wait for Sam or some other CU to respond before doing stuff. MBisanz ^talk 06:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A checkuser far outweighs

good faith here, the user can wait for Sam to comment. Tiptoety ^talk

06:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam has been contacted, on talk page and by email, so should come by to comment soon.

a/c

) 06:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're here and waiting, the IP Exemption policy page isn't very clear on granting exemptions in this case (to allow editing from a Tor node/open proxy), and the discussion hasn't been active since mid-May. This is a forum where most everyone, including non-admins, checks in eventually, and so this is probably the best time and place to decide this.

a/c

) 07:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am currently working on facilities to tag tor edits as such in contributions and recentchanges, and to allow administrators to change the level of blocking for all of tor at once, as well as to disable tor access for individual users. Once my changes are live, we won't need to grant ipblock-exempt for individual users to use tor. All the trolls, once discovered using tor, will go back to their botnets and zombies. We could even make the

abuse filter more sensitive to tor users, when I'm done. — Werdna • talk

07:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So, with that, all users would be "Tor-block exempt" by default, which we could revoke at any given time if it gets abused?

a/c

) 08:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, input from me. Firstly, I am slightly peeved that this was raised at ANI first rather than asking me to have another look. It generates a good deal of unnecessary fuss -- indeed, the whole conversation about ipblockexempt is pretty irrelevant to this case.

The user came up on two different IPs that the Avril vandal has used. There was more technical evidence to link them than this, but it is best not to release it, for obvious reasons. Furthermore, some of the edits made were rather reminiscent of this troll -- one of the first edits was to ask a question at the Help Desk -- the troll has spent a long time trolling the Reference Desk. Making a userpage redirect to the talk page is also, bizarrely, something that vandals often do.

Despite all these things, the link is clearly less secure than I thought -- the post-block behaviour is extremely uncharacteristic. I am very willing to concede that this is not the Avril troll on this basis and on the basis that a common use of Tor has muddied the waters and confused things. I have therefore removed the block on Rove2.

Incidentally, making it clear on the CU results page which edits come through Tor would be extremely useful in cases like this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, and again, apologies for not contacting you first on this one.

a/c

) 14:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your wish may soon come true, Sam. I'm working on it :-). — Werdna • talk 01:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695 blocked

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

 – User unblocked; blocking admin already party to arbitration case. Move along, nothing to see here. HiDrNick! 14:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

chat

) 13:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A block 48 hours after the fact when Dragon695 acknowledged and removed his own personal attack 9 minutes after making it is wholly inappropriate. Blocking someone for opposing you in an arbitration and calling for you to be desysopped is a flagrant abuse of power. --B (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the two above editors that this block appears to be retaliatory, and political. It would have been far better to ask User:FT2, for example, to review the situation and decide what to do. I am going to unblock because there is no satisfactory basis stated for the block, and there are now three administrators who think it was unwise. Even if there is some hidden, non-transparent rationale for the block FeloniousMonk, as a named party in the case beneath the claimed incivility, is exactly the wrong administrator to take this action. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2? After his one-man RFAR of members of the group that Dragon695 has been harassing? Why am I not surprised you'd suggest him; he's about as uninvolved as you. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Immediately unblock - FM is clearly involved. This is enough for him to desysopped without his history. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Definitely a bad block. FM was not an uninvolved administrator. Kelly ^hi! 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Entirely endorse the unblocking. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock with a quickness. Somebody broke the rule. HiDrNick! 13:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have unblocked Dragon695.Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Only now saw this, I support the unblock, FM was involved. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • All in all, this was an incredibly stupid move by FM. When your use of the tools is being heavily scrutinised, you need to follow the rulebook to the letter. This may be the straw to break the camel's back and lead to a desysopping. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I doubt it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)Since there's already an ongoing arbitration case (granted, it's moving at a glacial pace), I think the most productive course would be to simply add this to the evidence section there, and archive this thread - unless someone thinks that FM may wish to offer some kind of valid defense of his actions here. But honestly I can't think of what that defense might be. Kelly ^hi! 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've never been involved in any way with Dragon695. I was asked to look at a number of his comments, and in so doing I found him to indeed be incivil and harassing. Chronically. I find it telling that most of those above, Kelly, B, Jehochman, Sceptre, accusing me being 'involved' with Dragon695 are themselves far more involved with Dragon695, both here and at WikipediaReview. In fact, with one exception, those above opposing this are all his friends from there. Interesting. Care to explain how you're uninvolved enought to pass judgement on a block of your friend? I'd rather truly neutral admins review Dragon695's behavior, rathter than all his pals. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Asked by who? I believe Kelly and Jehochman do not post on Wikipedia Review. I may be wrong. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They are all part of the group of friends at Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FM, by involved I meant this. You should have recused from blocking anyone who has endorsed the notion of de-sysopping you through an RfAr. It can't help looking to some like you're getting back at Dragon, even if that's not what you had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Never saw his comment at the RFAR. Furthermore, there's no policy requiring adims to recuse themselves against everyone who has a personal gripe. In fact, there's a long convention at Wikipedia of just the opposite. Otherwise it's simply too easy for chronic troublemakers to game the system by going out and calling for every admin they're concerned about to step down. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would still appreciate knowing who asked you to look into his behaviour. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume it was User:Jim62sch, based on this. Kelly ^hi! 14:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rather rich for you, FM, to speak about groups of friends sticking together. No way should you have blocked Dragon695. Block your friends, unblock your enemies? Sure. Unblock your friends, block your enemies? No way... ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Excuse me, I have never posted at WikipediaReview, so put away your tar and feathers. I have no involvement with Dragon695 whatsoever. Your response is completely inappropriate.

Wikipedia is not a battleground. This "for me or against me" approach is the antithisis of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. FeloniousMonk, now would be an excellent time for you to do the honorable thing. Jehochman ^Talk

14:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I said "are themselves far more involved with Dragon695, both here and at WikipediaReview. You have been supportive of this group of editors seen here in opposition to me in the past. Do I need to provide diffs. You're hardly uninvolved. In fact, you're far more involved with Dragnon695 than I. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

all nicely lined up for me — FM, maybe, just maybe, it's you and not everybody else. user:Everyme 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Echo Jehochman: You really need to stop equating WR posters to absolute evil. It's a massive assumption of bad faith. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I for one am not involved in WR in any way whatsoever, nor a "pal" of Dragon, and I fully agree that the block is horribly inappropriate, and most obviously so. Accusing people who —on a reasonably solid basis— call into question the neutrality of your judgement instead of simply apologising for this wildly inappropriate action means that enough is finally enough. Please take this episode as proof that you are unfit to wield the tools, and show some decency by asking for them to be removed yourself. user:Everyme 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec*lots) A group of friends? I have like 15 posts ever to Wikipedia Review. In any event, if I had made a block or an unblock, you might have an argument. But I didn't. You did. You abused your admin privileges by blocking someone who is calling for your desysopping in this arbcom case. Trying to make this a referendum on Wikipedia Review is nothing but a distraction. The fact is, your use of the admin tools has been nothing but abusive. I have laid this out at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Inappropriate_use_of_admin_tools_or_responsibilities_by_FeloniousMonk. If you think this is all about WR, that's a you problem, not a me problem. --B (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been a supporter of Dragon695, of course you'd say something like that. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. I don't support or oppose him. He agrees with the obvious conclusion that you should be desysopped, so I agree with him there. He believes that SlimVirgin should be desysopped, which I disagree with and have said repeatedly on the case that I disagree with, so I disagree with him there. I don't support or oppose him and am frankly indifferent to him, beyond the mutual respect that I have for any Wikipedian in good standing who edits in good faith. --B (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse unblocking. I do not post at Wikipedia Review and I have not previously been involved with FeloniousMonk or Dragon695 as far as I know. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on evidence posted here and on the talk page of Dragon, I endorse the unblocking. Rudget (logs) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I went to get some water from the well, but it tastes funny... Sceptre ^(talk) 14:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FM, this block was very wrong on all kinds of grounds. You were wrong to make it. You do not then get away with that by attacking all those who criticise you. This behaviour is right out of order. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never posted at WR (I refuse to give them my e-mail address), I am not involved in the overarching dispute between FM and Dragon695 (and their supporters and detractors), and I still endorse the unblock. Chronic incivility does not result in a

Request for Comment/User if necessary, but don't drop the banhammer on someone with whom one is in dispute. Based on FM's knowledge of Dragon695's activities on WR, I think it is safe to say that he recognized a dispute. Horologium (talk)

14:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this (like pretty much everything else these days) is being portrayed as yet another battle in the Great War Between

Wikipedia Review, so there can be no charges of group behavior on my part. ATren (talk

) 14:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FM should have reported this to the case clerks rather than blocking someone he's involved with vis a vis the arb case. I'm glad to see the community quickly remedied this. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree that reporting this to the case clerks is the way to go, but the record of ArbCom support for case clerk actions in this case is... well... is there a word that means "worse than abysmal"? Maybe just report it to an uninvolved admin, in future. We don't want to run out of clerks before this case closes. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia Review sucks on a whole, doesn't mean all of the users there suck. The trolls from WR however, aren't appreciated. Beam 15:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Who would that be? Third time you've been asked that. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing FM as being involved. Can someone explain to me how he was involved? Right now I'm not seeing it(I might be missing something here). While we're at it, can someone explain how Dragon695 has not been uncivil? The following recent difs for example [84] [85] and [86] are highly uncivil blockworthy comments. Telling people to go crying back to another user's talk page is unacceptable regardless of the editors involved. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Whether or not FM was involved doesn't matter on the ANI front. The point to make here is that the block was lousy and this has been resolved. Move all questions of "involvement" to the arbcom page. Wizardman 16:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please archive this before it turns into another BADSITES flamefest. No further admin action is required; further opinions should go to the Arbitration case. Kelly ^hi! 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Reminder: I'm unarchiving this for now, but remember that we're discussing the block/unblock, involvement, and the diffs presented. I better not see any mudslinging going on or else I'm re-archiving this, as that accomplishes nothing. Wizardman 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this is reopened I'll just quote from the relevant difs explicitly: From 4 days ago "Waah! Waah! Sounds like sour grapes to me. Why don't you go crying back to MONGO's talk-page and see what you can tattle on Viridae for next" [87]. Less than 5 hours ago refers to other editors as "riff-raff". Dragon695 has a history of serious incivility and has been recently uncivil. Whether or not FM is the person who should do it, this Dragon should be blocked. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Comments like that demand an instant block. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto here •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys just posted the same diff twice. The same one that was posted above as a result of the original block. Not sure what that's trying to prove. The other two I'm still looking at the context for. Wizardman 17:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe there is far more to this situation than meets the eye, particularly with the one-sided description of certain parties above.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Beam 17:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Same diff twice? I don't see that. In any case, this too is problematic. Even though it was redacted, the post still presents a problem. I'm pretty sure I can find more example with relative ease, but I'd prefer to not need to do so. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(reply to filll) Maybe, maybe not. I haven't really kept myself up to date with the arbitration case and the involvement of the two editors, granted, we know the sides of both parties at this point. This dispute has gotten to the point where you could name an editor who hasn't commented yet and I could probably nail what the opinion of said editor will be. However, I wonder what role the blocking policy itself plays in this. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, yet blocking for this kinda stuff seems to be argued as both punitive and preventative due to it being more long-term. This is where it gets a little confusing, I think. Wizardman 17:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695 has been warned by myself just 2 days ago about a personal attack (he then withdrew it), and a couple of times by FT2 about civility, however, I don't think a block is warranted, even by an outsider, for what's cited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Brief description with core problem

For those of us who are actually uninvolved, would someone be willing to write out a quick, close-to-neutral explanation of what led up to Dragon's block? Without too much commentary, if possible, so that we can decide for ourselves if it was justified or not? That would be very helpful. Also, my understanding of the meta-situation is that:

1. Dragon and FM have not been involved with one another in any meaningful way.
2. Many of the people who were alleged to post on WR do not actually post there.

Thanks, Antelan 17:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WR shouldn't have anything to do with this! That site holds way too much sway in some people's mind. I agree, I'd like a rundown of the block without the drama. Beam 17:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I see the current dispute (trying to be as neutral as possible, I hope I succeed): FelonoiusMonk blocked Dragon695 for (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Chronic incivility). The block was later overturned by apparent consensus, though this is being disputed (both the consensus and block). The diffs provided are supported by one side as block-worthy, which opposed by the other as the block being punitive. The attacks themselves are in dispute, one side saying they're obviously a problem, the other saying one was removed by Dragon, the others either borderline or not a big issue. Then, after all that, there's the question of how involved FM has been with Dragon, and this is also where WR comes into play (though even this is in question). One side says FM and Dragon have no connection, other than maybe the arbcom case, though that's iffy. The other side says FM's very involved not just because of the arbcom case, but because of WR criticism by FM and Dragon being a member, as well as them being on different sides of this case. The level of WR being a factor varies among people from not one at all to quite a bit. This is how I see it. Wizardman 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, an explanation of the events proceeding it? ...oops. Well, the above's a description of after the block then, I guess. I need to pay more attention. Wizardman 17:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a good description though. If I hadn't already known all that, I would now. ;) Beam 17:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was still a helpful catch-me-up. Thanks! Antelan 18:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Intriguing that this block is contested as stale. At 16:18, 18 July 2008, Dragon695 describes other editors as "an embaressing bunch of fanatics", then quickly "refactors" that part of his comment.[88] When the "vitriol" still in the history is pointed out Dragon695's response is "Shoo! Complaining about something that I refactored a moment later is silly",[89] but just under an hour later Dragon695 describes the other editors as "riff-raff" and says "The level of abuse by those I would normally side with is completely out of control."[90], just 26 minutes before being blocked. The diffs have been posted as I understand it, and the abuse was certainly current, or are editors arguing that such personal attacks are acceptable? . . dave souza, talk 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that this kind of repeated behavior is acceptable, and even should be encouraged I find somewhat incredible, given our current climate of sensitivity to personal attacks and incivility. I thought we were being more strict and less lenient about violations of

WP:CIVIL? What have I missed? Are these examples for my list of strange inconsistent CIVIL standards? Sure seems like it.--Filll (talk | wpc

) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly who was Dragon695 attacking with those comments? I thought there was no ID cabal, despite the fact that certain unnamed editors always show up in disputes, wherever they may occur, that involve certain other unnamed editors. Kelly ^hi! 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, are you suggesting that the acceptability of personal attacks depends on who's being attacked? . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I never said that. Kelly ^hi! 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What did you mean then? Hmmm...interesting.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I should say, my only worry was that FM had made the block. He's since said he was unaware of Dragon's statement in his RfAr, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's something I don't understand. At 12:45 UTC (I think that's right), FeloniousMonk gave a formal warning to Dragon695 as a result of the comment on Ed Poor's talk page.[91] This is fine in and of itself. However, three minutes later, he was blocked by FM,[92] and was notified 11 minutes after the original warning.[93] Dragon695 made no edits during that three/eleven minute timespan, so if FM said, and I quote, "One more like this and I will take action to ensure that it stops.", then why was he blocked before "one more like this" ever occurred? That's my question now. Wizardman 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's already been explained. FM issued a warning, continued to look at Dragon's behaviour and then blocked him: at least that's what I get out of what FM has stated. Not sure how there could be any confusion, other than a confusion caused by looking at the wrong part of the issue or by dissmissing some information or by not looking at the big picture. Not sure which, if any, of these scenarios are accurate, but I can see no other explanation for any confusion. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

AH, okay, I get it now. I felt that the "one more time" implied that in the future he would block Dragon, rather than a couple minutes later. If it's true that the block came after a look through the contribs, then that makes the block at least somewhat punitive, and as a result iffy. Wizardman 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and you are able to tell just like that, what is punitive and what is preventative? Pray tell, how do you do this? Is there some magical formula you could enlighten us with? Perhaps you could write an essay on this explaining the fine points and details with maybe some evidence and quantitative analysis to back up your assertions, which might appear gratuitous to some otherwise.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I re-read the blocking policy, which says that a block is acceptable during persistent disruption or harassment. The question is what does persistent mean. Are some personal attacks over a few minutes/hours blockable, yet some over a few days/weeks are not? That seems to be what is being accepted by many people above, and I can understand your concern. The way I see it, the line between civility issues calling for a block, and civility issues calling for an RFC are different. Many, more sudden outbursts would be block-worthy, yet many spread out over time (Which FM is arguing in support of, based on the comment "I see that you chronically are incivil and bent on harassing others"[94]) would be more worthy of an RFC, especially if the user is a productive editor in lieu of the incivility. (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2 accomplished far more than a block ever would've done) That being said, what i am saying is if Dragon was as bad as you guys are implying, then that was the route to take. Wizardman 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695's statement

I was angry at what I consider to be a massive campaign against Ed Poor's RFA. I rarely, if ever, agree with Ed on anything, but I felt the opposes were over the top. My comment about riff-raff is not uncivil. Riff-raff is a child's word, if I wanted to be insulting or uncivil I would have used much harsher words than that, I assure you. Further, I felt that many of the attacks on Ed by the opposition were far worse than my own, even the before-refactored comment. I was responding to my belief that Ed Poor needs should be permitted to bring his dissent to the

good faith attempt to serve the community again. Please do not wheel war over this block. I will just go do some move to commons until it is resolved satisfactorily. Cheers! --Dragon695 (talk

) 18:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

. Calling other editors "riff-raff" is unacceptable. This entire conversation also has the off-the-wall doublething that the same editors are saying that this is part of the evil ID-cabal while at the same time arguing that Dragon's comments weren't directed at any editors in particular. Those are mutually contradictory claims. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ here. Riff-raff is a term we should eschew, and Dragon695 knows better. I've counseled Dragon695 about being the better man in his dealings before (for many of the folk he runs up against, it's not too hard to do, really). He should have known better. But the block still stinketh, it was by a highly involved editor with little warning, against a contributor with no prior record of blocks. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also, Dragon695 is still autoblocked, could someone find and fix it? Kelly ^hi! 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I just tried but it looks like the autoblock has now been lifted - Alison ^❤ 19:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... saying that "those above opposing this are all his friends from there" [95] and they're "all part of the group of friends at Wikipedia" [96], and the whole bunch is a "group of editors seen here in opposition to me" [97] is fair comment, but calling out a different group of editors with "The level of abuse by those I would normally side with is completely out of control." [98] is blockable incivility? Seems to be a double standard. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

None of that is good either and I'd strongly prefer FM didn't do that. But none of his comments have been as bad as Dragon's. Calling people "riff-raff" isn't ok and the fact that Dragon isn't even willing to acknowledge that that isn't ok should be disturbing. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon, had I the time and patience to point out the flaws in your statement I would, but as I have neither, I won't. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is statement is riddled with inaccuracies and is uniquely uncompelling. So the suggestion that all those who did not vote to support Ed Poor are all supposed to be part of some deep dark conspiracy? Do you have any proof of that? At what point did the "oppose" votes from those in this purported cabal appear on the Ed Poor RfA page? Seems to me his RfA was doomed no matter what. But it is a convenient excuse to use. As for the rest of it, if the word "silly" is deemed a blockable offense, or the phrase "amazingly wrong" is deemed to be a blockable offense, or the word "nonsense" is uncivil, etc, but "riff-raff" and other commentary by this editor is perfectly acceptable, I believe we are facing a lovely double standard here. Most interesting.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Kelly ^hi! 19:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this seems to set new standards of what's to be accepted as "civility". Will try to keep in mind the useful phrase, and as an aside "scientists" were by no means the only ones promoting eugenics in the early 20th century, a movement which had much more to do with earlier ideas of heredity and Mendelian ideas of genetics than with natural selection. . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, Dave. I suppose that this and a few other recent incident show that we're pretty much free to say what we want, and that an ad hom is every bit as apropriate as an ad rem. Cool.

And yes, social darwinism and uegenics plucked at whatever straws they could find to support the hatred and stupidity inherent in each. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess my thanks were premature. Please, for the sake of us all, do not debate relationships between fascism and Darwinism on the admin noticeboard. Take your content disputes to the appropriate dispute resolution forum, thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

At risk of reigniting old feuds, is anyone surprised at FM's defenders all showing up at once, and who they are? I kinda feel like saying Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here.... SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All showing up at once? Surely you don't mean to suggest anyone would organize some sort of joint defense to combat harassment by the "WR trolls" in some off-wiki venue. Who could fathom such a thing? <grin> :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with having this page watch-listed? That is how I found out about it. Also I have JoshuaZ's talk page watch-listed. Please point me to the place in policy where this is explicitly forbidden.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no-- you're quite correct-- there's no need to break out the secret lists to explain people showing up at ANI. Hence the double-grin. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's nothing wrong with having pages watchlisted.. the average observer might look at it and wonder how come a certain group of editors have a habit of always showing up at the same time, like a pack of lions trying to bring down a wildebeest, however.. SirFozzie (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, we all agree that it's completely astonishly coincidental when the members and/or supporters of

Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design just happen to show up at a dispute involving one of their fellow travelers - wherever that dispute may be. RfA, RfAR, IfD, user talk pages - it doesn't matter. Apparently those folks are telepathic, there simply can't be any coordination happening. Kelly ^hi!

20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest. It isn't any more astonishing that a lot of editors with one opinion show up than that a lot of editors with another opinion show up. A lot of the people here for example could be easily described as people who mysteriously show up whenever FM is involved. It doesn't require cabals or such, just keeping track of what edits other people you know are making or what is going on on their talk pages. Instead of paranoia and mudslinging we need to focus on the issue at hand, whether Dragon's comments violated

WP:CIVIL. There's also an amazing piece of doublethink going on here in that people are claiming that Dragon's comments weren't really directed at any editors at the same time they make accusations that the editors it was directed at form a some sort of evil cabal. I mean really. JoshuaZ (talk

) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is telepathy an example of Darwinism or Creationism? Minkythecat (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Shush! Telepathy is a gift from the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Kelly ^hi! 20:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked that this discussion was burbling along for quite some time and then all of a sudden when a large faction of the ID cabal concerned editors all turns up at the same time, nefarious forces start nattering negatively about non coincidental behaviour. Please, people, assume good faith here. It's strictly coincidence that Filll, Dave souza, Jim62sch, all turned up when they did. Why on earth would anyone assume there was any off wiki collusion? That is so patently unfair. Now, round up the usual suspects, I've some gambling winnings to collect. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Or see my comment above. One could just as well claim that the editors including you Lar who normally oppose FM are just happening to show up. Frankly, it looks just as likely to me that the people in favor of the block are coordinating off-wiki as it looks like the people against the block are. Indeed, this topic has already been mentioned in multiple threads on WR. So again, instead of the paranoia and the mudslinging let's please focus on the topic at hand. Ok? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference is, a certain segment of the population is, for a fact, known to have been doing stealth-canvassing and coordination in the past. It's not paranoia once you have the proof. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. There is far more evidence of an anti-FM cabal operating here than anything else. So if we go on the basis of the strongest evidence, Lar, SirFozzie, B and several others should be vilified and sanctioned for their cabalistic practices, clearly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) That's funny, Filll. Remind me again, which group posts here more? And um.. which group posted here first? Just curious. Nice job at trying "I know you are, but what am I?".. what's next, "I'm rubber and you're glue?" SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This has downgraded into mudslinging again. This time I'm not unarchiving. Wizardman 22:55, 19 July 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.