Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive69

Jimbo just closed the CFD on Category:Living people against 88% delete — three times. ZOMG DISRESPECT FOR TEH COMMUNITY!! I fully expect some idiot to block him for "disruption" - David Gerard 21:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

-) The issue here, if we want to wax philosophical for a moment, is the knee jerk taking of things to CfD (or AfD) lacking any sort of discussion. The category was created this morning by Danny and amost immediately placed on CfD, and then a bunch of votes came pouring in with absolutely zero acknowledgement of the reasons the category was created in the first place.

Thoughtful consensus requires us to elevated reasoned slow discussion over kneejerk proceduralism.--Jimbo Wales 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL. Ok. I've had my laugh for the day. You had me going for a moment. I was about to edit with an instinctive "That's no Admin, that's the boss" type response, until I looked again at who the comment was from. Good one. :) - TexasAndroid 22:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, blocked. You just spend that time thinkihng about what consensus means, OK? --

estianpower ^háblame

22:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Simple; it's a crap idea. If you want something like this, I could make a list in minutes of articles that have a birth category but no death category, that way we won't have to go to the effort of adding another category to multiple 100,000 articles, and wont have the extra category clogging up our already over categorised articles. Martin 22:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Lots of dead people don't have a death date - David Gerard 22:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Another positive side effect. We can add them. Martin 22:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, ANI gets far to full, can we take any content debate elsewhere (like [1]). Comment on the process if you like. Me, I think the debate is somewhat over. --

^ask?

22:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, lots of people don't have a birth date either... but we can definitely say if they're alive.

talk

| 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How many have this new category though? I think possibly a lot less. Martin 22:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This diff comment is priceless. [2] Hall Monitor 22:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

is this a test to see if we have any guts? If we blindly follow like sheep and start categorizing under Living people, do we fail that test?--Alhutch 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If I assume good faith on that comment, it comes out remarkably dumb. So I'll assume you're being subtly witty - David Gerard 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

please disregard my comment.--Alhutch 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What is with people's antipathy towards this? This feels to me like people rebelling because their precious community isn't quite as important as they thought. Don't worry, you don't have to categorise anything if you don't want to. [[Sam Korn]] 23:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to hear rationaly how having these in a category will make wikipedia better in any way. The idea that it helps to NPOV them is not based in reality. It will just waste the time of good editors. Martin 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This is simply another examle of an fair-to-average idea that, since it wasn't explained or discussed with the "community" first, goes over like a lead

brenneman^(t)(c)

23:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussing is fine, but a wiki doesn't require people to make an argument for creation. Remember the all-important phrase: If in doubt, don't delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The idea has been kicked around on wikien-l before, in the post-Seigenthaler debate; I recognised it when it was announced, certainly.

talk

| 00:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

wikien-l != wikipedia -

brenneman^(t)(c)

01:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

agree.--Alhutch 01:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again those of us not on wikien-l or IRC are left behind. -- nae'blis _(talk) 03:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not prohibited from joining. [[Sam Korn]] 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not, but I didn't come here with the understanding that I would be required to be in three places to get the full picture. If the discussion page of the Category itself had been used to explain the rationale here, as Aaron Brenneman says, a lot of this could have been avoided. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears this is not in fact the case, and a lot gets decided there.

WP:ANI isn't all of Wikipedia either. - David Gerard

14:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is evil! We should all immediately join the pileup lynchmob vote
  here! This is vital for the Wiki!Radiant_>|<
  01:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is right. David is right. If the procedures are so moribund that they're needlessly killing good stuff, we should rely on administrators to use their brains and look behind the numbers. Any administrator should feel proud to refuse to delete an article or other organizational component of the encyclopedia if he isn't happy that an argument has been made for its deletion. The article can always be deleted another day if it's really so bad. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But the procedure being moribund should not be an excuse for revert wars or wheel wars. As you said yourself, use your brains (and I would add, instead of your admin tools). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of wheel warring here. In fact I see no deletions or undeletions at all on this category. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is all a bit besides the point, but don't you think it is a bit of a stretch to jump from "Jimbo's word is law" to "Any andmin can do whatever he pleases, as long as he's called Tony" (which, with all due respect, seems to be your opinion on a lot of things lately) ? -- Ferkelparade π 13:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How on earth did we get 88% delete on a necessary maintainence category? Was there confusion about what it was for? -- SCZenz 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Err, yes? That's exactly the problem. It wasn't clear what this was for, it wasn't widely discussed, and in the absence of that, asking for it to be deleted wasn't unreasonable. Looking back at ads on the wiki, then on to user boxes, and now this, it begins to appear that someone is trying to make a point. In every one of these cases, having some modicum of respect for the peons and taking a week or two to talk about it and explain it first would have been the smart thing to do. Why are things continuing to be done the hardest way possible, followed by cheers from some quarters of "Hooray for us! Stick it to 'em!" ?? -

brenneman^(t)(c)

02:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Asking for clarification would have been even less unreasonable. [[Sam Korn]] 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Explaining on-wiki the need for a new administrative supercategory might have been even more reasonable. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The reasons they gave for keeping the category were adbrupt and unclear - that and the fact that someone (in this case jimbo himself) blanked the page several times throughout the debate... plus the "delete voters" had several rather valid points either way they were hard to ignore.

T | @ | C

02:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Clucking and shaking your heard about this won't do. Just use your head. Categories and articles should not be needlessly deleted. Take note of the clear message and act accordingly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Again and again I ask: Why chose the most disruptive method? It's all very well to say the first ten or fifteen times "why waste time with the process, I'll just do the right thing". Eventually it must become clear that more time will be wasted by acting unilaterally. At that point, if the disruptive behavior continues, surely reasonable people can ask, "Is there some other motivation"?

brenneman^(t)(c)

08:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact in this case nothing was deleted, and no discontinuity occurred. A few people who couldn't imagine that a category of living people could serve a useful purpose in the wake of the Seigenthaler affair came away disappointed that they didn't get to watch another category go into the memory hole, but I'm sure they'll get over it. The use of the word "disruption" here is somewhat wide of the mark.

As for your continual personal sniping, surely you recognise that Jimbo Wales and Tony Sidaway are two quite separate individuals inhabiting different continents and with quite distinct opinions, that he cannot be held responsible for my actions and I cannot be held responsible for his. Speculation that we may have a common motive for choosing a course of action of which you, personally, may disapprove and believe to be disruptive is isn't really going to help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Describing everyone who opposed this in CfD as deletionist maniacs isn't helpful, Tony. The fact is that a lot of the discussion (not a vote?) on CfD was about alternatives such as Persondata or using birth dates/death dates to accomplish this same goal without the need to tag thousands of articles by hand. Truth is it was already a discussion, albeit lacking certain information, when it got cut-off by our fearless leader. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you got the impression from the above that I think those involved in the discussion were "deletionist maniacs" (not the kind of language I use), and I apologise if I inadvertently permitted you to think that I think any such thing. My point pertained to people who, in deletion discussions, seem to treat them as some kind of silly game and Wikipedia something more closely resembling a school playground than a very large encyclopedia that requires maintainance. This does not give a good picture of Wikipedia decision-making; frankly the facile and unhelpful comments make me sick to my stomach. It's not about deletionism, it's about a comprehensive failure to engage with the project in a constructive manner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I see a different message than Tony sees: When Jimbo speaks, listen.

What the situation looks like to me (from the history; I was not involved) is that the category was nominated, and Jimbo said stop. He was ignored; that was inappropriate, regardless of what objections were used to justify it. Every contributor is free to disagree with Jimbo, but they are not free to act in defiance of his authority. To make matters worse, when the vote was continued in defiance of his request that the discussion be moved, he clarified himself that the vote was to end immediately, and was ignored a second time. If that was not disrespectful enough, when he closed the CfD, he was reverted. At that point, a less patient individual would have blocked the reverter and dared anyone to think about overturning it, but he did not do that.

It is unfortunate that this situation happened, but it is an opportunity for all of us to remember that Jimbo is the boss. When he gives orders, it is our obligation to abide by them. We are free to voice our concerns and objections, and to refuse to participate in them, but we may not act in defiance to them. In this situation, if individuals object to the category, do as you are asked and voice your objections on the talk page. If the matter is not settled to your satisfaction, then decline to participate: don't add articles to the category, and don't watch the articles in the category. But, do not act in open defiance by insisting on deleting the category; to do so is disrespectful to Jimbo, without whom we would not have this project, and is disruptive to the orderly function of the site. It has been argued that discussions such as this CfD are the operation of the rules and processes that keep the site running; however, continuing this particular CfD in opposition to Jimbo's direct orders is a disruption of the most central rule to the orderly function of Wikipedia: The final decision on any matter is reserved to Jimbo, and there is no appeal of his decision. When we forget that, then we have forgotten that which is most central to Wikipedia. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is the boss of human knowledge. Jimbo's intervention here should be heeded, moreso than the intervention of any other user, but ultimately Jimbo has no real authority here. The only legal or moral power Jimbo has is to temporarily force us to relocate it to a server he doesn't control. I respect Jimbo a great deal—more than almost any other living human—and I agree we should listen to Jimbo and respect his wishes. But Wikipedia is not an autocracy and Jimbo is not the benevolent dictator of human knowledge. He makes no attempt to be, either—he said so himself on C-SPAN a few months ago, and this is one of the prime reasons he is worthy of our respect. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 08:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Being a somewhat frequenter from the C2 and MeatBall wikis I see sort of where he is coming from on the CfD thing... basically that all they are is a content management system available to the public. In reality though they are terrible discussion mechanisms due to interface problems etc., plus wikis at least originally were never designed to deal with spam and if someone wanted a page they generally got it. Oh, and in the name of wikis everywhere, I just deleted the category, because I think, at the very least in its current incarnation is really bad idea - which I think may result in good discussion (for everyone except myself, of course :)). To be honest I sort of envy the nastigrams Zoe gets, so here's to some of them on my talk page! (As well as an RfC, RfAr, Immediate de-adminship what have you). At the least it is an interesting experiment and I can say that I had real BALLS!

Whatever Jimbo thinks, but this category is teh dumbest thing ever. In fact, every category that could contain >100,000 articles is pretty dumb.  Grue  09:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that category sucks. Jimbo controls Wikipedia and what he says has to be done, but that doesn't make this category any less stupid. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 09:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, I am a bit divided here. THere are two very good arguments on both sides. For deletion: The category is ridiculous and will most certainly be horridly overpopulated if kept. For inclusion: Jimbo disagrees with the previous argument and he has the power to issue decrees. I see that RN deleted the category, since that is contrary to Jimbo's clearly expressed will I have decided to restore it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Does he though? I can't off hand recall the board vote that gave him such powers. Incedentaly how are the french and german versions of this going down?Geni 09:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he can. As I understand it, Jimbo controlls 60% of the board seats; he has one, and Michael Davis and Tim Shell were appointed by him, as will be thier successors when they leave the Board. Two memebers (Angela and Anthere) are elected. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How does appointing members mean you control them? They do not have to vote the same way as Jimbo. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got reservations about this category (although I'm willing to be convinced), but I agree with Essjay. Of course, no one is 'the boss of human knowledge', so you are entitled to take your human knowledge and fork off. Actually, in the end, for better and for worse, Wikipedia is an autocracy. Thankfully, the autocrat appears willing to have a discussion - so go discuss it with him. --

^ask?

09:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Imho, the category is stupid, but if Jimbo likes it, let him have it (is this a category designed for a sort of "Living People patrol", because vandalism to LP is considered more harmful? You still need people agreeing with this, and doing it, Siegenthaler or no Siegenthaler). We have lots of stupid categories, and while there are reasons to walk away from Wikipedia in a huff, this is not one. (We could have a template "deleted but for the grace of Jimbo" or something but maybe that would be disruptive).

dab (ᛏ)

10:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's slightly inaccurate. Tim and Michael rarely vote on Board issues, and Jimbo has undertaken never to vote against Angela and Anthere when they agree. [[Sam Korn]] 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both are completely inaccurate. I do not control the board. I do not control Tim and Michael. Tim and Michael always vote on board issues. In terms of actual votes, nearly all of our actual votes have been unanimous but that's because we discuss and find consensus about what to do. In general, it is not true that Tim and Michael agree with me about everything, all the members of the board are intelligent and independent voices. Don't be misled by trolling on the encyclopedia article about me. :-)

My special powers within the community have nothing to do with the discussion about this category, but it is probably worthwhile to discuss where they come from: the community itself. Why do we have explicit exemptions written into virtually every policy in Wikipedia? Because of overwhelming support within the community for the notion that we are freer to explore procedures for decision making under conditions of ambiguity and consensus when we also have a safety valve. It is not my intention to be the benevolent dictator of anything, but it is my intention to protect our communities core purpose against irrational rules-bound processes.--Jimbo Wales 21:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So what...it's one thing in a million...Wikipedia is not paper! It's good to be the king!--MONGO 10:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Stupidly alrge numbers of catigories don't look too good in certian skins.Geni 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

well, if 88% of people are going to refuse to use it, it'll just sit there gathering dust...

dab (ᛏ)

13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that number is exaggerated by the number of people who can't wait to rebel against any kind of wiki authority. [[Sam Korn]] 14:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I rebel against the

^ask?

14:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Could someone please point to a good reference for those of us who weren't around much in December and don't happen to know about the "Seigenthaler affair"? I assume Seigenthaler has accused us of libel, but I'd like to know more about the situation than what I can glean from context here. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 20:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • John Seigenthaler r.. This was a major kerfuffle and made international news, so it's in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Better, see
      John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy for lots of details. DES ^(talk)
      21:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And can somebody please explain what this is about to those of us who don't use the IRC channel? Leithp 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

One last note about all this from Jimbo: I'm the absolute first to say that things should be discussed with the community first. That is, indeed, what my big beef is about the current dysfunction of AfD/CfD. Rather than *discuss* concerns about the category (some of which are of course valid, and yes, we should discuss them), on either Danny's talk page, or on the category talk page, it was immediately put up for a deletion vote without asking questions. And then when I tried to stop the vote and hold a discussion, there was a lot of bitching and moaning as if somehow I was trying to stop the discussion! --Jimbo Wales 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh yeah, the discussion about the deletion of the thing seems to happen on the AfD/CfD page. I think this is better than on the talk pages. Why do you not agree? cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict): As I understand it, the proposal is for a category that would in theory apply to every biographical article for a person currently living. This would be a quite large category, albiet not the largest we have. It would surely be large enoughj not to be useful for navigation. As I understand it, the arguemnt is that it could and would be used for various mantanence tasks -- for example, via "related changes" it could allow what amounts to a special version of the recent changes page specifically for biographical articles about living people. This will only work if at lest most such articles are indeed included in the category. There may be better ways to accomplish these objectives -- at least some in the various discussions have so asserted. The category does have the advantage that it does not require and code changes to MediWiki software. And it has been endorsed by Jimbo. It seems to me that setting up a project with the defined goal of monitering biographical articles and avoiding vandalism, libel, and false info there; and discussing technical methods at such a project would have been wiser. But that isn't what the people involved chose to do. The category has been created. Jimbo has intervened agaisnt its deletion. Why not now set up such a wiki-project? The project could be a place to discuss how to use the category, and what other tools might (right away or eventually) supplement or replace the category. If the project members, including Jimbo, finally agree that the category in unneeded, its delation will probably be uncontoversial. As long as such a project is finding or considering ways to make good use of the category, I don't see why anyone ought to be intent on trying to delete it. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a crazy idea to me. But when this guy said 'what about an encyclopedia anyone can edit?' most probably thought that was a crazy idea too. So this guy (even if he wasn't the boss) should be given a lot of latitude to try out his crazy ideas. Certainly don't try to snuff them out at first sight.--

^ask?

10:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes if we could go back to focusing on the matter at hand that would be nice. I posted this at

WP:AN but I'll post it here again. This is probably the most broad category ever made on Wikipedia. Do you know how much of a hassle it's going to be to list EVERY single person who's alive. That's a pretty useless, if you ask me. I don't think we need a category to help us divide the people who are alive. I think Categories should group people/things that are unique. Unique in bieng able to list a few people/things into a category of something specific that not everyone has. Something that broad like if their alive or not is hardly useful. Navigation-wise it won't help at all, it lists basically everyone! IMHO, I think this should be put up for deletion. — Moe ε

07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dead people can't sue you for defamation of character. Live people can. Preventive measures with this in mind might call for the existence of the category. If Wikipedia were viewed as worth sustaining. 207.172.134.175 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This user, Jonah Ayers (talk · contribs), along with possible sock puppet Maslow (talk · contribs), seems to be creating articles about non-notable people for the sole purpose of harassment, in retaliation for administrative work connected to his editing. Two editors report having received menacing phone calls, apparently from Ayers. I ask whether the recent creations are possibly speedy deletions candidates. Ayers, with Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jonah Ayers, is engaging in unacceptable and disruptive behavior. Is this blatant enough or do we have to go to the ArbCom to get relief from his mischief? -Will Beback 10:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How has he got their phone numbers? Secretlondon 11:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He has their names. -Will Beback 15:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And I might add, on one occasion he posted a phone number with a request that people call to harass an editor. [4] (The actual info has been deleted). -Will Beback 16:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

nope. meant to post my number, but it's one digit off by mistake, and then was told that wasn't a good idea, for what are now obvious reasons...Jonah Ayers 18:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, if that had been the case you would not have been blocked for one week for divulging personal information. Is there any help available from admins? -Will Beback 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, Will. I've noticed Maslow doing this once or twice, but I'm not familar with the background. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any harrassment going on here, it's much like the case of brandt, and wiki watch, etc... you're really just falling into a category of people who will be included on the encycolpedia... much as slimvirgin does not warrant an entry, or will beback, in slimvirgin's case it doesn't seem like she does much for her community other than online wikipedian work, so her information wouldn't need to be placed online, but as for Will mcWhinney, this is a person whose father is worthy of an entry, and who also works in the community, and was involved in an interesting skirmish in the ranks of the sierra club, so for that alone his article has merit, and isn't worth deletionJonah Ayers

For the record: there is an AFD ongoing · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've speedied it because it was created as part of this dispute, which seems to have involved harassment, and if editors are being telephoned at home, it's obviously quite serious. I won't wheel war over it, so if someone else restores, I won't delete again, but I hope no one else will. I've also asked Jonah to email me, because I'm quite willing to try to help resolve the dispute if he'll allow me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was clearly created in bad faith, I doubt anyone will disagree with you there. But the contents itself I don't think quite met the speedy criteria; that being said, I think it was a smelly enough move that it ought to be left well enough alone. It would've been deleted anyway. I certainly won't restore it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Being called at home, or having one's phone number published with an admonition for others to call, is harassment, plain and simple. Revealing the private information of editors is harassment. Defacing pages is vandalism, impersonating editors is harassment, violating the 3RR is prohibited, etc. This is not like the Brandt case, unless you're referring to his calling an editor's emplyer. -Will Beback 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean baout getting called at home, and the impersonation of editors waS started by biff rose who was editing his article as sojambi pinola, and then pinela, etc... all of whom we're banned, by you I believe. This case is similar to the brandt case in that people have been messing with edits and creating a hostile place to edit, i.e., you Willmcw aka Will Beback and its interesting to note that you were according to your posts not going to use the Willmcw as your administrator any longer, but function solely as Will Beback, you said that you would not do that, that Willmcw would end in 2005, yet as recent as january 10th you used both identities to enforce Administrative blocks and votes etc.... making one, your pick therefore a sockpuppet... So you see, it's your own behavior that is suspect, and you keep trying to turn the tables and say it is others...Jonah Ayers

Regarding your charge of using two accounts, I used my old account solely for the purpose of ArbCom voting because of a special requirement that voters must have accounts registered prior to October, and I gave both names to prevent confusion. -Will Beback 06:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that against the rules? I think you should work it out so you have one identity, and dont' seem to be some kind of sockpuppet. Please advise, I won't make anymore trouble with this one. Just have one of the administrators say that what you're doing is ok, and not being a sockpuppet, exercising admin rights via two different users, controlled by the same person.. if that is allowed, because voting in arbcom decisions is an admin duty, and theere is a consensus among admins that this is not in fact a punishable situation, then I will back off, smells fishy, but I want to see the honest standards of wiki enforced, because you seem to have a double standrad, blocking some people for 3rr violations, and not others, and then this...Jonah Ayers 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Having multiple accounts is not against Wikipedia's policies, so long as they are not used to a) be disruptive, b) evade a block or manipulate consensus, or c) violate Wikipedia's other policies. Besides which, he clearly identified himself. It isn't as if he was trying to vote twice. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To confirm: My actual name is Steve Espinola. My username is Sojambi Pinola. User:Jonah Ayers has created several sockpuppets which are variations on either my name or my username, for the purposes of confusion. He also created a username Biffrose and used it to write libel about singer/songwriter/comedian Biff Rose. Biff Rose has not contributed to Wikipedia. He has expressed thanks to me that I removed libel about him from the article, including claims of kidnapping [5] and child molestation [6].

"Jonah" also created a username which is my home phone number. He got the number from my webpage, where I had naively included it for the sake of gig bookings. The username was deleted, but I believe admins can still access the evidence. This username posted on the Biff Rose page at 00:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC). He has called my house five or six times, one of those times at 1:40 am. Two of the times he left obscene messages. One time, right after I had left a response to his writing on his talk page, the phone message was "Stay off my talk page." That strongly implies, to me, that it was him. Hard to prove, of course.

Again: Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Jonah_Ayers

Jonah often posts as anonymous IPs. Here's a sequence of messages he left on User:Derex's page where he spells out much of his MO: [7]].

One of these IPs also posted on Biff Rose's message board and threatened harm to Mr. Rose at an upcoming LA show.

It may be worthwhile to check out the user contributions of User:Steve espinola. [8] Again, that is not me, but it is the same user as User: Jonah Ayers, indulging in pretty outrageous vandalism. He created that username specifically to harrass me.

--Sojambi Pinola 15:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the Jonah Ayers account indefinitely, because he continued posting personal details after being warned by two admins that he risked the account being blocked indefinitely. There has also been multiple sockpuppetry and possibly telephone calls to people's homes, so it has gone far enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Here is more evidence that User:Jonah Ayers has been involved in systematically harrassing and insulting editors he considers as enemies: here, here, and here. In this last example he is admittedly using a sockpuppet to evade his blocked account [9]. Marcuse 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

Jonah was just blocked indefinitely by SlimVirgin. Are we sure that User:Maslow is a sock of Jonah? If so, that account should also be blocked. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly seems like a sock puppet to me. Blocked.--

Black

06:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody, for the help handling this problem. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The user has returned several times with sock puppets, and further administrative actions will probably be required in the future. He once again has created a username with an editor's phone number in it, and used it to edit Biff Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please be on the watch for harassment from this editors. Thanks, -Will Beback 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm,

Black

10:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Time for a stupid question from a new admin. Ever since his 24 hour block last month, Piecraft (talk · contribs) has disdained logging in, and has instead continued to contribute anonymously from a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets. He's even gone as far as to use them in attempts to vote twice at several AfDs. Some of the accounts, but probably not all, have been collected at Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Piecraft. Apart from that, should we be doing anything else? - EurekaLott 20:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, here we go again. Piecraft's language is getting abusive once more. See User:Piecraft, User talk:Piecraft#On sockpuppets, User talk:Avogadro94, and User talk:217.129.169.105. Would another warning be appropriate, or does he need a second time out? - EurekaLott 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(continuation of above) I should mention that there has been lengthy discussion of the problem (official blackout of certain results of the Canadian election between 00:00 UTC and 03:00 UTC

• You and another user has reached a lot more consensus that the rest of us! Consensus may be in the eye of the beholder. Nfitz 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I say let them post that information, unlike

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for your helpful comment, but you fail to address

verifiability issues. Physchim62 (talk)

16:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I banned Instantood and Huaiwei both from Clock tower. Revert warring without discussion and the usual jabs in edit summaries.

I also banned Instatnood from Category:Transport in Hong Kong, Category:Transportation in Macau, and Category:Transportation in China, reverts on old fights in otherwise stable articles (or cats as the case may be) without summaries or discussion.

The full list for bans per this ArbCom ruling can be found here. --

And I just added

And another....

7 Day Blocks

I have blocked both Instant and Huaiwei for 7 days effective immediately for continued and incessent edit warring despite numerous warnings, pleas to reconsider, and article bans accumulating at more than one a day (not to mention what I'm sure we're missing). This blatant disregard of their probation requires a more direct response and I believe this block is in order given their continued edit warring and disturbance to Wikipedia. --

May I request that this block be reviewed. The latest incident that prompted this block, in

Talk:Singapore Science Centre, and therefore I feel that the ban is rather unnecessary, as the reverting has ceased. For these reasons, I hope admins would consider reducing the length of the block, thanks. --Vsion

06:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

They engaged in edit warring first and 'discussion'–one lonely comment by Huaiwei–afterward. Whether the

WP:RFArb

, expanding the terms of their probation to include all articles.)

Moving their destructive interpersonal conflict to non-China-related pages doesn't give them a free pass to edit war. If they can't get this through their heads after being banned from more than a dozen individual articles and receiving two or three short-term blocks in the last few weeks, a seven-day block seems regrettably necessary to get their attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As this notice states, this is not about one edit, it's about a documented pattern of behavior that shows no signs of ending. Huaiwei reverted the article 3 times in the past week without any discussion and the usual debate in the edit summaries. He didn't post anything to the talk page until after his latest revert. Finally, I'm pretty confident this meets the criteria of being China-related seeing as how the majority population of Signapore is ethnic Chinese. --

Wgfinley

06:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I resent that, Wgfinley. In no way are we China-related just by the majority race. I'm Chinese in race, but I don't see myself related to China.

T+C

) 07:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It may just be Instanthood wanting to get on Huaiwei's nerves, but

T+C

) 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Chinese, yes majority of Singaporeans are, but I have yet, after living here for a great deal of 15 years (I am an European migrant), I have yet to come across a Chinese here claiming to be related to China in any sense, except for ancestry. Its just a great deal of misconception, Singapore is a South-East Asian nation, the portion of the Asia continent where Chinese are considered migrants. No, Singapore Science Centre is not related to China, nor are any Singaporeans, in regardless of ethnicity, related to China. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 14:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And, once more, this is not about a single edit, this is not about the makeup of the Singaporean people although these are delightful exercises in

Nonetheless, it is clear that because of

Singapore Science Centre, Wgfinley issued the general block. His misplaced belief that the article is china-related undeniably influenced this decision. Also in several instances, the situations had been overstated: that "normal editings" being stated as "edit wars"; "simply revert" being stated as "revert warrings"; and "explanation in edit summary" being described as "jabs in revert comments". One clear example is in Clock tower, where a closer examination will show that there is no revert at all. Many editors do have the occasional habit of writing long edit summaries, and there is in fact no ill-will in the edits of Clock tower between them and other editors involved. However, Wgfinley had misinterpreted the few long edit summaries as a revert warring and issue the block, and continue to uphold it despite later clarification. As these decisions are questionable, it warrants a fresh look into the circumstances and that the length of the 7-days block be reconsidered. I earnestly request that because it is an extremely harsh penalty on two very important wikipedia contributors, as evidenced by their contribution pages; which also show that both parties have exercised considerable restraints in the past few days. An overly harsh punishment in this circumstance would not be in the interests of this community. I appeal for reconsideration, thank you. --Vsion

16:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Come now, Instantnood and Huaiwei clearly need time out. They have been playing this cat and mouse game of reverts for ages now. They got their hands slapped at arbcon and have continued regardless. Singapore Science Centre was nothing special - it's just the article when Wgfinley finally had enough. He has been spending time and effort on individual article bans - we should be thanking him for that. Wikipedia is all about writing an encyclopedia, not warring. There are plenty of articles needing attention that if they both decided to they could have kept out of each others way. Thanks/wangi 16:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Professor Von Pie (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts POV edits into the Bob Hope article and is repeatedly reverted. I have asked him not to insert his personal opinion, but he just continues and now he sends me an email which says, "It will be reverted daily, possibly hourly". User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to try sweet reason then block when if it fails - David Gerard 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd seen him previously. His edits are careless (little apparent heed for blending content into narrative flow- often only tacks something onto the end of a sentence turning it into a glaring run-on, sometimes ignores simple stuff like double spacing a para break) and the details are frequently wrong or misleading, the wonted gossip thing.

Wyss

22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hourly, is it? I've blocked him for reverting five times in less than 24 hours. Zoe seems to have been very patient. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

Maybe somebody should keep an eye on

• He's using an image uploaded by his earlier sockpuppet KIMP, using profanity, attacking other users.... All standard Zephram Stark behavior. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Using an image uploaded by his earlier sockpuppet KIMP isn't a standard Zephram Stark behavior. --Doctor Nicetan 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... sooooo socklicious [10]. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it is pretty obvious. Just examine the Inalienable Rights edit history. There are three users who have a passionate hatred of the Criticism section and use exceptionally long edit summaries. They are

talk · contribs), and now Doctor Nicetan (talk · contribs). It's the long edit summaries that give him away....that and the crazy ramblings on his user page. --JW1805 (Talk)

05:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's just great. Make fun of the handicapped guy. --Doctor Nicetan 06:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Doctor_Nicetan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as yet another sockpuppet of Zephram. He's almost becoming a parody of himself. Anyway, he certainly is persistant, got to give him that... Carbonite | Talk 11:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The technical evidence confirms that Doctor Nicetan (talk · contribs) is yet another Zephram sockpuppet. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for using a celebrity's name. The user claims it is her real name. Can we AGF and unblock, or should it stay blocked? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

See the user's talk page. I've unblocked. -- Longhair 04:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It may not be a bad idea to watch the account; I seem to remember Ms. Barber was at one point angry about her article. I highly doubt she'll vandalize, but we might watch that her article stays NPOV. Ral315 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts regarding a username that's just a skull-and-crossbones dingbat character? I admit it: it makes me nervous. Perhaps I was swashbuckled by pirates once toward the end of a former life, I dunno. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm jealous.  :) Here's to hoping he (or she) turns out to be a productive member of the project... and not some dingbat. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

HA!! On a serious note, aren't folks with symbols as usernames generally blocked becuase of browser compatibility issues? For instance, this symbol just displays as a box for me. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask them nicely to choose a more readable name, and show them how to put their pretty symbol into their signature…I've started the ball rolling. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you know, one shouldn't really put non 7-bit ASCII chars in signatures or in usernames at least on the English wikipedia, because it prevents people using console-mode browsers from ever being able to edit pages where these users have signed. This is not because console-mode browsers do not support Unicode (indeed, lynx, and most others, support a wide range of charsets) but rather because MediaWiki appears to consider all text-mode browsers to be "blacklisted", and thus transliterates all non 7-bit ASCII chars into hex codes as an attempted workaround for browsers that don't support it. Unfortunately, as far as I've tried, this workaround seems to be broken in such a manner as editing a page containing non 7-bit chars with a text browser (through no fault of the browser) causes the text to be converted into a string of broken hex codes, and thus saving any revision of the page using a text browser causes the Unicode character string to be hopelessly messed up, precluding any editing of the page without messing up their signature. I have seen cases indeed where people have savaged users for messing up their signature in this manner (although I shan't name names). People may wish to remember that some blind or partially sighted users use text-mode browsers with a screenreader, and not everyone has a graphical terminal on which to work on. In my case, I am not partially sighted as such but rather have some discomfort reading pages of computer text for prolonged periods of time, and so prefer to work using a screenreader and terminal when doing heavy editing work; I've found it impossible to edit any talk page that Miborovsky or Encyclopedist signed, for example, in Lynx, and thus have had to use Firefox for editing any page they've signed. Just thought I'd mention this. Best regards, --

(talk)

00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the username should be changed–ideally by its owner–for reasons of legibility, ease of communication and to avoid confusion. I also wish that we hadn't enabled Unicode for usernames or signatures (spoofing problems, etc.) but it's too late to put that toothpaste back in the tube. I'm wondering, though, how Nicholas edits articles that contain Unicode...? I've seen it popping up more frequently, and sometimes unexpectedly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he should change his name. No reason he can't use it as a signature or something. —

I need some help here, because I'm a bit confused now. I think the events are as follows.

1. Batzarro had some fair use images on his userpage removed by Zanimum, repeatedly.
2. Zanimum protects the userpage to prevent further additions of such images.
3. Batzarro asks me to unprotect his userpage and promises not to readd FU images.
4. I unprotect Batzarro's userpage.
5. Batzarro adds two FU images to his userpage.
6. I remove them and protect the userpage again.
7. Batzarro now claims that the images are either public domain or his creation [11] and that they have the wrong tag.

I have trouble deciding what to do now, can somebody please help? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The star wars pic image:AEAT is a pic I made on my computer. The dog pic is from public domain. When I added the tag,I did not care about domain . Batzarro 10:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you Mike or Dave Sharples? The Star Wars image was originally credited as the joint work of the Sharples, but you uploaded the current version which has that credit coloured in. The two images are in all other respects identical. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the key objection I had to your and Ferall's userpages is that the images were not fair use that were at least used in the encyclopedia itself, as well as on your userpage, but that they were exclusively used on your userpages. -- user:zanimum

Batzarro (talk · contribs), 220.247.254.190 (talk · contribs) and 220.247.252.135 (talk · contribs) have been violating WP:POINT by editing other user pages in retribution. The account and the IP's also seem related to Ferall (talk · contribs). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that the Kooorooo (talk · contribs) and zanimum2 (talk · contribs) accounts have been created by Batzarro to prove a point. The wording Kooorooo has chosen on User talk:Kooorooo is completely out of character of zanimum, and is completely consistent with Batzarro's choice of words. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, as the real User:Zanimum. Sadly, I must add Booren as another suspected sockpuppet. Booren's only real edits are to his userpage, which was taken down by Kooorooo in my name. Also Batzarro's usertalk page evidences he's a fan of Ashida Kim, the image added to this new user's page. -- user:zanimum

I've added

the list. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'}

13:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now we can add user:Zanee. Cute. -- user:zanimum

Curps has just blocked Kooorooo indefinitely. -- user:zanimum

I am not a fan of Ashida Kim but believe in neutrality. There is no proof that he is honest,no proof that he is a fraud either. The dog pic I uploaded was from a public domain site perrosdelargentina or something like that if I am not mistaken. I cant remember. Besides most of my edits and uploads were useful,except that i spend 25% of the time on my userpage which I narcistically fawn and croon over. Kooorooo edited the kkk template I added. I am an Australian/SRi Lankan/Indian/Singaporean mix not an American. As for kkk I have little caucasian ancestry.

Anyway just unblock my page?

The ADMIN who blocked me;user:zanimum had some fair use images on HIS userpage.He is the root cause of all the drama.Batzarro 17:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is this user still permitted to edit? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Zanee (talk · contribs) keeps on removing the "suspected sockpuppet" tag from his user page. I am probably too involved to block him for this, so I would like another admin to keep an eye on him. If he continues, however, and noone steps in, I see no alternative but to block him myself. I will start at a 1 hour block, and I will then double it at every new revert. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 17:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Other admins, note that Zanee has edited the article "Batzarro", adding a link to user:batzarro's page. Only Zanee, Batzarro, and Booren have yet to be blocked, anyone find the evidence against them enough to do so? -- user:zanimum

Zanee has again removed the suspected sockpuppet tag from his user page, replacing it with something with which I think he's trying to provoke us. I will now block him for 1 hour. The next time he does it, I will block him for two hours, four, eight, sixteen, etc. Any admin who disagrees with this block is free to unblock him. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Batzarro's gone a major streak of vandalism, and he's been banned indef., as well as many of his socks. Keep an eye out on anything that has to do with Britney Spears, Jessica Alba, Whitney Houston, or alternatively, things that KKK members would be interested in vandalising, as he targeted both categories, the first of which he puts penises and clitorises up on the page. -- user:zanimum

Oh, and when he put clits and ps up, he adds in quotes from none other than Jimmy Wales. Why? It's Jimmy's quote saying about how our work isn't done until every child in Africa has access to our knowledge, an idea a white supremist like Batzarro of course doesn't share. He also puts up Jimmy's personal contact info, and rants about Ashida Kim. -- user:zanimum

I'm definitely no fan of timecop or his ilk. However, I find the spurious accusation thrown by User:David Gerard that he is a sock puppet rather ridiculous. This flimsy accusation ultimately led to a permablock by User:Alkivar

Obviously, I whole heartedly support a permaban of timecop and all GNAA members. But at least be honest and up front about the circumstances. Wikicrusader 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

David has checkuser - it's his "job" to ferret out sockpuppetry. Guettarda 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If there are any other confirmed accounts editing from the same IP as timecop, they should be considered the sockpuppets, not timecop. This is backwards. silsor 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The dickyrobert account was the first indef blocked account of the person... all the others were linked to it... as we knew this as DickyRobert... it only makes sense that the puppetmaster gets marked as such.  ALKIVAR™ 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Timecop and his friends are here to fuck shit up. Others are welcome to assume good faith in the face of blatant trolling, and I probably can't convince them otherwise - David Gerard 10:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, did you know that cannabis is closely related to peyote? Could Cannabis and Cannabis (drug) be semi-protected? It suffers constant random vandalism. -SM 04:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism is not that constant, and whatever has occured has slowed down a bit and, I feel, does not warrant immidiate protection. In the vent it re-occurs, put your request on

WP:AIV, as it'll likely be tended to more quickly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>

04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Better still put it on

requests for page protection --pgk^(talk

) 08:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Contributing" since November, nothing but vandalism (oh, no, there is one spelling correction!), and now harassing VegaDark for warning him/her? OK... I see the account has been blocked for a couple of days. I'd request that somebody clever check whether this is a static IP, as the story suggests it might be. I'd be glad to extend the block, provided it won't just mean incurring collateral damage to innocent users. IMO we shouldn't keep abusive non-contributing "contributors" around at all. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

I'm not very sure where to put this complaint, or quite how to word it, as it's a cocktail of a few reverts, deliberate posting of false info, and a dash of attempted sockpuppetry. Dudes111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly posted unconfirmed rumors with no citations on Avatar: The Last Airbender over the course of a week and a day. After I initially deleted his additions, he reverted them, claiming his facts were real. (He then thrice removed my subsequent "in-need-of-citation" tags) With some research, I realized a user on a popular fan forum for the show was taking credit for his edits in the same real-time timeframe, while simultaneously claiming to have "found" his initial submission here, rather than writing it himself. When this information was aired on the talk page, he attempted quasi-sockpuppetry by pretending to be an anonymous arbitrator and leaving his post unsigned. Am I in the right place? --172.171.196.5 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See [12] where Dudes111 apparently thinks he's logged off but hasn't. Strange - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User Dudes111 has explained the aforementioned actions and apologized alongside the explanation (seen here, scroll down to "Hello there I am the Dudes111, you can check ...") I'm satisfied with the apology and explanation, but I can't speak for how others feel. I recommend not taking any action right now, but watching the user to see whether they continue to be a problem, or if they become a valuable contributor. --Lesoria 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

user:Aidan Work, blocked for serious personal attacks (as well as about 100 other policy violations), is now editing under the username user:Royalist0007. Proof - thats the first part of his email adress. Same kind of edits. Same homophobia on his user page. Same articles being edited over again.

A block is needed now before he thinks he can continue like this. --Kiand 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Royalist0007 could be User:Aidan Work sockpuppet

I suspect User:Royalist0007 could be a sockpuppet of User:Aidan Work. Aiden Work is currently banned because of abusive behaviour. Some current behaviour that I believe points to sockpuppet includes characteristic signing of his own articles and categories[13]. Also replacing Category:Commonwealth of Nations with Category:British Commonwealth because Aiden is more fond of the latter, which is technically incorrect. Also a general interest in the same articles and topics, and finally the categories that are used in his page. I have mentioned the sockpuppet policy on the user talk page. Djegan 08:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked

When I was controversially blocked for 3RR violation and tried to explain that the block was not valid on

Now that it has come to my attention, I have reset Molobo's 24h block as a result of his blatant evasion and blocked the evading IP for 24 hours too. -Splash^talk 12:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note about my reasoning: normally, it is only really ArbCom bans that get reset upon evasion: it is probably more usual to block the evading account until the end of the original block. In this case, however, Molobo's editing has been so completely unrestrained (all the way to an RfC) that I think starting over is more appropriate. -Splash^talk 12:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Just reverted some vandalism from a fairly major page (Jimmy Carter) and noticed that the user already has a "final warning" on their talk page placed < 24 hours ago. Hence, a block for 72.10.123.177 (talk · contribs) would be appropriate. Thanks. Turnstep 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have previously reported this incident at

An admin has now blocked the user for 24 hours but they have instantly come back using the ip User:134.164.137.162 and reverted yet again.-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

About a month ago,

What's the point in blocking a month after the fact? Blocks are remedial, not punitive. However,

WP:BP#Personal attacks which place users in danger is clear enough that a block may be imposed immediately such an attack is discovered; I rather suppose the policy has in mind that the block still be pertinent to the fact. -Splash^talk

22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand; What remediation is ever provided by imposing a block after personal information has been posted? Surley blocks in these circumstances are, if not "punitive," at least meant to discourage the behavior. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A block will prevent the editor from adding the information again. The editor having not apparently done so, a block wouldn't be stopping anything. There is a case, sometimes, for 'electric fence' blocks, but there's really no case for much at all a month after the fact. -Splash^talk 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have now become a bit too involved, so I won't do it myself, but I think that what Tina has said on that talk page ("... his superiors are being informed about his Vandalism! I highly doubt that he is going to consider this very funny after his system is inspected!") is consistent with {{threatban}}: "Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or work-related, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user, are immediately blocked." Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'}

I emailed the victim of the attack, after I posted here, and he advised that T. Barber did indeed contact his superiors and also posted his name/work info on her own personal forums requesting those participants also contact his employer.

At the time she did this, a number of Wiki editors posted on the talk page asking T. Barber why she did this and telling her it was against Wiki policy and that an apology was in order, but she didn't offer one or remove her post.

Us being new users to Wikipedia, we didn't know what/if further action could be taken. It took a little time before I found this site to ask about this.

This caused considerable grief for the editor she "outed", but since the administrators didn't take any further action, he thought acts like that must be allowed by Wiki, so he hasn't posted since.

Will there be any further action taken? Once the person gets the Pino4 template, is there follow-up or does it just become inert if she doesn't respond to that template?

Because someone also tracked my IP address (again, being new, I sometimes was forgetting to "sign in" to Wiki)and posted my name on the page also, after that one. I don't know if that were her also or not. They used the name "Aslan" (shows IP address 70.35.67.56 03:33 before name), but I've since learned about "sock puppets", so maybe it was her and she figured nobody stopped her before so why not do it again. When it happened to me, that moderator didn't say anything about it, so again, I figured it was alright with Wiki too. I don't know if they have been able to track my employer yet.

I hope somebody can help us with these incidents because if this continues, editors are going to be pretty worried that their personal info is vulnerable if they post here.

I have wondered if maybe a technical solution might help. It seems that right now when these incidents happen there is a tension between on the one hand keeping the edit history as intact as possible for a number of reasons, not least of which is to preserve evidence that the offending editor did this thing, and on the other hand to preserve the privacy and thus the safety of the victim.

I wonder, what would be the practicality of the following procedure: when there is a reported attempt to "out" personal information, the page in question is temporarily pulled; the portions which represent the sensitive information are processed with one of the common hashing/checksum algorithms, and replaced with a template expression giving the length and checksum of the redacted personal information? This would preserve as much evidence as possible but still preserve the editor's privacy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now

Well, it's happening again. Another post today, with just an IP address, showing a link to Tina Barber's personal website listing the personal names and information of people who may not even be on Wiki or are on Wiki but not using their "real" names. The post is as follows:

"In response to the "others" statement that over 50% of the existing ISSR breeders left in '97-98, at Tina's request, I have reviewed the database and put it into a live web page that can be shared with the entire Shiloh fancy. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/otherBreeders.htm.

"I am also preparing other documented data pages that will clearly dispell the objections that have been raised by the "other" "editors".

207.200.116.133 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)"

Also, if possible, could you please check these potential sock puppet IP addresses 70.35.67.56 (as already noted by Aecis) and 207.200.116.133 (yesterday's poster) and name "Aslan" (the "name" of the poster who revealed my personal info) to both Tina Barber and also poster "TrillHill", as I do think there is a chance one or the other, or both are using these IPs and/or names to reveal personal information, as TrillHill will sometimes place posts saying Tina Barber has asked her to post (I don't know if maybe Tina Barber was blocked during those times). I'm sorry for this obvious hassle in trying to stop this, but I don't know where else to turn and it's getting really bad. Thank you very much for helping.

MilesD.

06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added the request to

Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser, so that those with m:CheckUser privileges can check on these users. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'}

12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, again, this poster, T. Barber (who also signs as MaShiloh and who knows how many sockpuppets), has placed 3 new posts today on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog page, revealing two personal names.

Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog#Reply_to_New_Draft

The two posts are as follows:

"I have put a lot of time into preparing a reply page that would clarify a LOT of the BS that has been presented via the "objections" proposed by <name snip> I certainly hope that the editors here will take the time to visit this link & read the FACTS!!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/numbers.htm MaShiloh 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)"

More BS ... <name snip>, you were there when Gary announced his *new* registry ... do I have to get others to sign statements to that effect?? That's when I brought the SSDCA, Inc. back into the picture ... not after the Grand Island standoff when I left *his* club .. but after I found out that he was starting a registry!! Granted, he didn't publish it till Feb .. but I have proof that the plan was in the works as of Nov. 97!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Oh <name snip>, give it up!! If everyone that walks on this earth, joins a club, visits a show, or even joins a school is called a *breeder* then everyone's stat's are way off!! I have 1087 members on our forum .. should I call all of *them* "breeders"??? I think that if you check the Wiki .. some place it's got to clearly show that only a person that BRED a litter --is a *breeder* What about the folks that go to a car lot to test drive a new car?? How many of them buy it?? Can you call all of them "buyers"?? Some are just "potential" buyers!!! Same with our LB's .. some may never breed a litter ... but they signed up to get licensed & will stay there till they leave ... period!!!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous and something more immediate needs to be done. These numerous personal names are all sitting out there on these Wiki pages, this poster has ignored the warning to remove them, has contacted at least one person's employer, has encouraged others to contact an employer, our administrator(s) haven't stopped it, and frankly, we want our personal info off these pages and for this person to be stopped from using them freely and obviously, without any concern that they will be stopped. Please, I am asking for someone to please take some definitive action ....enough is enough, already.

Thank you.

:Wikipedia Admin,Please Read Today, January 25th on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog discussion page, Under "Original Research vs. third party":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog

In a post that ShenandoahShilohs wrote, a "Tina M. Barber" not only broke up the article but referred to the poster twice by their personal name.

Revision as of 22:23, January 25, 2006 Tina M. Barber (Talk | contribs) New history draft

"Oh <name snip>, give it up!! I....."

"More BS ... <name snip>, you were there....."

This has become a common practice for Tina M. Barber in multiple replies and no one is taking action. It seems that there have been warnings issued on December 28, 2005 and December 30, 2005, followed by a serious warning of an unknown date. It would appear that the protection of other editors continues to be threatened as she continues to disregard Wikipedia admin. warnings and continues to use personal names in her posts and threaten editors work arena by contacting editors places of work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tina_M._Barber

Tina M. Barber is getting more and more hostile and the continued use of personal names is extremely disturbing. She has crossed serious Wikipedia rules by doing this and contacting editors work arenas in attempts to get editors fired from their jobs. Are the policies truly considered serious if people can continue to break them on Wikipedia over and over and over again? If these are truly serious breeches of the Wikipedia rules and policies, can someone tell me and the other editors, why she has not been banned?

Concerned Editor,

--iamgateway 04:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also see topic: Am I missing something? ShenandoahShilohs 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:I implore you to take action - a 3rd person's name revealed

Please, please, can any of you help immediately? I'm one of the editors in the ISSDC registries working on the Shiloh Shepherd article. Editor Tina Barber just posted another message on the discussion page, revealing a third person's actual name.

Please – why hasn’t anything been done about her giving personal info prior to today’s incident, other than posting to her user page? Why hasn’t anything been done about her tracing an editor’s IP address to his work, contacting his work to get him in trouble, and posting his personal information on her chat lists, telling her supporters to contact his work? Again, she got a warning on her page, asking her to delete the info. It’s my understanding that she hasn’t done it.

:If Wiki policies aren’t enforced, or if they aren't going to be enforced with editor Barber, please just tell us that, so we can make an informed decision about future participation.

Just posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog&diff=prev&oldid=36826258 "And regarding the numbers and LMX on the new link above, if you search the Orthopedic Foundation For Animals database for German Shepherds born between 1970 and 1990 you get 23,613 records. There are less than *12* that have Shiloh in their name and out of those twelve, I think half might be from TB. *12* out of the twenty-some thousand that is claimed to have gone into the LMX program is pretty un-verifiable. WindsongKennels 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)"

"[person's 1st name], you know that the OFA didn't record preliminary (under 2 yr) x-rays back then! If I had you subpoenaed into court, and you were asked (under perjury of law) if you saw the STACKS of x-rays on my dogs ... what would you have to say?? MaShiloh 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)"

Editor Barber has a long history of contacting people’s employers, threatening physical harm and even worse, improbable as it may seem, threatening lawsuits, losing control and having to be physically restrained, etc., when people cross her. The risk is real.

Right now, this feels nuts – to read about Wiki’s strict policies and then see no enforcement when people are put at risk.

Sincerely, S Scott 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Note on the last "reveal" (X-ray post) -- in the user's first post to Wikipedia, she used her full name and affiliation.--SarekOfVulcan 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Update Thanks for the update on Windsong using her real name earlier. That's one less person's info revealed. It's also been clarified that editor Barber appears to be the only person using people's real names when those people haven't posted their real names on the discussion page. S Scott 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

At 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I placed an indefinite block on

Good show.--

Black

22:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There's an AC case in the queue or accepted, but anyone in a case can email the AC, and doesn't actually have to be unblocked to participate. Just so's y'all know - David Gerard 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't block people you are involved in disputes with. Secretlondon 02:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is of course correct. If Nicholas cares to unblock, I'll certainly reblock - David Gerard 12:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have (provisionally) removed the block that

Given that GNAA have launched a campaign of harrassment at Alkivar and other Wikipedia users, I've gotta say I find it exceedingly unlikely that Timecop's learned his lesson. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Civil my ass ... i've been getting threatening phone calls at home.  ALKIVAR™ 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is too much. I've reblocked, though if you wish to revert me, Nicholas, I will not wheel war - I just think there are limits to what we can allow, and getting to harrassing phone calls is about 20 steps over the line. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No kidding...harrassing phone calls? He should be gone for good. Period.

Rx StrangeLove

04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I know for sure timecop has done no such thing as harassing phone calls. Alkivar, you have largely implied that timecop did the phone calls, so please clarify your accusations. Sam Hocevar 09:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar, it's unfortunate that you got those phone calls. However, that's beyond the scope of wikipedia conduct, and (most importantly) we have zero evidence that

FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK

) 09:41, Jan. 25, 2006

Furthermore, timecop lives in Japan and has stated he does not make international phone calls. That's the strangest logic I've heard all week. The first half means nothing whatsover if the second half is untrue: which means that boiled down, you're taking him at his word. I'd say there's very little reason to do that, gievn his track record. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet if I called your house and said I was timecop, I'm sure you'd take my word. —

FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK

) 11:07, Jan. 25, 2006

Okay, we have now left the realm of bad logic and have entered the territory of complete non sequitor. Also, since his user page proclaims "This user thinks Osama bin Laden is the greatest man on Earth" and "This user eats dog", you can talk to him about politics sometime and maybe pick up a few recipes while you're at it. I'm sure you take his word on those, too. --Calton | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a non sequitur, it was intended as a question, but I couldn't find an

FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK

) 11:31, Jan. 25, 2006

It's a non sequitor (i.e., a sentence logically untethered from what it precedes) regardless of what punctuation you stick on the end. A question mark merely converts it into a non sequitor rhetorical question, since you can't honestly expect me to believe that you're looking for information of any kind. And your doubts that anybody would dial overseas to make a prank call merely shows your lack of imagination -- or, indeed, lack of knowledge of the ease in making such international calls (assuming, of course, Timecop really DOES live in Japan to begin with). --Calton | Talk 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's part of a GNAA/Bantown campaign. Ask Linuxbeak about these charming fellows. They're not just trolls and hackers, they're loons as well. I have no reason to believe anything any of them says to me at any time whatsoever, and I hope others would be as smart - David Gerard 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed: "He has proven himself a legitimate user" - what the fucking fuck? - David Gerard 10:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's been the key force in keeping our encyclopedia clean of vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs, which I think is excellent work. —

FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK

) 11:07, Jan. 25, 2006

No, his is a "War on Blogs" period/full stop, not a "War on vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs", or hadn't you noticed? --Calton | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you name any deleted blog articles that were worth keeping? —

FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK

) 11:31, Jan. 25, 2006

Irrelevant. His is a "War on Blogs" period/full stop, not a "War on vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs" or "War on articles that I, personally, want deleted", or hadn't you noticed? --Calton | Talk 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be slightly less dishonest to judge it by what it is, not by what it is called. This "War on Blogs" is exactly what was needed to counter the systemic bias caused by the massive proportion of bloggers on Wikipedia. Sam Hocevar 11:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone's even been attacking Alkivar with diffs on Uncyclopedia. Presumably on other wikis as well. If Timecop said the sky was blue, I'd look out the window - David Gerard 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

David's right. Whether Timecop is doing this stuff personally, or his friends are the actual culprits, there is absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia in allowing him or them back. More than that, there is no ethical reason either -- sannse (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather sickening that we're not seeing the bigger picture here: Timecop's organization is now criminally harassing one of our users because he blocked their "fearless leader". Whether timecop did this or not, are we so spineless that we're going to give into this sort of internet gang war? Should our admins be afraid to take action against GNAA members if they act like retarded clowns? When I was harassed by bantown, it wasn't their leader who did most of the harassment. In fact, it was the low-level trolls who were trying to prove themselves. No, I'm sorry. This is a picture perfect example of why we should not allow GNAA to abuse our good faith, trust, and resources. Screw them, and screw anyone who thinks otherwise. If GNAA members want to actually help Wikipedia, then why the hell do they harass our members, both in cyberspace and real life? This "war on blogs" bullshit is not justification for their presence. If they want to truely help Wikipedia, they can do alone, not in the name of GNAA. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Rx StrangeLove

16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Who do you call criminal? Im sorry but i have a work, family and more, and im no criminal like you claim all GNAA members are. I've been trying to understand you but its not possible at all, maybe its time for you to learn from people who's actually willing to read and decide, like silsor. As for your problems with bantown, dont try to mix them with GNAA, because its not related. Cheers --blackman 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I've also had enough. I've been very patient so far, his harassment of members off Wiki is going too far. I'm permablocking. I'll send a message to Jimbo and the ArbCom about this, I'll let them overturn my permablock. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, there was a user that was sanctioned for sending threatening emails to Wikipedians about Wikipedia related stuff, and I do not see that this is any different from that. If someone is making threatening phone calls over stuff happening at Wikipedia, then we should be able to do something here.

Fair use policy

14:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

WTF?

I love how a discussion about unbanning a troll turns into trolling the person that banned the troll. Is this what our community has degenerated to? --

It's now with Jimbo - David Gerard 16:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

More precisely, TBSDY has perma-blocked TimeCop (presumably for all of the above) and left a note with Jimbo and the ArbCom. TBSDY doesn't have authority to make binding decisions for all admins, not being an Arb (or a Jimbo), so I thought I'd note it here. Not that I have any problem with the permablock, but it's at the very least customary to tell the other admins about such things, in case they disagree. -Splash^talk 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that TBSDY said this above as well. Ral315 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

WTF indeed! We have a guy that turns up here saying 'I'm the fearless leader of a bunch of international trolls, who disrupt websites for kicks' - and what so we do? We assume good faith. Bad enough, but even when our trusted admins get abuse, we still 'assume good faith', and demand the admin 'proves it'. Get a grip! AGF - does not mean we have to have our heads up our asses. I say call time on all these trolls. --

^ask?

19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. The only reason they're put up with at all is because it's not worth it in terms of soft security - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and noting it was correct. I'm just noting that it's got higher attention - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Alkivar, the GNAA isn't involved in any of this. He's talking to them right now, and they say that anyone who harrasses him gets banned. They said it is just someone who claims to be affiliated with them. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-25 23:47

Just out of curiosity, where has Alkivar said this? Because his talk page still refers to GNAA harassment at home by phone, and he hasn't updated it. I've taken a look at his contrbutions and I can't see anything saying the harassment has stopped. —Phil | Talk 08:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats because i'm a lazy fuck apparently... Yes the calls have stopped, timecop was apparently not responsible. I have unblocked him after a conference with Linuxbeak, myself (duh), Timecop, and another GNAA member. For the moment simply treat him as a normal user, the threats were made in GNAA's name but are completely disavowed as a rogue non-member claiming to be GNAA. For what its worth, I'm willing to give Timecop another chance, consider him on probation if you will.  ALKIVAR™ 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that the admin Jayjq is responsible for the asumed sock check of this incident and spreading the news. The evidence is here: User_talk:Jayjg#What do you make of this? and here: User_talk:Eliezer/archive2#Sockpuppet check.

This looks like several severe violations of Wikipedia:CheckUser to me. --Scandum 12:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, looks like Jayjg did everything by the book. What would be a violation of CheckUser (let alone a severe violation) would be if he told everyone what your IP was. All he did was say that you are a sockpuppet of ZimZum (or the other way around). There's nothing wrong with that. Thanks for letting us know here, now I (or another admin) will look into your contributions and block one of your sockpuppet accounts if you abused either of the sockpuppet accounts. --Deathphoenix 14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore Deathpoenix. I've been quite civil despite the rather hostile attitudes of several users. Also, this is not what this issue is about and it looks like Deathphoenix is trying to obstruct the current discussion.

I've been told [CheckUser Policy] is a more up to date guideline for the check user tool. The actions by Jayjg still seem a clear violation of the CheckUser usage guideline. Especially the part stating that check user shouldn't be used for political control.

Taking into account that Jayjg is deeply involved with the highly controversial Circumcision article and seems unable to keep his role as an admin and editor seperated I suggest that the Removal of Access guildeline is followed before check user violations become the norm. --Scandum 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not obstructing the situation. I just came into this situation from reading

WP:ANI. My actions have been reversed and I have promised to wash my hands of the matter. I was a complete outsider with no interest in either argument. If you think I am deliberately obstructing you because I have some vendetta against you, I invite you to check my contributions: I have never heard of you prior to reading this section. --Deathphoenix

17:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the guidelines, I don't see which of them you think he violated. It looks like he looked it up after being asked in relation to suspicions of vandalism and sockpuppetry. I don't see any evidence that he released private information. --Fastfission 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

First check user should never be used for no good reason. There was never any valid reason to use check user on either Scandum or ZimZum. Secondly nobody ever asked if ZimZum was a sockpuppet of Scandum, and since there was no wiki sockpuppet violation I think it was way beyond Jayjc to reveal that information. Doing so was likely motivated by political reasons, making it a clear abuse of power. --Scandum 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean, you were caught? - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How come we don't get to have cool templates like that? Guettarda 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't, and I should stop using it even when grossly tempted ;-) - David Gerard 12:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Scandum (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• ZimZum (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

I am definitely very uninvolved, having never seen either user nor posted (or even recently read) any of the articles in question.

This shows that ZimZum/Scandum created a new account because the old one was "traceable"; however, both ZimZum and Scandum are still very active. According to this post, Scandum = ZimZum. Scandum's first contribution is 4 March 2005, while ZimZum's first contribution is 17 January 2006. Therefore, ZimZum is the sockpuppet account and Scandum is the sockpuppeteer (unless Scandum itself is a sockpuppet of another account).

Therefore, as a completely uninvolved and neutral admin, I am going to block ZimZum indefintely as a sockpuppet. Scandum, you should only post using one account. If there are any admins that disagree with this action, feel free to unblock. --Deathphoenix 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, Deathphoenix. What's the abuse? There is no rule against using two accounts, as such. See the CheckUser policy: "As a reminder, sockpuppets are not generally forbidden (editors may edit wikipedia under several accounts). It is the abuse of sockpuppets use (and in particular voting twice under two different names) which is severely frowned upon." Bishonen | talk 15:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

(edit conflict) He's been posting to RFCs and being quite incivil. I would not have blocked if ZimZum is active while Scandum is not (since the stated intention of creating the new account was because of the stigma of the old account), but both accounts are active and very incivil. Overall, I've been taking fairly uncontroversial admin actions as a newbie admin. I suppose this is my first potentially controversial action, which I decided to take because I've seen a fair number of incivil sockpuppets like this become quite abusive, and this sockpuppet shows signs of being a potentially abuse account. If this were a normal and unique account, I wouldn't have done anything. However, I believe we should keep sockpuppet accounts on a much shorter leash. If you wish to unblock, go right ahead. I took one action and will wash my hands of the whole affair. I don't intend to get myself involved in this case any further. --Deathphoenix 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention, both accounts have been used to post to circumcision/genital cutting-related articles, but nothing else that I can see. They weren't used to simultaneously "vote" on any matters. ZimZum's posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh, but Scandum has not. That's about it. --Deathphoenix 15:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they've both edited Circumcision. And I suppose it does make sense to set high standards of good behaviour for extra accounts. - Haukur 15:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean only people editing in a way 6 admins endorse have their privacy respected. --Scandum 01:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* I don't know what to think. I can understand your frustration but I can also understand the case for revealing your puppet. On one hand we can say: "OMG!! Jay outed an alternative account of user he had been in a dispute with even though he did not violate

WP:SOCK!!!!11" But on the other hand we can say: "The account looked like an abusive sockpuppet so Jay was asked to check if it was a sock. Turned out it was and Jay said so." It's a judgment call. Maybe Jay should have got a second opinion on whether to reveal the connection. (And maybe he did.) But I'd say he was within his rights and did not violate the checkuser policy as written. Maybe that policy needs to address cases like this more explicitly. - Haukur

01:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The account got checked for being suspicious cause it voted negatively for an RfC Jayjq himself was directly involved in. The votes were also highly unequal, so there was no way my vote was in any way affecting the RfC's outcome. I understand your opinion of me is as an annoying whiny abusive user due to the dirt throwing that has started right after the start of the conflict.

I'm not sure how exactly you are reading

WP:SOCK but if you look beyond the counter accusations you might see there were no sock puppet violations making what happend highly inappropriate. A similar case would be where you asked if Jimbo and Lola are sock puppets, and the admin with user checking answers no, but since Jimbo hasn't been giving him pressies for Christmas you should know that Puff Pusher is a sock puppet of Jimbo. So much for not giving pressies! Enjoy--Scandum

02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If the extra account was being used abusively (e.g. by commenting on the same talk pages as the other account with the same views) then the block is justified. If it was not being used abusively then the block is unjustified and Jay should probably not have released the information to begin with. Now, let's find out which is the case :) - Haukur 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Both ZimZum and Scandum are abusive. A cursory glance at their contribs makes this painfully obvious. Tomer^talk 15:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, my understanding is that you only block a sock if it's being used for sockpuppet abuse, such as voting twice, or for a user to "support" himself while pretending to be someone else. Blocking it for general incivility of a kind you would not have blocked a unique account for, as Deathphoenix did, isn't right. I'm unblocking, for now, but invite Haukurth or anybody else to reblock if they find evidence of sockpuppet abuse as such. (If there is none, incidentally, Jay shouldn't even have looked.) And of course either or both of the accounts can be blocked for general abusiveness. I wouldn't object, I just don't think DP's block, with the reason as given, ought to stand. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

That's fine. I'll take that as a lesson and go back to just blocking vandals and such. I was hoping my actions would prevent wasting time, as my personal opinion is that ZimZum will, in the future, create a lot of headaches and waste the time of a lot of Wikipedians. But since such preemptive actions aren't allowed, I'll just stop right now after having done it once. --Deathphoenix 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Such preemptive actions are indeed not allowed. I can assure you that I haven't been anywhere near the same article with the two accounts since I created ZimZum to edit controversial articles. The accusations of me being abusive should be taken with a grain of salt since they have been suddenly popping up the minute the conflict of the check user tool began, not before that. --Scandum 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite correct, Scandum. I distinctly remember Benami complaining about personal attacks you and Dabljuh were making. Jakew 17:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlike Deathphoenix, I am remotely involved in this nonsense—far more so than I want to be. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ZimZum was invented as a vehicle for Scandum to be abusive. This persona was invented 17 January, 2006, for the obvious specific purpose of endorsing

Scandum: (incivility) [16][17][18]characterizes his reinsertion of Dabljuh's assininity as "rvv"

(assumption of bad faith) [19]

Scandum also displays occasional mild antagonism toward User:Zen-master: [20][21]

As far as I can see (and this is my attempt at humor which S/Z hopefully gets), Scandum's biggest problem is that he's an insane egomaniac; ZimZum's is that he's drunk. (go read their user pages for support of this assertion)

ZimZum: (incivility) [22][23][24]

(failure to assume good faith) [25]

As for the protestations of harassment in "exposing" him, he does that himself, at the very least, admitting that he's someone else, and issuing a challenge to figure out who. Tomer^talk 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but I think your accusations are highly POV since I don't see the relavancy. Why don't you spend a fraction of that time investigating an admin abusing his powers? Or is it considered uncivil since he's your buddy?

I'm getting the slightly odd feeling here that this is some kind of diversion from the topic above this one. --Scandum 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you don't see relevancy in my comments you consider them to be POV? That doesn't make sense, but whatever. I don't see any abuse of imagined power or I'd be commenting on it. What's incivil is your accusation of cronyism. I'm getting the slightly odd feeling here that you think I'm advocating blocking you. I'm not, so enhance your calm. All I've done is demonstrate that you're not as blameless as you try to make yourself out to be. You can't expect people to come to your defense when you come to court with soiled hands. Tomer^talk 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)