Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

non-descriptive block summaries[edit]

I feel really bad for having to make a minor complaint against a fellow administrator. I don't think it's bad enough for an RfC, so I'm posting it here.

I'll start with the positive comments first. For a few months, Curps (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been blocking many suspected vandal accounts, often before they are used. However, he often uses "user..." as the block summary. That is not descriptive at all, and it can be confusing for new users. But for the most part, the blocks seem legit.

Non-descriptive block summaries make Wikipedia seem less professional than it really is. If a new user gets blocked with "user..." as the reason, s/he will definitely be very confused. Several users have already complained about these block summaries.

Of course, I can unblock the accounts and re-block them, but I don't feel like doing it with several hundred accounts.

I'd like to hear other users' thoughts on this. --Ixfd64 02:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this by any chance limited to users with long names? If so it is a software issue.Geni 03:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
No, the block reason is simply given as "user...". This is clearly a reference to the "usernames" section of the blocking policy. For the sake of clarity it might be better to put "inappropriate username" or something like that. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Aren't these blocks being handled by a bot? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought that his bot was only supposed to block page-move vandals? That is, unless he extended his bot's functions. --Ixfd64 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's not clearly a reference to anything. The easiest way is to put {{usernameblock}} as the block summary, this expands to a reasonable description when viewed by the blockee. Radiant_>|< 12:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing[edit]

This is a notice that User:Pigsonthewing is banned from editing the Administrators' noticeboard and all subpages of said page, including WP:AN/I for a period of one week. Andy's RFAr has a clause which allows for any administrator to ban Andy from any page for good cause, and as such I have activated the probationary remedy. I have informed Andy of this ban and am asking that all administrators take notice. If Andy violates this ban, he may be blocked for 24 hours. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation, I've decided that there is consensus for a ban. Pigsonthewing is banned from editing User:Karmafist, User talk:Karmafist and related subpages, untl 0001 UTC January 13 2006. If he edits these pages before then, the enforcement clause will apply, he may be blocked for up to one week. Like Linuxbeak, asking all admins to take note. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

posible problem with classic skin[edit]

Classic skin appears to be messing up image deletion. Could someone cheack if this is really the case and not just me. If you are looking for images to use as a test take a look at WP:CP. Thanks.Geni 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm using classic (afaik...since I haven't changed it) and had no problem deleting an image. --Syrthiss 14:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


classic is not the default. The default is monobook.Geni 14:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
ah, sorry then. :/ --Syrthiss 14:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm using classic, and I'm not having any trouble deleting images. --Carnildo 01:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Multiple Personal Attack Violations Against Several Editors[edit]

[Note: The following wildly-out-of-context quotes are from a lying, convicted, and subsequently confessed sockpuppeteer whose sole purpose in life appears to be to instigate trouble. See User:Tommstein/Retcon-Missionary Sockpuppet Evidence for more.]Tommstein 08:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attack Violations for User Tommstein contrib relating to three areas of No Personal Attacks Policy

  • Negative personal comments & "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

“stop giving pubescent 15-year olds administrative powers”

"half a day has been pissed away because of administrator laziness"

“punk”

“revert ignorance”

“demonstrating him to be full of crap”

"you're just flinging crap all over the walls"

“Cairoi's dumbass threat”

"Just for asking that dumbass ad hominem question"

“Stupidity is not a defense”

"idiotic, factless, rambling"

"some kind of a degenerate"

  • Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.

“Watchtower Society has told them they are to think is just some stupid dumbass”

“refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as 'ignorant numbnuts'”

"part of your religious shunning bullcrap"

"Go find some old lady to preach to that you can try to abuse into submission like a good Jehovah's Witness, or kick your dog, or beat your wife or kids or something"

  • Profanity directed against another contributor

“bastard”

”numbnut”

More examples available upon request — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.40.198 (talkcontribs) 16:18, December 21, 2005

Melt-Down / User Access DENIED[edit]

What is going on ? Almost all site functions cause this site to either freeze up or refuse access to Users. Just got BACK online.Martial Law 06:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, the database was locked for maintenance, or at least that was the message I was getting--Aolanonawanabe 07:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I can no longer access other Users, now what is going on ? Tried to access User:Dreamguy just now. All I got was a red mess. Martial Law 10:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC) :( Wikipedia says there is no user w/ this designation. Had access two minutes ago.Martial Law 10:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Indirect access is still possible.Martial Law 10:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You may need to bypass your browser cache, try Ctrl+F5 to force it to reload from server. enochlau (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

vandalism at Islamic Human Rights Commission[edit]

I don't agree with admin Ulayiti's decision to handle the ongoing edit war at Islamic Human Rights Commission as content dispute, I feel it's vandalism by 86.130.63.21 and should be handled as such. --tickle me 01:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl[edit]

This admin has been most unfair to me; I previously posted a single piece of vandalism, and was indefintely blocked (later changed to 48 hours), see Special:Contributions/84.9.73.251. I came back after my ban (changed to 48 hours) and posted an edit to show that I was back to be helpful (see contributions), and then left a message for jtdril effectively questioning whether he could really have thought my rather light hearted edit summary could really have been considered "[an] implication that [I] engage in sexual abuse, may leave [me] liable to police investigation and criminal prosecution.". For this alone, I was almost immediately blocked again (or at least my previous ip was), for "legal claims". Surely, if anyone, it is jtdril that has been making "legal claims". How on earth is a "vandal" supposed to reform when one gets this sort of treatment? And I wouldn't be suprised if jtdril's actions are endorsed for this, while this ip gets banned for "circumventing a ban" or similar nonsense, but I would at least like a proper sort of justification. 84.9.93.27 00:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

While "defamatory claims" (from the IP talk page) is certaintly the wrong description, jtdirl explains his reasoning here. Given that and the message left with the block, I wonder why the ip edit hasn't been deleted. I think it also would've been helpful if jtdirl had briefly explained that reason before someone else asked, as the explaination isn't necessarily obvious. --Mairi 01:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am impressed that an anonymous editor with only three edits in total–including the complaint above–was able to correctly assemble such a thorough defacement of Trials of Saddam Hussein, including modification/replacement of several images and correct wikisyntax throughout. Use of an edit summary (I LIKE TO WANK SMALL BOYS - YES I DO - I LIKE TO PLAY WITH THEIR WILLIES) is also commended.
I would like to extend congratulations to the many editors who have assembled and refined our documentation and help pages over the years. If a new user is able to assimilate such advanced techniques so rapidly, the transparency and ease-of-use of our editing tools must be truly incredible. Worthy of mention as well is the anon's ability to find this page for his complaint, and his ability to use a correctly-formed Special:Contributions wikilink on it. Obviously our dispute resolution guidelines are extremely clear and concise.
Such a talented and fast-learning editor should be able to find more productive outlets for his expertise, and will no doubt appreciate that our administrators are very busy and have other urgent concerns. He will surely understand that refraining from doing dumb things in the future is an excellent way to avoid further blocks.
No cookie this evening? A snack for Jtdirl.
Because I suspect that Jtdirl's second block may have been the result of a slightly twitchy blocking finger, I am sending Jtdirl to bed without a cookie this evening. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you, now? All right, here's a little snack for Jtdirl. The absence of any smidgeon of regret for the "single piece of vandalism" (how nugatory it sounds) in the post above is interesting. Bishonen | talk 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
How is it interesting? Why should I regret it? If I am to be punished, why should I regret it? Surely if I truely regretted it then there would be no point in punishment. BTW, this claim is absolutely not a notice of intent to recommence vandalising (this needs emphasing in case of more twitchiness).
(and, btw, I am philisophically against regretting things, as I consider life a learning experience; I would go into more detail, but as you chaps know, wikipedia is not a sounding board....) 84.9.93.27 02:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
An experienced editor like yourself probably knows that Wikipedia is philosophically opposed to the notion of "punishment"; that wasn't why you were blocked. I used the word "interesting" as a civil euphemism for "displeasing". And that was when I assumed you did regret it, but merely omitted to say so through social ineptness. Now that you've informed me you don't, I'd use stronger words. Bishonen | talk 02:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am going to assume good faith and assume that is your real reason for using this, in which case I again point you to my philisophical objection to regretting anything. I must go to bed now, but I shall be pleased to respond in the morning. 84.9.93.27 02:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your sarcasm, but I made no claim of being a new user - I am indeed an experienced editor, albeit an exclusively anonymous one. However, let me state for the record that I have nothing at all to do with the bear fellow. Anyway, I wasn't so much complaining about the initial block, which made sense, so much as the one for making a "legal claim" - I still don't get this point. 84.9.93.27 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I take back the "most unfair" thing, I see how there may have seemed to have been a link, but I still don't see my statements as "legal" (other than them being, er, legal) 84.9.93.27 01:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. 84.9.93.27, you're just making Jtdirl look like he was justified in coming down hard on you. So, if that was your objective, congratulations. karmafist 20:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:84.9.93.27 for one month for vandalism, trolling and disruption. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Fucking unbelievable ... --84.68.154.13 10:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore Police Force[edit]

This was just posted to my talk page by User:160.96.200.18 in reply to a request left at User talk:160.96.200.19 as to why the logo was being removed. The Huai_Wei referred to is user User:Huaiwei. We have both been reverting the logo here until earlier whenit was replaced with a picture from the commons. Any comments?

I refer to your comment dated 21 Dec on the above subject.

I am writing on behalf of my organisation, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) with regards to your webpage posting on the SPF's history. We noted that there were no requests seeking consent for the use of our SPF crest for use on this website. All requests to use the SPF crest will have to be submitted formally, either via our webmaster or in writing, to the head of the organisation. Each request will be assessed on a case basis.

We have previously written to Huai_Wei (the initial publisher of this wiki) on 24 Nov, informing him of the unauthorised use of image (i.e. SPF crest) and likely, information from our publications. We did not receive any acknowledgement to date. We are in the process of checking the content posted on the history of the SPF in your website to see if there are any infringement of published information that is copyrighted.

We will be seeking our legal counsel's advice regarding the unauthorised used of our corporate logo and information published by the SPF. While we acknowledge and appreciate the interest in our organisation's rich heritage, and the promotion of such knowledge in the interest of both academic and personal research, we believe that the individuals who sought to use such information should responsibly seek clearance and consent for use accordingly. Until such time, please refrain from posting the SPF crest on the website.

Regards

Public Affairs Dept

Singapore Police Force

CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, at the minimum there should have been a contact address (e.g. email). In any case, the current pic shows the logo as part of a building, and I believe this is OK copyrightwise, although I am not sure about the laws in Singapore. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer and do not wish to become involved in this situation, but logos are considered fair use under U.S. law, and the servers are hosted in the U.S. I'm pretty sure they can't restrict people from publishing a photo of their building with their logo once it's been taken. You should probably forward this to Danny, who if I remember correctly, asked that all mailings dealing with legal issues be forwarded to him so that the appropriate people can take care of it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to clarify, that the logo in question was actually Image:Singapore Police Force Logo.png, which I uploaded on wikipedia claiming fairuse of a logo, although I was unsure if it infringes on Singaporean copyright laws. The logo was displayed in the said article on 18 November 2004 [1]. On 11 November 2005, I sent an email to the SPF to make an enquiry on an unrelated matter. A few emails were exchanged, asking me for which publication I was making my enquiry for. On 22 November 2005, an anon deleted the logo wih no comment left [2], and I subsequently reverted it on the same day thinking it was an act of vandalism [3]. On 24 November, I received an email from the SPF informing me that they have removed the logo due to alleged infringement of copyright, as well as issuing a warning over the unauthorised use of "any images, text and statistics from the Singapore Police Force website and all its publications". Unsure if I had indeed infringed on any copyright, I left the article as it is, and went about seeking a replacement to resolve the issue. No message was ever writtern in wikipedia informing others over the copyright infringement issue, and I admit my lapse in bringing the issue to the attention of others.
Hence almost a month later on 21 December 2005, another anon removed the logo once again [4], resulting in a series of revert warring between the same anon and User:CambridgeBayWeather [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Finally on 22 December 2005, I ended the edit warring by replacing the disputed the logo with a self-taken image instead [12]. Only when this happen, did the anon finally left a message on the article's talkpage, as well as in CambridgeBayWeather's talk page a few hours after I replaced the logo [13]. Responses to the above message has been made in the respective article's talkpage expressing our intentions to act on any violations of copyright laws.--Huaiwei 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Attack of the Rugby Hooligans[edit]

There is apparently a concerted effort at the chat forums of http://www.planet-rugby.com to continually vandalize Wikipedia. A post to that forum, dated 12/21/05, entitled "Attn: Girv Gang", calls for comments on Talk:Girvan Dempsey. The articles edited by these folks invariably add nothing but POV text -- either in the form of effusive praise (which may possibly be "taking the piss") or in the form of direct attacks -- to a pre-existing stub about a rugby player. The same post calls for the continual recreation of the Planet Rugby and/or the Planet Rugby Chat Forum article, which was deleted by consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Rugby Chat Forum). The text of the deleted article was pasted into the Planet Rugby forum for easier re-creation.

Articles targeted thus far:

Users apparently associated with Planet Rugby:

Currently, the Planet Rugby and Planet Rugby Chat Forum articles are protected and have a big ol' {{deleted}} template slapped on 'em. I'm a little unsure about how to deal with the rest of the mess. My gut instinct is to protect all the articles currently targeted by these folks until they get bored and go away, but I have not yet done so. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 11:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this doesn't look like vandalism to me. This looks much more like newbies not knowing how Wikipedia works. Protecting the deleted pages was a good move. It solves the recreation problem without fuss. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not so sure[20]. It looks to be over but if not it might be worth trying a bit of diplomacy.Geni 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Protection[edit]

Maybe I've been living under a rock for the last couple of hours, but I just realized that Semi-Protection of articles has finally been enabled. Since I didn't see an official announcement anywhere and more or less accidentally stumbled over the new feature, I thought it might be a good idea to drop a note here and let everybody in on the fun. Relevant policy page is at WP:SEMI, all our high-profile vandal magnets seem to be semi-protected already -- Ferkelparade π 12:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the mailing list, it not entirely functional yet, in that new users aren't blocked from editing (anonymous contributors are, however). --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
From my tests, it looks like it's preventing new users from editing semi-protected pages (list here). --Interiot 08:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Something is dreadfully wrong here[edit]

I just noticed that my account already has pagemove permisions, except I only registered my account about 30 minutes ago, the waitlist for pagemove permissions seems to have vanished, probably after the last server crash, perhaps someone wants to recreate the waitlist before other people notice this, the vandals could have a field day with this bug--1 use 17:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • If I am not mistaken, it is based on a specific percentage of the number of users who are new, rather than an actual time limit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is presumably a side-effect of requiring people to create accounts to create new articles - many more accounts per day. Unless someone knows better. Rd232 talk 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, he's right. Earlier on December 22, pagemove was available immediately after registration, which Guillermo_con_sus_ruedas (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) took advantage of. It seems to have been a software misconfiguration issue, and has hopefully been fixed now. -- Curps 08:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrongfully accused of vandalism[edit]

I had technical difficulties with my computer that would delete sections of the King Kong (2005 film) article every time I would try to edit, which I did not intend. All I tried to do was move an image. My edits should not be considered vandalism, as the changes other than the image placement alteration aforementioned were completely accidental. Eliezer, an administrator, wrongfully accused me of vandalism and left a warning message. I apologize for the confusion. --24.253.120.206 12-22-05

Thanks for the note. You should probably be very careful in your edits then, knowing that you are having a technical issue. I would reccomend also using the Preview function before you post an edit, to make sure that the edit will not have any unintended effects. Thanks, and please do continue contributing. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POV Cleanup[edit]

The POV disputes list is immense and just skimming, many are old and already resolved disputes... would I be stepping on toes forming a project to clean it up? -- Jbamb 00:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • No, you would likely be barnstarred. Excellent idea. Radiant_>|< 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikistalking personal attacks and sockpuppet slander[edit]

Yuber is calling me "chaosfeary" in every edit he makes to me and every time I make an edit he doesn't agree with he pulls on his friends to start revert wars.

He seems to think I'm a sockpuppet and has got Jayjg to do a user check (without asking for my permission or respecting my privacy at all..) which proved I wasn't.

Can someone please tell him to stop him to stop following me around making stupid allegations? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I never got Jayjg to do a "user check" on you, but I did request one on Chaosfeary's account to see whether or not he was Enviroknot, and this was all a long time ago. I think you're confusing your own accounts here.Yuber(talk) 02:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
your friend anonymous editor and Katefan0 did though. Jayjg is all too happy to use his admin powers to violate others' privacy for you and your mates it seems.
And yes, please stop the stupid baseless whining or you won't have a foot to stand on if I make personal attacks back at you. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 04:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
If you start making personal attacks, I'll block you regardless of what Yuber's doing. I may block him as well, but that's beside the point. --Carnildo 08:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Just butting in here. Jayjg did ask for a CheckUser on whether or not you and Chaosfeary were the same user, and the conclusion was that you were not. You should ask User:Jayjg to comment further, I have misplaced where I saw that listed. Jayjg is not against you in this, and in fact proved your innocence. There is no reason to attack him. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Liel copy & paste merge to Liel Kolet[edit]

Liel had some two edits before this. I know copy & paste moves are generally frowned upon, but in this case I am not sure what needs to be done, if anything. Would appreciate an admin's assistance. Thanks pfctdayelise 02:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Copy and paste moves are very frowned on since the history is lost. On the other hand, copy and paste is pertty much how merges have to be done. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a trick to merge edit histories though.Geni
This was talked about yesterday, and Liel Kolet was the more appropriate article. No problems since Liel is still there as a likely redirect unless i'm mistaken.karmafist 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
karmafist, I am not complaining about the move being made. I have no opinion about that at all. I am checking if something needs to be undone/redone by an admin to preserve the page history to comply with GFDL. pfctdayelise 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha, I'll check it now, although making a page into a redirect doesn't do anything to edit histories. karmafist 04:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
There we go.[21] karmafist 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
... so, in this case (since the redirect will carry its own history) it's sufficient to simply merge. There should be a reference to the pre-redirect history of the other article from the composite article's history (it's sufficient to note this on the talk page). If one of them were being deleted, the story is different (procedure is described at Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I have fixed this. All edits on the topic of the musician have been moved to Liel Kolet. Liel is now a historyless redirect, and thus not a cause for concern if it needs to become a disambiguation page later. Please refer other incidents like this to the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:42, Dec. 23, 2005

Template:User democrat[edit]

Ok guys, we've got a minor issue. There's been an rfc on the template above at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Democrat userbox, consensus was reached, but today a few people have been ignoring it. Can we get some assistance here? Copyright isn't an issue since it's a promotional image. karmafist 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Special:Unwatchedpages updated hourly[edit]

Avar has set this to update hourly. The only way we are going to see items further down alphabetically is to watch all of the earlier items. So please, watch them, even if you don't know anything about them, especially if they've only had 1 edit in the last 6 months. You'll never notice them on your watchlist (unless, most likely, they're vandalized). — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 04:33

Closing Old Vfd[edit]

The vote of GH avisualagency™ finished a while ago but no one has closed it - it was raised here yesterday but seems to have disappeared - can someone who knows how to close these votes deal with this? It was heavily infested with sock-puppets but the clean vote seemed to be to vote for deletion. Thanks Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 09:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

on it --Doc ask? 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Annihilated with prejudice --Doc ask? 09:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User: Ctifumdope[edit]

I just put up a page about the Chemical Solubility Chart, but I don't know how to create a table for all of the data that I have. Can somebody please help me out?

I am not an admin, but I made a table for you. You can improve on it in a few different ways (color code the soluability key, for instance; and make the compositions into chemical notation) but the table is there for you. Mikeblas 06:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mcfly85[edit]

I have informed all the users with the checkuser ability under advice given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85. As you all know, this user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations here at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence and supporting vandalism. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. I dont propose a block on Mcfly85 since he technically never vandalized anything but a ChechUser to see if he created sockpuppets for vandalizing. Can anyone please run a CheckUser on him?

Moe ε 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Here is also a list of "accused sockpuppets" created by Mcfly85: Rock09, 4benson3, Capnoh, Oneandon, Sigma995, Sven66, Pwner, 63.18.246.17, 63.18.172.52, 63.18.172.52, 72.225.138.173, 63.18.252.148 and 63.18.234.145
Leave me alone, I am possibly through editing here. I am sick of the drama and I don't deserve this treatment. Don't waste your time on this issue. Life has better things than this waiting for me. Mcfly85 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Mcfly85[edit]

Checkuser show that one of the ip addresses used by Mcfly85 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was used to create Petergrif (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Rock09 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Barkman34 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Belligto (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Manyana555 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Sven66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Salian45 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Capnoh (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Jimcrocela (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Loolooloo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Oneandon (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Sigma995 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Tobiasafi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and 4benson3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Mcfly85 also used 13 other ips, many in the 63.18 range. Fred Bauder 19:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Now if someone could do the honors in blocking them? — Moe ε 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

An additional sockpuppet Ebrockline (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was created today Fred Bauder 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked these. No such user as "Jimcrocela", I blocked Jimcroce1a (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). No such user as "Tobiasafi", I blocked Tobiasfi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). I didn't block Mcfly85. -- Curps 06:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Fred didn't list Pwner (talk · contribs) but I blocked for username ("pwn") and blanking vandalism to User:Moe Epsilon user page. But perhaps Fred could investigate a bit further for possible further sockpuppets of that one. -- Curps 06:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mcfly85's attempt to influence the most recent RfA[edit]

Despite his indication that he has quit, Mcfly85 continues to try to vote and add comments to influence Moe Epsilon's most recent RfA (which I brought to try to restore some procedural justice). (See the most recent RFA -- for which I'm myself voting neutral on.) Celestianpower believes that the vote is valid, while Howcheng and I believe the vote is invalid. What's the thought from the peanut gallery?

Also, should Mcfly85 and/or the additional sock puppets be blocked in light of this? Should a WP:RfAr be brought? --Nlu (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: Mcfly85 continued to insist on voting/commenting, and I've blocked him for three hours in light of this. Please, folks, put in your comments on this, as I need to know before the block expires whether to:

  1. Allow his vote to stand;
  2. Strike the vote;
  3. Block him for longer period or;
  4. Do something else.

I am not sure that I'm handling the situation correctly, but it seems just wrong to allow Mcfly85's vote to stand in light of what had happened. Still, input is requested. --Nlu (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think his vote should be counted or remain on the page even. However as it is generally known that he ruined the first RfA it doesn't do much harm. I'm tempted to just block Mcfly85 indefinitely but it is Moe Epsilon's place to make a complaint or Request for Arbitration. Fred Bauder 04:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
His/her vote should not count as per above evidence--MONGO 04:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've decided to go ahead and bring a WP:RfAr asking for an emergency ruling on this. Obviously, the ArbCom might not make a ruling quickly enough. Mcfly85 has since made an apology to me and to Moe Epsilon on our talk pages (as well as on his own). I've indicated that I do not want to see him permanently blocked, but that I am still seeking a ruling because I am not 100% sure that my actions were correct. Additional comments, folks? --Nlu (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that he should receive a one week block.--MONGO 13:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
One week? After this barefaced lying, the disgraceful attack on Moe Epsilon's RFA, and the continued disruption of his new RFA? I disagree. I recommend a long block of this unscrupulous user. And to my mind, the apologies would have been a lot more indicative of change of heart if they'd come before Fred's checkuser evidence. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree, I was actually hoping for a longer block than a week, unless this user can find some way to ensure us that his/her abuse and sockpuppet useage for the wrong purposes is done forever, and unlikly event.--MONGO 08:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it ought to be longer. Mcfly85's sock puppets ought to be perma-blocked, Mcfly85 himself blocked more than a week, and Checkuser should be run periodically over the next few months to prevent more sock-puppetry. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about blocking, but allow one of His votes to stand (if using multiple accounts). Anyone can reconsile leaving and vote, right? -- Eddie 04:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Important: Special:Unwatchedpages[edit]

Currently, 71% of mainspace articles are unwatched. Special:Unwatchedpages has now been enabled, but for admins only. Each admin has to add at least 1500 articles to their watchlist in order to watch them all. Get to work! — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:03

  • um, it lists !! (chess) which is a redirect. Why does it list redirects? Broken S 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Because they're in the mainspace. It would be nice to have redirects listed separately, but it's not like adding a bunch of them to your watchlist is going to flood your watchlist with edits, so they should be fine with watching in addition to normal articles. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:08
    • And also - you never when someone is going to turn a valid redirect to something/somewhere stupid.... novacatz 13:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to enable this for all users? Would certainly reduce the workload. Jacoplane 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, because then vandals could use it to target unwatched pages. Radiant_>|< 13:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe then it might be a good idea to add this functionality to the WP:CTP proposal. Jacoplane 13:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is excellent news! Better start adding some pages to my watchlist. Carbonite | Talk 13:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a second! Avar just did a count of the number of unwatched pages that are not redirects, and it turns out there are only 547! I think he's working on making that list only show non-redirects. In the meantime, start adding a bunch to your watchlist. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:31

  • I think it would also be used to have the ability to filter by namespace or whether a page is a redirect or not. Carbonite | Talk 13:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This list currently only includes pages in the article namespace. I think he has fixed it to only list non-redirects. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:38
      • I believe it lists pages watched by any user, even if that user hasn't actually logged in for a year. Is that correct? Could we improve on that maybe? Radiant_>|< 13:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I assume other namespaces will be added in the future. It's important that all pages in the Wikipedia and template namespaces are watched.Carbonite | Talk 13:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It now lists pages that aren't redirects... it looks like there are more than 547, so get to work! — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:50

  • This is a surprisingly good way for finding dubious articles... thanks! Shimgray | talk | 14:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming that pages are still be added. Right now it lists exactly 1000 pages. Is there any count on the total number of unwatched non-redirect pages? Carbonite | Talk 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • According to Avar, there's a limit of 1000 on the list, and it lists them alphabetically. I don't know how often it updates, but the only way we're going to see more is to add all of these to our lists. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-21 16:53
  • Hmm...that's rather disappointing. There must be some way to get around the 1000 page limit, although it's possible that could be a major code change that might take a while to implement and test. Carbonite | Talk 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a bug that has been filed for a while now, apparently. I think someone is going to refresh the special page so that it lists unwatched pages. We may want to coordinate on the special talk page so that we don't all watch the same content and miss other stuff. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-22 00:35
  • What would really be useful is a related changes button, so that all admins could collectively check for vandalism to these articles. - SimonP 00:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest that Special:Unwatchedpages ignores accounts that haven't logged in for over three months, with respect to watching. If a page is only on the watchlist of one or more dormant accounts, it is for all practical purposes unwatched. Radiant_>|< 17:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So is there a reason this new feature isn't listed on Special:Specialpages in the Restricted special pages section? Slambo (Speak) 14:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo editing Wikipedia article about himself?[edit]

I hesitate to bring this us but it's all in the news this morning:

"THE FOUNDER of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales has been tinkering with his own biography to remove things he doesn’t like, and make himself the hero, it's claimed. Technology writer Rogers Cadenhead looking for a Yuletide exclusive, has been digging around the public edit logs of Wikipedia and discovered that Wales has edited his biography 18 times. Though some Wikipedia editors believe that it's always wrong to edit subjects in which you are involved, Wales does not seem to think so, claims Cadenhead. One of the things Wales didn’t like were some phrases describing former Wikipedia employee Larry Sanger as a co-founder of the site. He also tinkered with a description of a search site he founded called Bomis, which included a section with adult photos called "Bomis Babes," it's claimed. In an interview with Wired News, Wales acknowledged he's made changes to his bio, but said the edits were made to correct factual errors and provide a more rounded version of events. He said that people shouldn’t do it, including him and he wished he hadn’t as it was in poor taste." [22]

I figure this merely shows that Jimbo, like all of us, gets carried away with Wikipedia at times. Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia haters are going to use this against us. All in all, Wikipedia is going through some tough media times right now.--Alabamaboy 15:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course what is generally overlooked in the media is that I edit under my own account, widely known, and all edits were made on an equal footing with other editors, and all edits were publicly known and discussed. I regret making the edits now, because I have always thought it in poor taste to edit one's own bio, but I stand by the quality of the edits and by my conduct in the discussion of the edits. I am very sympathetic to those who find factual errors about themselves in Wikipedia, because it happens to me. It's a tough thing to sit on one's hands and do nothing but complain on the talk page, but that's what I plan to do from now on.--Jimbo Wales 15:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I also noticed that the media didn't mention the fact that you edited the article under your own name. The articles make is sound like this reporter did some amazing investigating. The truth is he merely noticed that you had nothing to hide. Ah well. Such is the media. Still, as I said Wikipedia is going through a tough media times right now.--Alabamaboy 15:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
According to Special:Mostrevisions, Jimmy Wales has been edited 1602 times (#283 on the list). So 98.876% of the edits are not by Jimbo. Seems any POV pushed would be quickly swamped! --bainer (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Not that I'm particularly worried that some POV is being pushed, but we should probably take that 98.876% with a grain of salt. I suspect that a very hefty fraction of those 1602 edits are just vandalism and reversion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It's perfectly acceptable for subjects to edit their own biographies if factual errors are there. It isn't infringing the rules on autobiography (I have done it myself a few times). This is a duff story. David | Talk 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Jimbo editing his own userpage is totally different to Adam Curry editing the podcast article using an anonymous IP. Perhaps there should be a guideline that specifies the conditions of editing your own bio. Personally, I think there is not problem with editing your own bio as long as the community is aware who made the changes. The problem of course with this kind of media coverage is that the distinction is too nuanced for sites like the inquirer (let's not even talk about the register) to understand. I'm kind of dissapointed that Wired didn't have more of a clue, though. At the end of the day, Wikipedia might be getting a lot of bad press recently, but that doesn't seem to be harming us ;) Jacoplane 18:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no harm in editing your own biography if it needs editing and you adhere to Wikipedia policies. It is entirely possible to take a NPOV on at least some aspects of yourself. And hey, all publicity is good publicity. This will only make more people realize the good of Wikipedia. Cookiecaper 19:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would think that edits to your own bio could actually be helpful. I see a lot of bio changes that are ...well... just strange. If I saw an edit like that, and noticed it was the subject of the bio that made it, then I would know at least that the subject didn't find it insulting, and I wouldn't have to research it to verify it. --ssd 08:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

RachelBrown socks[edit]

User:Zordrac/Poetlister (new discussion to resolve issues not covered so far)[edit]

A lot of information on this issue can be found here, including some quite shocking examples of use of admin to silence other people involved in the same edit war by User:SlimVirgin, as well as some very dodgy vandalism by a mysterious anonymous IP (example) who may well be a sockpuppet of one of the users involved here..:
User :Zordrac/Poetlister --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 09:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


A checkuser shows Taxwoman (talk · contribs), Poetlister (talk · contribs), Londoneye (talk · contribs), and Newport (talk · contribs) to be likely sockpuppets of RachelBrown (talk · contribs) used to unfairly stack debates; they have been blocked. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What evidence is there that they were used to unfairly stack debates? I thought that "AFD is not a vote" therefore making such a claim irrelevant. It should be logic, not numbers, that wins through. From what I can gather, they edited totally different articles, had different views, and on just a handful of occasions had similarity with votes - less than 5 AFDs. Thus if there is abuse, it is very technical in nature, and an indefinite block is, to put it mildly, an exaggeration. It is very difficult to WP:AGF under these circumstances, especially considering the complaint against 2 admins posed by Poetlister. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
(Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sock check)
How has this been "proven"? You say "likely", but it was established elsewhere that the two are real-life friends... Are ALL edits from the same IP or just a few? It could just be that maybe some edits were made while round the same house, college, university or workplace
I have copied this message for administrator eyes, left on Mindspillage's talk page:
I feel I should join in here, I have been having conversations with these people separately and there is no way that Poetlister, RachelBrown or Londoneye are the same person. While it may be true that they support each other in disputes (Rachel's flatmate did revert on the British jewish page, once logged in on Rachel's account, but otherwise correctly logged out showing as an ip) I don't feel a block is justified at all. Arniep 01:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
--Mistress Selina Kyle 02:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I feel I should point out here that the user who is protesting these claims seems to know clearly how CheckUser works, because s/he demanded that it be used on me when their user page was vandalised shortly after I commented on a personal attack they made against me, so any claims of not understanding how it works are untrue. --Kiand 02:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Can you clarify which user you are talking about. Me? Yes, I know how CheckUser works, as it was explained to me previously, a couple of times, and I even asked the admin who had CheckUser priveleges how it works. I don't know who else you might be talking about though, as I was the one who first made the protest about this action. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No, not you. Mistress Serena Kyle, who I notice from talk page comments, went as far as to remove the sockpuppet notice demanding "proof" as if they didn't know how CheckUser worked. --Kiand 09:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, then either they were engaging in vandalism or else don't know how CheckUser works. Note that CheckUser isn't something that is obvious to new users. Took me a good week of investigation to find out what it went through. Nonetheless, she is right that there is no proof that they are sock puppets. If there was, it would be presented on a public page somewhere. This has not been done. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
These people are friends (in the UK) who have sometimes supported each other in article disputes or voted the same way in vfds, but actually I think thats a pretty normal thing for friends to do? If it is prohibited for friends to have similar beliefs or to give their opinion in a dispute that a friend has been having it should be stated that friends should avoid voting in the same vfds or joining in the same disputes. All these people have made positive edits and I think it is a pretty bad injustice to continue these blocks. Arniep 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Even as friends versus sockpuppet accounts, they would be called "Meatpuppets". See WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets for the relevant description. Basically, meatpuppets act like sockpuppets, even if they are the same person, and the arbitrators, along with most admins, treat meatpuppets the same as sockpuppets. --Deathphoenix 14:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Unless of course the meatpuppets are on their side, and then they describe them as the "community". -- Grace Note.
Yes, but there is no evidence that they actually acted in the same manner as each other. If you view their contributions, they very rarely combined with each other, and did not make a significant difference when they did. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The checkuser shows that the accounts shared several different IPs; combined with the editing patterns and other evidence revealed in confidence, it's convincing enough to block. If there's a better explanation, my email box is open to hear from the affected user(s). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Please can you provide this evidence publicly, as its accuracy is being heavily disputed here. There is quite a lot of evidence that they could not theoretically be the same person, such as the evidence that User:RachelBrown last edited on 10 December 2005, that they edited at the same times and so forth. It is possible that they all use the same ISP service, and that their IP addresses circle through. I am sure that there are several thousand Wikipedia editors who have at one point in time used the same IP address as me, because mine cycles, so does that make them all my sock puppets? It is a great stretch of the imagination, and, as stated elsewhere, the circumstances of this make it highly suspicious. This evidence needs to be made public. I ask that all blocks be overturned immediately pending a thorough investigation in to the matter, and to enable the affected users to participate in appropriate RfCs, RfArs et al that concerned them, which is a large part of the issue here. The link between these users is about as tentative as the link that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, SlimVirgin and yourself are all the same person, just because you occasionally overlap with opinions. It is, in other words, a nonsense claim. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
CheckUser information can not and should not be made public. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
ArbCom decisions should be though, and its a lot more than just "are they the same IP?" Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I have reviewed the evidence in this case, and agree with the conclusion reached by Mindspillage. Either all of these editors are the same person, or several people all of whom share the same workplace, residence, and (apparently) a single computer. There is one point in the log where in the course of nine minutes three distinct accounts edited from the same IP, and multiple instances of two distinct accounts editing from the same IP within the space of two to five minutes. We've only heard one flatmate suggested; am I to believe that there are three (or more) people all sharing the same workplace and residence, the same obsession with the same topic, and who carefully coordinate their edits so as never to interleave them? No, the most probable conclusion is that this is a single person. Any other conclusion multiplies entities unnecessarily. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Very bad conclusions there. My understanding is that User:RachelBrown and User:Poetlister are friends, although I gather that they do not live together (they might, I don't know), but they do visit each other. The "IP address" that you refer to is RachelBrown's IP, which was published once because she forgot to log back in, or Wikipedia accidentally logged her out. I shall clarify this for you to avoid confusion. User:81.153.41.72 is the IP that belongs to User:RachelBrown. User:Poetlister visits RachelBrown regularly, and they likely used the same computer. Thus, it is quite likely that these "3" users (really 2 people) may have got on to the same computer. Just to explain this a bit more explicitly here for people who are confused - Rachel Brown was logged in when Giselle (Poetlister - her name does not seem to be Lisa) asked to log in and have a go. Then afterwards Rachel Brown wanted to have a go, but for some reason Wikipedia didn't log her in properly. This is the very obvious explanation which had already previously been explained at the time that it happened. There was no sock puppetry as they never once pretended that the IP address did not belong to RachelBrown. All edits by that IP address were made by RachelBrown. Am I to understand it that it is illegal for an editor to ever accidentally log out? Or is it illegal for an editor to be friends with another Wikipedia editor? As for the other 3, it has been explained to me that Londoneye was Rachel Brown's cousin and may have visited her once or twice, and may have used Wikipedia whilst editing. The other two don't know Rachel Brown other than that they used to know each other at University. I suspect that they just happen to use the same ISP, as if they went to university together then they probably live in the same area. I think that you would agree that all using the same ISP is not a crime. It also should be noted that the above user, User:Kelly Martin is not neutral to this case. Indeed, she was the person to whom User:SlimVirgin made the request to have these people banned. See here: User_talk:Kelly_Martin#User-check_request. Thus Kelly Martin is an inappropriate person to make a review, as she likely simply told Mindspillage to ban them all. Indeed, it seems that Mindspillage's involvement was simply as messenger, as she seems to have no idea of the underlying problems surrounding this. Checking their contributions for the 5 users in question, RachelBrown (talk · contribs), Poetlister (talk · contribs), Londoneye (talk · contribs), Taxwoman (talk · contribs) and Newport (talk · contribs) they edited vastly different topics and acted in completely different, often opposing ways to each other, with no coordination whatsoever. Whilst Poetlister and RachelBrown did occasionally support each other, it was not consistent, and it is incorrect to state that they acted as "one voice". The IP address belonging to RachelBrown did act as "one voice" with RachelBrown, but that should not be a surprise, since RachelBrown was just kicked off Wikipedia a few times. Any other claims about them acting as "one voice" are blatantly false. I have reviewed every edit made by all 5 users, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. Indeed, Taxwoman (talk · contribs)'s edits were so vastly different to that of RachelBrown's that they could more accurately be described as enemies. The exception, however, is that they at one point in time clearly did call each other on the phone to ask each other to vote on the various Jewish lists, something which was likely organised by Rachel Brown. Thus, for those specific AFDs there is a possibility of meat puppeting. Thus, these Jewish lists should be relisted for deletion, with the 5 user names forbidden from voting. I think that this would be an appropriate result. I would also ask you to investigate matters properly in the future, as you seem to have made some grave errors in this case. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
You are strongly cautioned not to assume bad faith like this. I did not "order" Mindspillage to do anything; I don't have the authority to do so, and Mindspillage would simply ignore me if I tried to order her to do anything. I did not originally act on SlimVirgin's request (being otherwise occupied), nor did I review the evidence involved until Mindspillage asked me to. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please elaborate on "strongly cautioned". Are you threatening to ban me for trying to expose the truth of what is going on? I would like you to elaborate on this so that I can take it further if you are. Oh, and no, I was not wrong. Remember no weasel words in edit summaries. See WP:CIVIL. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • To sum the evidence:
  1. The accounts shared several different IPs (This really needs clarifying to be meaningful)
  2. All the accounts have made very different contributions to Wikipedia, except that some have made an occasional edit to one particular page
  3. Many have similar user pages, and seem to puport be similar kinds of people (ie young British females)

This doesn't come close to being grounds for blocking under Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and I've unblocked at once. Dan100 (Talk) 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • If we assumed good faith, as the admins in question order others to do, we would assume they were simply young women who knew each other and sometimes used the same PC to edit WP. We would all move on. The "debates" that were "stacked" will be fixed some other way. The people involved don't lose "debates" because they have far too many friends they can call on if they look like they will. So let's leave the accounts in question unblocked, let Slim and Lulu actually prove the merits of their case regardless how many sockpuppets oppose them, because if they're right, they're right and as Zordrac says, we don't decide who's right by numbers, right? And everyone have a happy Christmas. Or whatever you celebrate. If anything. If not, I wish you happiness anyway. -- Grace Note.
  • I'd prefer accuracy to greetings. Slim and Lulu have no case the merits of which they need to prove. There's an insanity to this situation, because there is no issue, is no case, is no dispute, and these accounts (two of them anyway) are clearly sock puppets. For reasons best know to him or herself, the operator of the account is pretending to be involved in a dispute, so someone is playing silly buggers, and all I know is it's not me and it's not Lulu; beyond that I neither know nor care. Please check your facts before commenting, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop mentioning my name all over the site, regardless of whether I'm involved in a situation or not. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. First off, Kelly didn't order me to do anything. (As a volunteer I don't suppose I can really be ordered to do anything, but sometimes people ask me to do specific things&mdashsuch as looking into potentially problematic situations—that I have volunteered to do in general, and I usually agree to do so.) Someone else asked me (in private, so as not to be harassed) to look at the relevant evidence to see if I thought that it suggested sockpuppets. Their IP evidence (for which the specifics are private) very strongly suggested it, and their all weighing in those AfDs was thus against policy, so I placed the block. (Yes, I am aware the rest of their editing is on different topics: that doesn't necessarily mean anything.) When it was questioned from multiple sources, I asked Kelly to sanity check by reviewing the evidence to see if I had been too hasty, but instead she concurred with it. There's not much more I can say about it; I have no interest in the dispute, and none of the accounts have contacted me to either question or protest. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Dreamguy[edit]

My one and only complaint against this user is this:

I had set up in the Article:Bigfoot a section indicating where readers and others should go to if they have seen these things. Already one Wikipedian has reported one encounter with this thing. All it stated is this: "REPORTING A BIGFOOT (section title) Those who have seen/encountered this creature should go to a reputable Bigfoot website, data site to report the encounter." User:Dreamguy says that is "nonsense" in the Edit Summary section. How can this be "nonsense" ? Millions read Wikipedia, and how many of these people are using it to find a means to report a encounter with paranormal phenomena ?Martial Law 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Content disputes should be discussed on the article talk page. Friday (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My complaint has been settled. Appreciate the assisstance.Martial Law 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism by newspaper[edit]

I ran across what may be plagiarism by a newspaper entertainment reporter of a good chunk of a Wikipedia article. In an article in the Honolulu Star Bulletin ("'243' is horrific Aloha flight story" by Tim Ryan, dated December 22, 2005) a solid 138 of Ryan's 456 words (30%) appear to be nearly identical to our article on Aloha Flight 243.

I've put together a side-by-side comparison of the remarkably similar sections at User:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe. The passages in our article were added by at least four separate editors over a five-month period, so I consider it unlikely that the Star Bulletin reporter is reusing his own work. The last duplicated section was added to Wikipedia six months ago–in May of this year–suggesting that our article is the original source. (A quick search reveals no other online content from which both authors might have drawn the passages in question.)

I have a few requests.

  • Please don't send angry frothing emails to the Star Bulletin until we've figured out what we want to do here.
  • Is there a plausible alternate explanation? (Is our article 'clean'?)
  • How should we handle this? Whom should we contact, and who will be our spokesperson?
  • Have we run across this phenomenon before, and how was it handled? How did it work out? Should we (or do we already?) have a standardized process?

Comments or suggestions? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Posibly a shared PD source but I doubt it somewhat.Geni 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Should we maybe be offended that they only used 30 percent? Is our writing no better than that??? Wahkeenah 23:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The very POINT of Wikpedia is to inform as many as possible. We should THANK him for helping us inform as many as possible and ask if perhaps he might help even more by mentioning us as one of his sources. WAS 4.250 23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand the definition of plagiarism? — Dan | talk 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The article is not realeased under the GFDL and does not give credit as requied by the GFDL.Geni 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
If they use our material, by the GFDL, the have to credit The Project. Their failure to do so is a violation of our copyright here. That they copied material, period, is a shocking lack of journalistic integrity that needs to be called on as a service to the readers of that paper and the paper itself, which is the bigger deal, frankly. The editors of this paper must be contacted, so that they can look into the author of the article. And if they willfully participated in this, then some other media need to be informed. Ten, since you cought it, I think you should put together an email with what you have cought and email the editors and see what happens. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with plagiariam; rather it's a straightforward copyright matter. A polite email to the newspaper telling them that they can use our copyright material freely subject to the GFDL would be enough. Possibly a sub-editor or reporter has copied our text without acknowledgement, in which case a bit of re-education is in order. But it's also possible that one of the authors of our piece submitted his own work to the newspaper and to us--which he's perfectly entitled to do as far as the GFDL is concerned. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with plagiariam. Uh, no, it's exactly plagiarism: copying material without attribution and passing it off as one's own, and copyright status or licensing or other hoo-hah is utterly immaterial to that act. And in the (in my opinion) unlikely case of Ryan having written it an contributed it to Wikipedia -- well, it's not his to contribute, it's the Star Bulletin's. --Calton | Talk 08:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
At least fourthree editors contributed to the duplicated material in the Wikipedia article. (One of those was an IP, so there might only be threetwo unique editors.) Unless they're socks of the same meatspace person, I would tend to discount the theory that the same person wrote both the Star Bulletin story and the Wikipedia entry. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've notified Jimbo of this thread, per a suggestion from Jeffrey Gustafson. If there's worthwhile PR mileage to be had from this incident, there's nothing wrong with going for it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the evidence it is not covered by "fair use"? Copyright only covers acts of creativity. Not any old bland putting together of facts. What creative use of language do you assert was apropriated? And why do you feel it is not covered under fair use? WAS 4.250 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"Fair use" normally requires proper attribution, precisely what is lacking here. DES (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

On the theory that a writer is never caught for their first act of plagarism, I went googling on other Tim Ryan stories, and found one where he apparently lifted 5 paragraphs from a Sacremento Bee story. This has be added to TenOfAllTrade's dupe page. Dragons flight 06:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

To not inform the editors of these transgressions provides an extreme disservice to the paper, the people that have been plagiarized, and the people of Hawaii that read that paper. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
First stop, Ryan's editor at the Star-Bulletin; second, maybe a letter to Romenesko (an American media-watcher's website)? --Calton | Talk 08:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Taking a tip from Dragons flight, I found stuff about Queensland (from about-australia.com) used to pad a travel article. I found multiple sources for the text, which seems to be from some Queensland government factsheet. Not a great transgression, but you're still supposed to credit sources for verbatim or near-verbatim 'grafs. --Calton | Talk 14:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not contact the author directly and see what he says? There may be another side of the story we are unaware of. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that some of the other stories are verbatim (or near-verbatim) extracts from a press release that both writers were given, rather than copying of the other writers' work. While such behaviour is lazy and dishonest and does a disservice to the reader, it's seen by many journalists as 'acceptable' plagiarism.
The last story–about cellist Matt Haimovitz–is very troubling if it was lifted straight from NPR. Unless it was Ryan who did the interview for NPR, there would seem to be something funny about the telephone interview he describes in his article.
What would we ask him? And is there a good reason not to cc: his editor on it anyway? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, we could write and point out that we noticed the similarities in writing, and ask him to comment. If his reply is unsatisfactory, then we could check with his editor. It's always good to get the "other side" to the story; we could be missing something here, for all we know. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

For the purposes of continuing this discussion in a single location, I suggest making any additional comments at User talk:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How to deal with self-repairing vandals?[edit]

Every once in a while, I see a pair of edits from a new user, in which garbage is added to an article, the quickly removed by the same user. For example, [23]. What's the best way to deal with that? Hitting them with a {{test}} doesn't seem right, since they've already cleaned up their own mess. Just give them a {{welcome}} and let it go at that? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Exterminate! (revert the vandalism warn the vandal, repeating offensises are punishable by blocks)--Cool CatTalk|@ 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Some vandals think they can get away with vandalism if they vandalise wikipedia nd cleanup after themselves. It falls under both WP:POINT and WP:Vandalism. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Just ignore it. What's happening here is that people are saying "wow, can I really make edits?" and then realise "oh, bugger, yes, I can" and get embarrased and remove it. They've already realised they did wrong, so no need to tell them not to. If they keep doing it, that's another matter. Morwen - Talk 16:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
If you really want to drop something on their talk page, we've got {{selftest}}. —Cryptic (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you drop a scrap of paper on the sidewalk, and then pick it up and put it in the trashbin, should you still be hassled about it? If you think so, then...
  • Threaten to boil them in oil. Then cheerfully remind them that the oily boid catches the woim and revoits. 0:) Wahkeenah 16:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • My personal opinion is to ignore it. I guess that the only possible reason to take it further is if you are concerned that it might be picked up in the edit history sometime later. If so, then perhaps delete it from the edit summary. Depends on how bad the vandalism is and if its something that could have legal repercussions. (Note: Seigenthaler etc). But ordinarily, ignore. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with Cryptic here. If you want to let them know in a friendly way that yes, we saw that, use {{selftest}}. More stern warnings would be appropriate if they're obviously repeat offenders or if they've left something particularly nasty in the edit summary field. As Morwen says, usually it's just someone who can't actually believe we would let just anyone edit Wikipedia—and someone who is mortified to discover that we really do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to drop a note here that I have occassionally seen a vandal insert a bunch of trash and then remove most of it, in what might be an attempt to sneak vandalism in past the RC patrollers. So one does need to be careful in watching these in and out vandals as well. Dragons flight 21:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It's probably best to just ignore it the first time, or maybe put a "selftest" template on the user's page. Get "tougher" if repeat offenses occur from the same user. *Dan T.* 21:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one that thinks the answer is obvious? Say something on their talk page and then IMMEDIATELY revert what you did on their talk page:) Or ignore it (don't you have better things to do?) WAS 4.250 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:82.19.186.45[edit]

User:MARMOT's IP indef blocked, I suspect its a shared IP. Since MARMOT himself is unblocked, much to my regret, I do not believe the indef block on that ip is necesarry. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have shortened it from an indef. block since indef. blocks are against policy, the current block will expire on January 1, 2600. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 17:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
MARMOT is unblocked, and it may be a shared IP...why would we block for 594 years, 8 days, 2 hours, and 9 minutes? Ral315 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

IP addresses should never be blocked long-term (apart from open proxies) - even "static" IPs get re-assigned. That's why the blocking policy says what it says. Dan100 (Talk) 23:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

IP[edit]

Can you tell me please the IP of user:ßonaparte? -- Bonaparte talk 16:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be a violation of checkuers policy and wikipedia's privacy policies. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 17:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Same for your attempts here to get the IP of the Node_ue impersonator. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 17:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I just want to be sure that was not Node ue. He comes from Arizona. Can this be checked please? Bonaparte talk 17:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
From what I gather from the discussion it has been checked by a person with checkuser and it isn't node_ue, your just going to trust whoever did the checking's word on it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 17:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I am interested to know the area from where is the IP. It may be very well from Arizona and this may be an evidence. -- Bonaparte talk 17:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Can be checked if IP of user:ßonaparte is from the Arizona area?[edit]

If it is against policy to reveal the IP adresse can someone tell me if that IP of user:ßonaparte is from Arizona area? Because if it is it may be the hand of a certain user. -- Bonaparte talk 17:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you care? What does it matter? Userpages get vandalised all the time, we just revert and block if appropriate. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Because I have to know. If it is from the person who I suspect it is I can start the procedure to block that user account. -- Bonaparte talk 21:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
You already have your answer: it was not the user you would like to believe it was. Let it go; this is looking like harrassment. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hacking?[edit]

I noticed that someone recently used my account to vandalize Jimbo Wales' user page, and create an article called Wikipedia is Poop. Is my account being hacked? Macintosh User 16:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea to change your password. Also, if you have an e-mail address entered in preferences, change the password of that as well. Ral315 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, if it's someone at your own place who's using your browser, you might want to turn off the "Remember me" option when logging in to Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix 22:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
If you've logged in recently on a public computer (eg an internet cafe) your details might have been captured by a keylogger. Rd232 talk 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to create similar names like Macintoshuser, Macintosh user, MacintoshUser since all these Wikipedia treats lowercase and capital letter user names differently. -- Eddie 06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Beware the Stanek[edit]

Robert Stanek has found Wikipedia, woe is us. He's a (self/small-press)-published author who's written a bunch of generic fantasy novels such as Ruin Mist (along with some computer-related non-fiction).

He's slightly (in)famous for what some people claim is the use of sockpuppets to prop-up his Amazon reviews (e.g., see: [24]), along with some mysterious reviews that appear of other, much more popular fantasy books, that in effect, say, "A wonderful book in the tradition of the giants of fantasy fiction, like Tolkein, George R.R. Martin, and Robert Stanek!". This sort of thing has been noticed by SF-commentators like David Langford ([25]).

Of course, none of this can be proven: Jnb27 (talk · contribs), Henrydms (talk · contribs), 24.18.60.159 (talk · contribs), and Cwnewma (talk · contribs) may just be tremendously enthusiastic fans of his. So far they've done nothing actually wrong or against WP policy. But it might be worth watching for Stanek-reference creep in other semi-related articles (e.g. Troll, Elf, Wizard, Dragon) and also some quite-unrelated articles Chess, Literacy). Editors might want to keep an eye out. --Bob Mellish 17:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Special:Whatlinkshere/Robert Stanek is certainly an education; we've already had the reference creep in three of the six you mention! The temptation to copy these comments to Ansible is strong... Shimgray | talk | 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • ?I just went out to clear out a bunch of these. I think this was the diff that actually put me over the edge, and killed me. Nandesuka 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought Bob was joking when he mentioned hitting literacy... sheesh. Shimgray | talk | 14:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Lonzo (talk · contribs) reverted a lot of your removals, I note. Time to prune linkshere again. Shimgray | talk | 00:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I just did another pass. My feeling is that I've no objection to this sort of thing being in "List of yadda yadda" articles, but you can't put Stanek on a short list with C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, and J.K. Rowling and expect us to accept it. A related problem, by the way, is that there is a growing group of Ruin Mist articles -- Dwarves (Ruin Mist), Dragons (Ruin Mist), etc. These don't really seem notable enough to me to have their own article; it would be more proper for them to be merged in to a single Ruin Mist entry. I've done the work of culling the herd in Whatlinkshere -- does someone else want to take a hit for the team and figure out a way to coalesce this stuff without biting the newbies? Nandesuka 06:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignore button[edit]

Hi. I have someone who keeps writing me threats on my talk page, and when I remove them they keep reverting them so that the threats stay there. I would like to prevent them from being able to edit my talk page. Is there a way to do this? Alternatively, I would like for them to be asked to stop stalking me. The user concerned is User:Antaeus Feldspar. Thanks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Two words: Dispute resolution. Get a mediator and work things out. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ask the cabal for help :-) Dan100 (Talk) 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Seigenthaler 2 prevention[edit]

Ummm... I just stumbled on something and was wondering if there are more instances of this type of thing. I know this isn't exactly the right forum for this, but thought it might need a little attention. My removal. Is this even relevant? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

To my eye, it looks suspicious...and its unsourced anyhow, so out it goes. I'll keep an eye out for similar things. --Syrthiss 18:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[26] sources it, and they're reasonably reliable. Shimgray | talk | 18:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd take anything that the spartacus site said about the JFK assassination with a couple shakers of salt. Double check anything they say about it. Gamaliel 18:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Use Google, then either delete or add a source. WAS 4.250 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Do not delete it - move it to the talk page (with an edit summary to that effect), and ask people to source it before restoring it. Dan100 (Talk) 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Given what happened with Seigenthaler, I'm worried about leaving in sentences like "X was rumored to be involved in the JFK assassination, but nothing was ever proven," even if a source is provided. And before you say it, yeah, I already fixed it. Gamaliel 05:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached final decisions in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor cases. Raul654 18:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:AustinKnight[edit]

AustinKnight (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (Making nasty threats to another user (as discussed on WP:RFAR); repeatedly warned and is unrepentant.) according to the Blocklog. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAustinKnight

Austinknight has sent me the following email requesting to be unblocked, I just became an admin so I don't want to unblock without the advice from some fellow admins. Here is the email:

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind unblocking me? An Admin who gave no warning (at all) blocked me this morning for a past 'offense' (currently in ArbCom...with 0 votes for and 3 against even hearing the matter in the first place). This same Admin is completely new to the issue, and apparently is just emotional for some reason. She is also a *former* member of the ArbCom, and so my guess is that she disagrees with all of the votes against (and...yes!...none "for") even hearing the matter. An ex post facto ArbCom 'vote' is apparently where she's coming from...but clearly and highly inappropriately.
Perhaps most importantly, the ArbCom has cleary stated in its comments that there should only be a warning to me, and no block unless there were a second offense...and there certainly has been none.

--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

He sent one to me as well, and probably numerous other admins. Note that the Arbcom has said no such thing since the Arbcom hasn't even accepted the case. I as an individual AC member said that I would warn first then block if he ever did it again. I do not speak for the whole AC.
I have replied to the email he sent and told him that i would be happy to unblock him if he agrees to make amends by striking his threat to the anon. I am waiting for his reply. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I am the once-anonymous (or not so anonymous) user threatened by AustinKnight. I thought I would drop you a line to give you my two-cents worth.
I think that AustinKnight was trying to shut me up because whenever I clarified the applicable law, it undercut his POV. He really hated that. So, he targeted me, the editor of the article with (arguably) the most legal knowledge, so that he could shut me down and go back to pushing his POV. Well, mission accomplished, via the personal attack. It was a doubly irresponsible personal attack in my case. After tracing my IP, AustinKnight knew I worked in a court. He knows, or should know, that we get (death) threats from kooks all the time. These can't be brushed off, at least since Judge Lefkow's husband and mother were murdered. I have a panic button in my office that will summon armed marshals to burst into the room, precisely for that reason.
Of course, he didn't threaten violence, but he made it clear that he hated me for what I was doing and was unscrupulous enough to make threats against me. That's enough to put my nerves on edge.
On another note, is it just me or are some of AustinKnight's comments very misogynistic? (e.g. "fearful woman response", "she is acting emotionally for some reason") I fear that this editor may have some problems with women editors (and particularly, administrators) on wikipedia in the future.
Sorry for causing a stir, though. Have a super day and happy holidays.Ulpian 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I followed this incident very carefully after stumbling upon it by chance. I feel that AustinKnight has not only been obnoxious, xenofobic and mysoginistic but also made Personal Attacks against Ulpian (Then an anon user), threatening him with going to his employer. After being called on it, AK not only defended his position, but he proceded to attack the people that confronted him. I think he shouldn't be unblocked, especially after pulling a very sneaky (and unethical?) move trying to get admins to unblock him by providing them with a very biased view. AK displays blatant disregard for WP policies and shows that he is in fact a person who is more interested in looking for trouble than in contributing valuably. For more information, please go to his talk page where you'll see that shortly before this incident he goes on and on ranting against Jimbo and the evils of WP. I think that since he was so annoyed by our policies and procedures (and showed it by ignoring them blatantly), he deserves the block until he truthfully apologizes. Then he should be put in probation until he proves he can contribute within WP limits. Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Those looking over AustinKnight's edits should be aware that he edited for a long time as unregisterd 66.69.219.9 (talk · contribs). Among his contributions were complaints at Wikipedia:General complaints (unresolved)#Wiki Administrators: Systemic Left/Liberal Bias, and this uncollegial comment, arguably a personal attack: User talk:Rangerdude#The Willmcw Virus. -Willmcw 22:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As the blocking administrator, I stand by this block. AustinKnight was making serious threats against another contributor who disagreed with him, and his comments on his talk page were very clear that he was completely unrepentant and would do it again - despite having been warned and asked nicely many, many times. The arbitration committee quite clearly felt that there was no need to hear the case because the community could deal with it with a ban by acclamation. I then proceeded to do so, and I note that as of this moment that block still stands. Ambi 00:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support this block Fred Bauder 01:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Me too. I've been reading User talk:AustinKnight. If the user recants his threats and personal attacks, fine. If he can show that he is as superior to women, wikipedians, Australians, admins, Europeans, and lefties as he thinks, even better: then he must be a real asset to the project. If neither, why keep him around? Bishonen | talk 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I do also. Threats are not on, and I've reviewed the way the author has posted to Wikipedia. Basically, they don't want to play nicely with others, and I strongly suggest that you see his messages on Jimbo's talk page (though Jimbo can look after himself, I know, I know...). I support Ambi in the block. Please note that I've had some pretty heated conversations on his talk page, so you might need to take that into consideration. The heated conversation occured because he threatened another editor, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-lawyer POV poster[edit]

An IP-shifting anon has been posting anti-lawyer rhetoric in Adversarial system, Lawyer, and Criminal law (including adding some statements that are flat-out inaccurate and removing statements that are accurate). Several editors, including myself, have tried to reason with him, but he responds with the claim that "The lawyers are sanitizing these pages" (even after I added a criticism section to Adversarial system that included his original poorly placed claims, and some additional criticisms he had not mentioned. As a frequent editor of pages relating to these topics, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to deal with them as an admin, so I'd appreciate if someone else could step in and have a look. Thanks. BD2412 T 23:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have posted {{welcomeip}} templates on a couple of these IP addresses. Sometimes teh best course of action is to provide newbies about how Wikipedia works. Sometimes, these early "vandals" become useful contributors. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 00:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Well said. I don't think POV-pushers require administrator intervention; or at least this one doesn't seem to, yet. -- SCZenz 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
My concern was that he might continue to add his views to the articles, which might then require protection. It seems, however, that he would now prefer to press his points on the talk pages, which is fine with me. BD2412 T 01:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
He appears to have registered as LegalEagle1798 (talk · contribs) and is still POV-pushing. --khaosworks (talk