Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive126

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

How long should Appleby be blocked?[edit]

Multiple sockpuppetry was confirmed for Appleby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HSL for details). 12 confirmed sockpuppets were blocked indefinitely, but Appleby, the main account, got only 24 hours. We need to assess the proper block periods of time.

Some information for making a decision:

  1. Appleby violated 3RR several times. Previously he's been blocked up to 72 hours.
  2. And now, multiple sockpuppetry was confirmed
    1. Appleby circumvented 3RR with sock puppets. One case was reported by Endroit (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Appleby reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:)) but some seem to be left unreported.
    2. With sock puppets, Appleby also created the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HSL for details.

Any comment? --Nanshu 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Appleby is likely to reform? Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Note:He's been blocked 8 times in 10 months for 3RR violations. He's not getting that message. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I would go with an indefinite block as exhausting the community patience. 12 sockpuppets is ridiculous. Certainly no less than 2 weeks. JoshuaZ 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree strongly. Disruptive, unrepentant, unlikely to reform, show him the door. Just zis Guy you know? 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked for a further 24 hours pending the outcome of this discussion. Given the above I certainly wouldn't oppose anything up to and including an indefinite ban. --kingboyk 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing in all of this is that, despite multiple blatant rules violations, he's made some good contributions as well. It's unfortunate that he doesn't learn to play nicely as I think he could make a good editor if he'd put forth the effort to do that instead of edit warring and puppetry. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Get over it, Nihonjoe. Appleby is not just Appleby. This guy's a full time revert-warrior. Just look at the actions of Dollarfifty (talk · contribs), HSL (talk · contribs), Damool (talk · contribs), and the other socks. Appleby inherited some good traits by dumping some of his bad traits on to his other sockpuppets. But look at the number of Dollarfifty's reverts on June 13 (there's over 50 reverts on that day alone, perhaps?). This proves that Appleby is a full-time revert-warrior. If you're not going to indefinitely ban Appleby, you have to think of a method to monitor and restrict his reverts.--Endroit 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't go jumping all over me, Endroit, especially when it appears you've misinterpreted my comments. I wasn't disagreeing with anyone that Appleby shouldn't be blocked for longer. I've already said I agree that he should be blocked for a much longer time in order to cool his heels for a while and think about how to play nicely in the future. I was just expressing some regret that it came this far since he obviously knows how to edit in an acceptable fashion, and yet chooses not to. You don't need to convince me of Appleby's indiscretions. I've been around most of them, so I have first-hand knowledge of what a pain he can be. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't condone what Appleby did. In fact, he messaged me once with his sock Dollarfifty, presumably to make the sock look more legitimate and I don't particularly appreciate being used (there's probably a better word) like that at all or wasting my time writing a response to someone who didn't need to read what I wrote. But I agree with with Nihonjoe that Appleby has made some good contributions, especially in an area of Wikipedia that is often neglected. I think a long Wiki-break for Appleby is probably a good idea but I don't think an indefinite ban is the solution. I can't speak for Appleby myself but my suggestion is if he/she promises to be good (taken in good faith), a last chance should be given in my opinion (After a long break.) Tortfeasor 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least Appleby's writings were reasonable and it means he/she knows how to behave him(her)self. Now that all other accounts were blocked, and the main account's warned, I think he/she can do good job from now on as it was done under Appleby. It doesn't harm to give it another shot and see. Therefore, I object to indefinite ban. 2 weeks will do. Ginnre 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Decision[edit]

Based on most of the comments above, as well as Ypacaraí's comments here, it seems that a block of at least one year is in order. Given the long history of repeated policy and guideline violations with no indications showing a possible change of ways in the future on the part of Appleby, I've indef blocked him. Thank you to everyone for their input. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why was Ypacarai's comment so important? I checked his user page and it looks like he might be too pro Japan. And where is no indiations of possible change? Giving Appleby another chance is that unreasonble? Ginnre 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not "pro-Japan" or "pro-Korea," and I've had plenty of problems with Appleby's POV-pushing. I think it's sad, because he's entirely capable of writing good articles and contributing positiviely, but this effective betrayal of the community's trust means the decision to block is more than justified, I think. --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
A block for about a month certainly does teach him a lesson, but not an indefinite one. It is certainly far too harsh. Furthermore, see his contributions to wikipedia. The vast majorty are constructive, not destructive. I have never seen him violated any other laws other than this. People do make mistakes, you know. Perhaps he is not even aware of this law and he happened to find out that a computer terminal can create multiple accounts, without being aware of the law. Ypacarai himself, on the other hand, is quite a controversial and stubborn figure in the first place. Currently, even I had problems to pull him in just to enquire him for reasons only on why he removed the Korean naming conventions on goodwill basis. All of you might want to take a look at Talk:Tsushima Island to see the progress of the discussion. Mr Tan 10:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I doubt he is unaware of Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy. He once commented "obvious sockpuppetry and way way way beyone 3rr" in a edit comment[1] and there, he himself circumvented the 3RR policy using his sock puppet Dollarfifty. --Kusunose 12:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm....you do have a point. But I'm sure that besides this violation, he is not a mere vandal and has made many constructive edits as shown on his contributions page and his user page. I certainly do support a one to three month ban just like an armed robbery being prosecuted to ten-to-twenty years jail under Singapore's laws, but an indefinite ban on him directly just like an exceution of a murderer in the gallows is certainly way too harsh for such a valued contributor. I am sure that every other moderate user holds a similar view of my standard, and that few months is certainly more than enough to let him reflect on his violations. Mr Tan 13:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI[edit]

SPUI is ONCE AGAIN violating his probation and engaging in edit wars on various state highway articles such as Nevada State Route 28. This is in BLATANT disregard for the arbcom ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways. He is entitled to a block of some kind as he's most definitely OUT OF WARNINGs. Please engage his Arbcom sanctioned block at the earliest convenience. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I told him to keep his head down. --mboverload@ 22:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
WHY? How many fucking chances does this guy get? He's been blatantly violating his probation mutliple times weekly at this rate. Why the fuck have an arbcom if it's rulings mean jack shit? He doesn't care you told him to keep his head down. He'll ignore you starting again tomorrow just like he always does. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to go find it, but I left him a nice paragraph of advice about not getting into fights and keeping a low profile, so he can return to the public area with a hopefully clean slate. wtf is with this guy and highways? --mboverload@ 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Three words, "I'm always right". That's his attitude on everything. He could give a rats ass that any of us exist. His MO hasn't changed since I first met him. He edit wars people until the either give up or in many cases he drives users off the project(see Jimbo's talk page for the list of his victims). And the admin staff at this site seems content to keep giving him gentle warnings and leave it at that and he treats those warnings like what they are, a joke. Even though he's now got 2 fucking Arbcom probations one specifically for edit warring on highway articles he's yet to have one block initiated on him that's stuck more then 2 hours before his buddy buddy admins unblock his ass. This is absurd! I don't care if he single handedly is writing half this encyclopedia. Editcount doesn't give him the right to discount other users and the arbcom like he has. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little frustrated here. SPUI, I don't know any of your history but you seem like a detirmined user. Why not just focus on another section of the encyclopedia? You know that fighting over highway names just brings more disdain for yourself. I'm not going to take a position on any possible blocking, but please take my advice. I have had to walk away from a few disputes, there's nothing shameful in it. --mboverload@ 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Highways are my area of expertise. --SPUI (T - C) 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I won't argue with that and nor will any of the people you've driven off the project, but it's your attitude toward your fellow Wikipedians that is both disruptive and frankly no longer welcome. You treat everyone else's opinion like it is shit if it's doesn't agree with yours. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm ok. I don't know what's going to happen here, but try and use better edit summaries and talk with the user before you edit war with them. --mboverload@ 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation by SPUI?[edit]

See this article history. --mboverload@ 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I peaked, and I know I'll get jumped for this anyway but I first noticed two things:
  • He has reverted 4 times, but the 4th occured more than 24 hours after the 3rd.
  • He did not initiate the name change, which is Remedy 6 from the Highways arb case.
I also note from the talk page for that one, he's also the first to initiate discussion on this. Mind you, it looks to have been posted after his third revert. I think he should have reverted only once, posted to the talk page, and brought it here, all at once. But if we're throwing the Highways case around here, I don't think he's broken it so much as strained it quite a bit. It's far too easy to push his buttons. Just my two cents from the peanut gallery. --InkSplotch 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
How is it not a violation. Edit warring is by definition disruption. He is BANNED from making any disruptive edits to ANY highway articles. This surely qualifies. Or can you clearly state that I too am not bound by the probation and can make similar edits to highway articles? If that's the case then arbcom means nothing. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually the violation was by FLWfan, who has not been using talk pages despite my request to do so. I didn't report him because no one had told him about the 3RR yet. --SPUI (T - C) 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact you're violating the arbcom ruling by edit warring with him. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation, SPUI could be banned from editing Nevada_State_Route_28 for editwarring. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 23:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally! Thank you for pointing that out~ (just a note though, I've not edited that page ;) ) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
FLWfan could also be blocked for his moves: "In the case of such moves by other editors, they shall be warned and/or blocked at administrator discretion." It's a two-way street here. --SPUI (T - C) 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Also true. But it doesn't again change the fact that you should be blocked for this. You've violated the arbcom for at least the third time that I'm directly aware of since it was enacted. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Concur, and also for the crap that happened at Minnesota State Highway 33, the Ohio state highways list, List of Nevada State Routes, and more. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest, then, that you copy this notice to WP:AE, this time avoiding vulgar language. A description of the disruption with Diffs and a wikilink to the arbCom Remedies will suffice. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
We have 4 times now. They've yielded NO results and have been deleted off that board. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Infact if you go there now there is another posting about him. It has thus far been IGNORED. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


* User:JohnnyBGood blocked for 31 hrs for moves without consensus as per Highways#Enforcement_of_moves_without_consensus ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 23:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but could you elaborate on the second one here? I've just been peeking around Johnny's contribs and logs and I'm not seeing anything matching "moves without consensus." --InkSplotch 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. Corrected. I have informed the user and apologized for my mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 00:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Rschen7754 has been doing exactly the same thing on many more articles. See his edits with summary "fix". --SPUI (T - C) 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See defense at WP:AE and my retarded edit summaries. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

afd[edit]

Im writing regarding a very controversial subject that is being afd'd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem-reaction-solution.

Basically, people are lining up to vote "delete -> RS", claiming there are no reliable sources. At the same time, there are no actual claims of factuality made in the article itself, it just reports opinions of people, and what the people cited view the term stands for and what were it is manifested.

As i understand it, Reliable Sources are needed if one is to claim something as factual. For example, if i say "Iraq has wmd's", i need to have a very reputable source claiming it, for example multiple mainstream publications.

But that is not the case for a opinion. If someone is quoted as having a opinion, then his own admission is enough as being a reliable source for that opinion.

Now, people are arguing to delete that article with arguments like: "The examples provided are not factual, and there is no RS for claiming that they are. The people cited are not RS"

This is problematic in many ways, in my view. First, the article is not claiming them to be factual, it only states that people hold those views. Further, they admit that the people cited hold that view, agreeing that there is no dispute regarding the people holding those views, but they proceed to argue that those peoples view is not a reliable source for the factuality of the claims. But the article does not claim the events to be factual to start with!'

This is nothing more than twisting words. They make a false claim, and then argue that the article needs to go based on that false claim, while at the same time agreeing to what the article actually stats: That it is a term used by conspiracy theorists.

The claims of the term being a neology is refuted, and so is the claim of it being a non-notable, so people are just throwing false arguments in order to get it deleted.

But what is more: The article itself is about a term. Even if the entire "Example" section was to be deleted as non-RS, it would still not merit to delete the article, since it is representing a real-life phenomena: the use of the term, and what it means: the very basic function of a encyclopedia.--Striver 11:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • A few things here. First, Striver, I think it is courteous to post new comments to the bottom of the page (I'm not moving this, however, because I don't want to cause problems). Next, an encyclopaedia does not need to report on opinions. It needs to report on facts, so if the article makes no factual claims, then it shouldn't be here. Last, an encyclopaedia does not give "the meaning and use of terms", as you suggest above. A dictionary does that, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In short, I don't see why this merits a posting on the Admin noticeboard, really. Byrgenwulf 11:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, sorry, i did'nt know that. As for "Next, an encyclopaedia does not need to report on opinions.", then what is International reactions to the 2006 Qana airstrike? Or Jewish view of Jesus? They are nothing else than "factual opinions". What i mean is that the non-opinion facts, such as "x was Problem-Reaction-Solution" is not stated as fact, rather as "y views x as Problem-Reaction-Solution", and then quotes y's personal admision as a sources. Since nobody disputes that Y belives that, there is no valid reason to claim there is a lack of RS. With that said, "It needs to report on facts" is fullfilled. WP:NPOV:
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results
And that is exactly what the article does. As for "the meaning and use of terms", see Islamofascist, it has a "Application" section and also a "Origins and usage" and a "Examples of use in public discourse" section. When the exact same thing is done in the Problem-reaction-solution article, then all hell is breaking loose. Im bringin this issue here in hope of geting some actual argumentations, since the people on the afd and talk page give arguements that display an unaccaptable level of ignorance for wikipedia policies, and i was hoping to find a higher level of argumentation here.--Striver 14:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what intervention by administrators do you want? Continuing the AfD argument on this page is completely inappropriate. --ajn (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am hoping to either be shown were i am misstaken, or to agree with me that there is a problem of a majority imposing its will with bogus arguements, and that being a problem for the integrity of wikipedia. --Striver 17:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should let the AfD run its course, and then utilize the deletion review process if you don't like the outcome. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
And please, stop attacking everyone who votes "delete" Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 10:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Evilowen (talk · contribs)[edit]

Just back from a 24-hour block for vandalizing AFD's of his articles, user is now creating multiple copies of the articles under AFD, with slightly different names, and also one which was speedied yesterday. Warnings are ignored. Fan-1967 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked by User:Syrthiss for 48 hours. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I might have blocked him on general principles for creating 500 articles with variations on a name...but then he removed afd notices from his new articles which is what he was blocked for yesterday. I think in general we should indef block him and salt the earth on his various articles assuming that they indeed are deleted, which is where they are heading currently. Syrthiss 19:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Just as an amusing side note, one of his copies didn't need to be retagged for AFD. He copied the article, intact, with the AFD tag still on it. Fan-1967 20:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
lol. Syrthiss 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Now he's back, evading block, as Evilowen2 (talk · contribs), recreating deleted articles, and continuing to edit. Fan-1967 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • After being blocked again under the new name he's asked for an unblock, on User talk:Evilowen2. He claims the first ID was his assistant. Fan-1967 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert war at rapcore[edit]

There's a rather silly-looking revert war in progress at rapcore. Basically this is 3RR fodder, but I mention it here rather than there as a) I've already blocked both parties (more briefly than might be wise, given the excessive reversion on one side, and the counter-productive edit summaries and "entitlement to revert" logic on the other), and will re-block if this continues and b) there already seems to be significant sock/meat-puppetry at work, so if someone else keeps an eye out, that would be handy. Alai 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Further to which, I've blocked User:Hans Schwarc for 24h (and am tempted to make that "indefinite"). Recently created account that seems to exist only to act to revert in line with User:LUCPOL, has a "forged" talk page (copied over from User_talk:Dcflyer) to give the impression of having been around longer than the day-and-a-bit he's actually been editing for, and to top it all off, does content-disputes reverts "in the style of" admin rollback. Alai 00:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The forged talk page is impersonation, so I'd say that is an indef. block situation. If you want to do a nominally limited block (say, 3 months) that is actual infinity to a troll, that would be appropriate as well. Essentially, the particular quality of the particular edits is one thing, but the attempt to deceive about status and longevity is another. Geogre 13:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Template deleted per IAR; review sought[edit]

I invite other admins to review my deletion (and protection, after recreation) of Template:Dignity. See also this edit to my page and WP:VPN#Yay!. In my opinion, 99 Red Baboons (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a troll and should be blocked, but I think it's best to leave that to others. -- SCZenz 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Indef blocked, given that every edit but one was pure mischief. Now would you do me a favour, and not cite "per IAR" as a rationale for actions (especially, admin actions), given that it a) explains nothing, and b) "justifies" (or at least in some vague sense of "covers") absolutely everything? Thanks. Just a pet peeve of my inner logical positivist. Alai 23:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There's no rule that I'm aware of, that justifies speedy-deleting something for "obvious trolling." And for good reason—"obvious trolling" is in the eye of the beholder! But this was very obvious trolling, so I deleted it (despite the lack of explicit policy justification) for the good of the encyclopedia. What do I call it other than "per WP:IAR"..? My specific reasoning was clearer on other pages, but most of all it was obvious from what I did. -- SCZenz 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The point is, to be clear, that I don't like to apply IAR much at all. Since I did, I wanted to emphasize it and have it reviewed. -- SCZenz 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • IAR may be the applicable "rule", but it's not much of an explanation. I agree with your actions, btw, I just think that for clarity, one should say "invoking IAR, I did X for reason Y", rather than citing IAR as if it were a reason. e.g. "exists only for baiting and annoyance purposes" might not be a CSD, but it's certainly a reason, whereas IAR is not. (For my money, CSD G1 pretty much covers it in this case, anyway.) Alai 00:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • You raise a valid point. I was in a bit of a hurry, and had a vague inclination (since the user was complaining emphatically and superficially reasonably, in the way of trolls) that I would pass off the facts without prejudicing the discussion by explaining my reasons properly. It worked, but I admit it was a bit silly; obviously IAR isn't the reason one does anything. -- SCZenz 04:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandalism reported on AIV that isn't clear cut[edit]

Copying report from WP:AIV:

This wasn't simple vandalism, so I'm moving it over here. JoshuaZ 03:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

CTYI[edit]

Demiurge has constantly removed a section from the CTYI article. I need someone to protect the page or give a warning to Demiurge. If there are any former CTY or CTYI administrators out there please help.

Shanequinlan01

  • No, I don't think so. It's a content dispute; attempt to seek consensus on the talk page. No administrative action is warranted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense Warnings[edit]

  • In the tradition of the VaughanWatch Socks, JohnnyCanuck has once again put a nonsense warning where he once again accuses me of vandalism (again without any proof) on my talk page. Could an admin please remove it? -- pm_shef 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Done, thank you. -- pm_shef 16:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • He's re-added it, if someone can please take it down, and warn him to stop, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks -- pm_shef 19:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
See #JohnnyCanuck section below. I am seeking for the user to be permabanned. -- JamesTeterenko 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown[edit]

Anyone want to explain why none of the accounts under "Original names" (EBlack, D.Right, and Agiantman) have never been blocked? That's kind of concerning... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Arbiteroftruth[edit]

Arbiteroftruth posted a nasty little message on User:Incorrect's userpage. Don't give me a stupid lecture on this being a "content dispute." This isnt anything close to a content dispute. For once, actually do something. Tchadienne 16:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Gee, pre-emptive nastiness and defensiveness is a weird way to get something done, especially when you're making an entirely reasonable request. Anyway, I've killed the page and politely suggested Arbiteroftruth not do that. (The "nasty little message" was "Note to all users: This user has been known for controversial, non-NPOV edits on matters relating to United States and Israel. Please review all edits made by this user carefully, and revert anything non-NPOV on sight.") --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt is back[edit]

FYI, Pnatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is back. See Canucksfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and the various other sockpuppets. For those not familiar with him, see: the previous discussion about him. -- JamesTeterenko 18:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Note he now seems to be creating multiple socks to attack James, e.g. [2] [3] --pgk(talk) 22:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I have two puppeteers attacking me today. It's actually getting a little tricky to tell the difference between the two of them. -- JamesTeterenko 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Both seems to be blocked. Pgk, those two links went to the same account - is there another? --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So far, there are 11 Pnatt socks today. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pnatt. They are all indefinitely blocked. They are all really obvious and easy to block, so it isn't that big of an issue. -- JamesTeterenko 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Clueful halp needed[edit]

Acadamenorth (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) needs to stay blocked due to disruption, harrassment and general trolling, but the autoblock is causing issues (see [4]. I tried a 1-second block of Jack O'Lantern, should that do it? Just zis Guy you know? 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about impersonation[edit]

I noticed that User:Kmaguir1 has a picture of Jimbo Wales on his userpage, and has placed his own name (Kevin Maguire) just above the picture, within the caption. This is certainly misleading. Is this considered impersonation?--Anthony Krupp 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See [5]. Help the bombardier… —xyzzyn 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/VaughanWatch and update it as you see fit. --TheM62Manchester 20:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded this to quickly describe the basic issue. -- JamesTeterenko 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Defamation and Harassment[edit]

  • In the past ten minutes, two users, User:Scoties and User:Mblitray have popped up and blanked pages which I have edited, replacing them with two obscenely offensive and defamatory statements which can be seen at Scoties and Mblitray respectively. Scoties has already been indef blocked, but clearly this is a pattern, one that doesn't seem to be stopping. Is there anything that can be done? This is frankly getting rediculous, insulting and to be honest, scary. -- pm_shef 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Take this to Requests for CheckUser to see if these accounts all belong to the same individual (or party). Editor88 22:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Cruxtaposition is a sockpuppet of banned user User:Zen-master[edit]

Cruxtaposition (talk · contribs · count) is clearly a sockpuppet of ArbCom banned user Zen-master (talk · contribs · count), who the day before yesterday used the sockpuppet Pristine Clarity (talk · contribs · count),[6] and less recently the sockpuppet Hollow are the Ori (talk · contribs · count) to avoid the ban. The user shows the identical behavior patterns, hasn't denied being Zen-master, and raises the same conspiracy theories as before:

  • Cruxtaposition: "this article completely obfuscates the citable allegation that "race and intelligence" research is racist propaganda fabricated to have the appearance of science."[7]
  • Pristine Clarity: "this article (and area of "research") is so vastly non scientific and utilizes a minefield of propaganda-esque suggestive language it's staggering."[8]

--Nectar 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

user:Parisderry800[edit]

i've blocked Parisderry800 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefinitely, despite a lack of warnings. looks like a possible wow sock or something; lots of page moves and other blatant vandalism. so i figured i'd give it a mention here. thoughts?--heah 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

and also Space_Ghost_900 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log); i've just blocked him indefinitely as well, after two previous blocks. --heah 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Endorse, obviously. I took him for a clueless newbie at first, hence my own 24 hour block of the Space Ghost account, but if he's indulging in sockpuppetry, then he doesn't get any leeway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

German Wikipedia editor using English Wikipedia as "experiment"[edit]

A German Wikipedia editor has admitted here that he is using the Bad Nenndorf article as a social experiment to bring out the neo-nazis and right wing extremeists on the English Wikipedia in a direct violation of WP:POINT and one that I think is serious enough to warrant an indefinite block. He was engaged in a dispute already in the German Wikipedia about the subject, and brought the edit war over here, to what was a previously quiet article. Next he claimed that his actions were a grand experiment to test the right wing extremist bias on English Wikipedia, a kind of behaviour that is disruptive in the extreme and should be completely disallowed. It has been claimed I was in a content dispute with him, but I did not block until the issue was resolved with a complete rewrite of the article in question, at which point I was no longer disputing anything, nor was he. Another administrator has already support this block, as his actions set a very bad precendent of playing with the English Wikipedia just to prove a point. pschemp | talk 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The block should remain. Perhaps Germans should stick to the German Wikipedia, if they are just going to play games here. Adam Bishop 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that the user named should be block, I caution against the suggestion that other germans are not welcome here. In regards to the block, perhaps a note to the admin staff on de might be appropriate. - CHAIRBOY () 20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Anyone is welcome who will contribute constructively rather than destructively.pschemp | talk 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I did not mean to suggest all Germans are not welcome, just this guy :) (In fact, we should aspire to be more like the German wikipedia in some ways...) Adam Bishop 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that it is particularly interesting that that this person has an account at de: -- they're not at en: to help work on the encyclopedia, so they don't need to edit here. Jkelly 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A block sounds appropriate for the situation described... but which user are you referring to? joshbuddy, talk 20:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that's User:KarlV. Same username on de.wiki. pschemp | talk 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For information, according to KarlV, ‘An eventual block was part of the experiment.’[9] So the block is scientifically sound. ☺ —xyzzyn (German but not usually playing any games here) 21:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Block him until his ears bleed. We expect that kind of stupidity from clueless n00bs, and we're ready to educate them nicely. We do not expect that kind of thing from our fellow Wikipedians. I do not imagine that anybody from here trying that kind of stunt on dewiki would receive a kind reception, nor would they deserve such. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
"Until his ears bleed" would be exceedingly useful in fact... —Celestianpower háblame 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Pschemp has indefinitely blocked User:KarlV, allegedly for WP:POINT. The evidence of WP:POINT seems rather weak to me; specifically, this statement, which seems to say he was trying to find out if extreme right-wing editors had indeed been made admins on English wikipedia, and that he felt, once they discovered him, they would block him. Furthermore, Pschemp was involved in a content conflict with KarlV, as is obvious from this edit and the Talk: page there. In addition, KarlV's edits seem to be absolutely correct in this case, and Pschemp's wrong - the sources did, in fact, not describe Bad Nenndorf as a "concentration camp", and Pschemp used original research to insist that it be described that way anyway. I think this block should be undone. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The content dispute was over as the wording had been changed to neither concentration camp nor internment camp. I blocked long after this was settled. Since when is its said that if you ever edit an article you can't block someone? I didn't "insist", I tried to stop an edit war while we worked on it. I'm not allowed to think? Don't characterize me as insisting either, If I had "insisted" I wouldn't have changed it from both of the original words to a third solution, nor accepted the final ChrisO version. I didn't use any word not already printed by The Guardian, and debating which term should be used doesn't mean I'm a neo-nazi, it just means I'm at least trying to figure out what is the best term. pschemp | talk 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel uncomfortable with this block too. First, it appears that User:pschemp was part of the conflict dispute and therefore shouldn't have blocked. That aside, if KarlV was here to find out whether far-right German contributors had become admins, that wouldn't necessarily imply that he was editing disruptively, so I see no grounds for a block. On the contrary, if there's any truth to what he's saying, it would be important to find that out. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
User:KarlV edit warred in the context of a ‘test’. For what it’s worth, I find the underlying purpose—to eliminate subtle neo-Nazi POV-pushing—admirable and the allegations up on which the user appeared to be following worthy of investigation by the community, if there is more to them than the user’s statement. However, User:KarlV was clearly making a point, was making a point by the disruptive means of an edit war and, being experienced, should have known better than to do that, there being enough venues on Wikipedia whither the issue could have been brought to be dealt with in a regular manner. I think WP:POINT is established thusly and the user’s understanding of the consequences is also established. Furthermore, the user already had been given an entire day to read the English policy pages. Call me a square bourgeois armchair eser, but I don’t think that guerrilla methods should be tolerated here right now, no matter how just their cause. What remains is the formality of who imposed the block, and if this bothers you, then redo it properly. (…Sorry about the length of this.) —xyzzyn 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If any of you think I'm a neo-nazi because I stumbled into an edit war and tried to figure out what was really going on here, then you are sadly mistaken. I looked at all the possible words, and over the course of this dispute educated myself on what should be used. The fact that this article is on its fourth term for the camp and that I tried to come up with a compromise (cited from the Guardian, not original research) shows this. Ultimately, interrogation camp was used, which NOBODY disputed. And my block happend AFTER the wording question was settled. Questioning wording is not a crime, nor is trying to stop an edit war while things are sorted out. And correct edit or not, KarlV started an edit war, broke 3RR and generally disrupted this article. pschemp | talk 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

‘If any of you think I'm a neo-nazi’ ← If this refers to what I posted above, I apologise. I did not intend to imply any such thing; my remark was meant to refer to User:KarlV’s stated purpose. —xyzzyn 23:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
no, I was referring to Jayjg, but mostly making a general statement lest this turn into a witch hunt. pschemp | talk 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't see where Jayjg said or implied that you're a neo-Nazi. What he said was you were in a content dispute with the user you blocked, and also that you were inserting OR; The Guardian does not call that camp a "concentration" camp so far as I can tell. Would you please consider undoing your block? Apart from the issue of it possibly being disproportionate, it's clear that admins shouldn't block people they're in a content dispute with. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not getting back into the content issue, it was already settled. I was actually referring to the title "torture camp" there, and as for concentration, the word was used in the article, I didn't pull it from thin air. It was decided that the word wasn't used in a way that made it appropriate to cite it, and I didn't argue with that ultimately! Like I said before, the content dispute was over, and the block wasn't related to the content disupte. I will not unblock, nor will I reblock. I am done with this. pschemp | talk 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate you not wanting to get back into the details of the content dispute, but I searched both the Guardian articles and they did not call it a concentration camp, yet you said they did. I think that was KarlV's point, and he was correct. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a good block. No one has contradicted that there was no current content dispute. The user was trolling to out people and create disruption. It doesn't matter whether he was trying to out good guys or bad guys, and it doesn't matter if the user is a good editor on another project, it's still disruption and trolling. Let's not encourage the trolls. NoSeptember 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If he does unblock, I'd be more than happy to reinstate it. The guy has blatantly admitted to WP:POINT violations, and obviously is only here to stir up trouble. --InShaneee 00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is so straightforward. User:Samsara was also involved, supporting User:pschemp, in the content dispute at Bad Nenndorf with KarlV. Samsara blocked KarlV for 3RR, which he should not have done because of his involvement. When someone else complained about that, pschemp supported Samsara, a new admin, saying "In such clear cut cases of 3RR such as that it is perfectly acceptable for any admin to block," [10] which is completely false. See WP:BLOCK and Talk:Bad Nenndorf. I think this block should be undone, and we should wait for KarlV to explain the situation before anyone redoes the block; and if it's redone, it should be in proportion to the disruption (if there was any) and not indefinite. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed because he was also TRYING TO STOP AN EDIT WAR started by KarlV. There is a difference. 3RR was clearly violated.pschemp | talk 00:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It makes no difference. We are not allowed to block users when we're part of the content dispute. The exceptions are vandalism and libel. Please review WP:BLOCK. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
KarlV can comment on his still unprotected talk page, I'm happy to hear what he has to say. NoSeptember 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the 3RR situation as being relevant in the least. The user came here with the express intention of causing disruption to 'bait' certain admins. What more do we need? --InShaneee 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What disruption did he actually cause? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3RR. That's a 24 hour block for the first offence, but this guy not only PLANNED to do that, but ANNOUNCED it publically. --InShaneee 00:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We can't block someone indefinitely for a 3RR violation he's already been blocked for, especially when both of the blocking admins are involved in the content dispute. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
he wasn't blocked for 3RR, he was blocked for WP:POINT.pschemp | talk 00:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I asked for a link to the actual disruption, on or off-wiki. You have so far not supplied one. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Could someone supply a link to actual disruption on Wikipedia, or harm caused to an editor or to the project off-Wikipedia? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The link to him announcing his plan to disrupt in the name of his experiment is in the thread above. Users are blocked for intent all the time, I only wish all vandals were so forthcoming. --InShaneee 00:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The edit history of Bad Nenndorf shows the disruption. Or is it not disruptive to revert without discussion multiple times anymore? pschemp | talk 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
He made four edits. Are we now going to block everyone indefinitely for reverting four times? You say above that he wasn't blocked for 3RR. Now you seem to be saying he was. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't say anywhere in this link that he intends to cause disruption. He says he has heard there are far-right editors/admins on the English Wikipedia who also edit on the German one, and so he made a related edit to see what would happen. What happened is that he was blocked, first for 24 hours then indefinitely, by two admins involved in the dispute, which is a concern. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't say he plans to make any useful edits here, either. He's here to bait admins, which is disruption, and I'll say again that I'm more than happy to block on those grounds. --InShaneee 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I wish you weren't happy about it, InShanee, and I hope you'll reconsider. He said he had a concern that there were far-right editors from the German WP operating here. He made some edits that had been at the center of a dispute on the German Wikipedia (as I understand it) to see whether the alleged far-right editors here would respond. That is not disruption, and it's not baiting in any serious sense. It's trying to determine whether there's a problem. The response was that he was blocked for 3RR by an admin involved in the dispute, and then blocked indefinitely by another admin involved in the dispute. And there are two separable issues here: (a) the indefinite block is inappropriate; in fact I don't see he should have been blocked at all, though he should be cautioned not to play games, if that's his intention; and (b) regardless of any other issue, those two admins should not have blocked; otherwise we may as well ditch WP:BLOCK entirely. If we're going to do the latter, please let me know, because there are several users I'm currently in content disputes with that I'd love to be able to block indefinitely. If that's now permitted, I intend to be busy this evening. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the the involved admins shouldn't have blocked him; however, I maintain that he does need to be blocked. I deal with inexperienced users all the time, and this is EXACTLY what I tell them NOT to do; if he has a problem with POV, he should discuss it issue by issue just like the rest of us. --InShaneee 00:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The block happened AFTER THE CONTENT DISPUTE WAS SETTLED. How much plainer do I have to say that? There was no more dispute at the time. It was done, over with. Finished, and had been. pschemp | talk 00:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, how much plainer does it need to be made to you? You and Samsara were involved in a dispute with KarlV over whether to call something a concentration camp. Samsara blocked him for 3RR in relation to that dispute, and you supported the block, even though it was a violation of WP:BLOCK. A few days later, KarlV said that his concentration-camp edits were made to find out whether some editors alleged to be involved with the German far right (or words to that effect) [11] would respond. When you read that, you blocked him indefinitely in relation to the same dispute, which you had been involved in. Another violation of WP:BLOCK. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am previously uninvolved in this case, but admit that I've been supportive of actions of pschemp and other editors in the past. I've reviewed this case and I think the content dispute is a total red herring. If we are going to argue that pschemp should not have made the block, ok sure. But the block itself is a good one. I think it's wonkism to insist that some other editor make the block, but, since I'm previously uninvolved, (have never touched the article or interacted with KarlV) I would be happy to unblock and reblock if that would satisfy the process issue. More importantly, though, it's clear to me that this editor turned up here to disrupt things. Whether for "noble reasons" or not, that's just Not On. There are far better ways to work for change or raise issues than by being disruptive. I tend to take people at their word when they say they ar here to disrupt, and hand out a block. That's the case here in my view. Support the block as is, reluctantly would be ok with a reduction to a definite (but long) term, and will reblock (once) if lifted completely. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a reduction as a compromise. What period would you see as fair, Lar? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lar unblocks and reblocks[edit]

I've unblocked and reblocked so the block is in my name, a previously uninvolved admin, based on my review of the facts of this case. I'm not keen on a reduction to any particular definite term... but I think a month might be a good amount if we were trying to give this user a small amount of benefit of the doubt. That said I don't agree with your characterisation of why the block was handed out, it was not at all related to a content dispute, it was related to a stated claim of intent to disrupt. That's a blockable offense, and indefinite as far as I am concerned. The content dispute is a red herring, dismissable by a reminder that at the time of the 3RR violation, pschemp or samsarra should have asked for help, and nothing more... the recent block is completely unrelated except inasmuch as it gives a possible appearance of impropriety. Appearance only, there is no real impropriety here in my view. Let's not wonk out and avoid doing The Right Thing if we can.... (signed, a lifelong process wonk) ++Lar: t/c 01:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would support a reduction to a month. I think it's far too long, but as a compromise, it's better than indefinite. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. --InShaneee 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's far far too short and really... we shouldn't be compromising, we should be reaching consensus on the right thing to do. Intent to disrupt, stated as such, is an indefinite. I snapped out a month just to say something... IF we were trying to give the user the benefit of the doubt. For stated intent, I see no reason to do that, actually. I won't wheel war over it though, not my style. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
One month block sends the right signal. We have enough trouble with vandals and trolls, we do not need experienced editors disrupting the project on top of that. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Lar, don't get me wrong here. I completely support indefinite blocks for disruption. I'm not at all policy-wonkish when it comes to that. It's just that, in this case, I honestly don't get it (i.e. don't see that it was disruption), but perhaps there's something about it that I'm missing. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Dunno, it just strikes me that this editor was doing a breaching experiment, and disrupting things. I see no need for that here, and think indef is the right thing to do. pschemp is one of the admins I tend to see taking a hard line but who I trust because her actions, while sometimes pushing the envelope, are for the good of the 'pedia and she's willing to make herself unpopular in that cause... maybe her page hasn't been vandalised as much as yours but she's out there making the hard choices all the time. Should she have come here first? Sure. Sometimes expediency should win out and sometimes it shouldn't. But that's a side issue. The main issue is this is a disruptive editor, and as pointed out, a month may not really even inconvenience them in the scheme of things, or (more importantly) act as a preventative 4 months from now if they come up with another brilliant experiment... So I think indef is the way to go here. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd support a 1 month as well. This mess would have been easier to sort out and settle if pschemp had not blocked but brought it here first. FeloniousMonk 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree I pushed the line, but since my block has been redone by someone else, that issue is kind of null now. pschemp | talk 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
A one month block is useless here. This "experiment" is the only thing this user has done here in more than 3 months. NoSeptember 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case, why bother with a block? JoshuaZ 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
At some point he may decide to do another disruptive experiment or even continue this one. There are a lot of accounts with few edits out there that have been indef blocked for being used solely for disruption or trolling or vandalism. Why treat this one special? He has not offered an apology or a promise not to do this again. NoSeptember 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Tickleme[edit]

pschemp: "The block happened AFTER THE CONTENT DISPUTE WAS SETTLED". Blocking post facto could well be interpreted as unwarranted revenge ...if unjustified - that's what counts. I'm having a more than unpleasent exchange on Talk:Bad_Nenndorf_interrogation_centre with pschemp, for several reasons stated there I feel his actions in the course of these events are unbecoming of an admin - IMO he's not to judge about KarlIV given the circumstances.
Besides, I concur with SV that KarlV edited proper: he tried to delete POV and "inadequate reading of sources" to put it mildly, pls cf. my unsatisfying exchange with pschemp on that very subject. KarlV's statement (it's in English) may show an unwise choice of words, however, he never announced anything that could be constructed as intent of obstructing WP: he saw severe shortcomings both here and on German WP and wanted them addressed - doing so via legit editing, he expected trouble from specified users. This happened, and that's what he wanted to find out: will they hinder me to do what's needed wicipedically. To call that a "social experiment" is unwise, arguably pompous - but undoubtedly just a metaphor. Like it or not, no reason for action. His outspoken wish to go for Neo-Nazi machinations is arguably not the ideal mindset wikipedically, but who has that mindset anyway? Eventually, he's to judged by his edits alone.
His indefinite block is unwarranted, as he violated WP:POINT only following semantical interpretation of words unwisely chosen. Both his edits and intentions don't allow for the assumption at all. As for his suspicion of here being editors trying to take advantage of others not being able to read sources, be it German ones here or English ones on Geman WP my experience so far corroborates this. User:I like Burke's Peerage's revert to a version containg a forgery is a prime example. pschemp is involved, I quarrel with him about it, and I don't like the way he handles the issue at all. Creator of the forgery's first, yet uncut version is User:Samsara, he should be taken to task:
"Meanwhile German politicians demanded an apology from Britain.<ref>http://www.ndrtv.de/panorama/data/panorama_060420_bad_nenndorf.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/14/bad_nenndorf</ref> The German newspaper Die Zeit claimed that there were other concentration camps such as Bad Nenndorf, but provided no proof to this charge."
Please Get your facts straight before you go accusing people of writing things that they didn't. That edit was a merge from Bad Nenndorf (concentration camp) and original author was not Samsara. pschemp | talk 03:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The Historian Heiner Wember, author of the Die Zeit article states exactly the contrary: Neo-Nazis he cites made the claim, which he rebuffs as "utter nonsens".
Samsara, pschemp and User:I like Burke's Peerage either edited the above excerpt or helped to keep it in the article via revert. If requested, I'll have to sort that out on a timescale. And yes, I find it troubling that Neo-Nazi claims are smuggled into WP. German WP is constantly attacked like so, but over there all know to read German sources, so mostly it's to no avail. Karl is afraid that some folk switched to English WP as consequence. Good thinking. Some even start to reintroduce such edits to German WP citing their English articles as references. Absurd, but sometimes it works - sloppy sourcing is everywhere and attrition does wonders.

As for Karl's contribs here: he's a busy and respected editor on German WP, sometimes impetuous, and yes, his statement could be seen as loudmouthing; but he's reliable and, say, doesn' t forge - I assume several admins to speak up for him if that should help. He's only an occasional contributor here, that should not be an issue. --tickle me 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And again, none of this is relevent, since the new article was created by ChrisO, was accepted by consensus, and doesn't even contain the stuff you are going on about. It isn't incivil to point out that your comments are irrelevant, which is all I did. If you think I acted so badly, go file an RFC, but none of the above has any bearing in the WP:POINT block. pschemp | talk 04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I support unblocking and express an interest in reviewing the experiment's findings — link me (in English). El_C 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

More comments by Tickleme[edit]

  1. I don't want you to post in my edit's, it's considered incivil - and again, you're an admin: you know how to cite and reply.
  2. If you know that the original author was not Samsara, you know the original author.
  3. I was asking "I like Burke's Peerage" since 09:41, 3 August 2006 to comment on the forgery, he didn't reply, you did. However, you didn't tell me what you know profess to know. I don't like that. Couldn't you have put facts straight on the "merge from Bad Nenndorf (concentration camp)" issue right away? Forgery is a serious accusation: you knew of it, at least now you know the author, you reverted to it, you didn't react, and you didn't help. Now you're yelling at me in boldface.
  4. With your present help, if it merits the name, my original suspicion is confirmed again, it was "I like Burke's Peerage" alright, with another interesting variant. Should you know better - and I err, I would like you to inform me as soon as possible - this time. --tickle me 04:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but here on the English wikipedia, making a reply is not incivil, wherever it goes, that how we discuss things here. In fact your removal of my edit is the incivil thing, and I will reinsert it. Do not remove it again.pschemp | talk 04:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As long as the comment is indented correctly and properly signed, it's generally considered acceptable to comment between paragraphs here. Please refrain from refactoring comments like that in the future, okay? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying this right out here in the open. What is your point? If you are trying to accuse people of making neo-nazi right-wing extremist edits, just come out and say it. Otherwise, this is silliness. pschemp | talk 04:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


  1. "And again, none of this is relevent, since the new article was created by ChrisO, was accepted by consensus" All I have is this comment of yours, that indicates something else: "revert edit made withou consensus or sources", so does the history. Please show where the consensus was reached.
    That comment was made BEFORE the new article was created. Before. Consensus here means no one is going around reverting. No one has tried to reinsert anything from the old article into the new. No one has tried to change the name the camp is called by (the orginal issue) since the new article was created. That whole talk page was the old discussion and was just copied over AFTER the new article was made. Since no one has disputed ANYTHING in the new article, that IS consensus. That's how it works around here.pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. "none of this is relevent [...], and doesn't even contain the stuff you are going on about": it does not, I keep repeating this, merely because others interfered -> you reverted to the contended version.
    In the OLD article. To stop an edit war. That article was stubbed down when the new one was written. The old article doesn't even contain that infomation. Its irrelvant, as all the info was moved to the new article, where it was rewritten. pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. "If you think I acted so badly, go file an RFC": I don't know about the regulations, I don't know if it's worth the trouble, and I hope for more clarification. It sure is an option.
    Go nuts. pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. "but none of the above has any bearing in the WP:POINT block.": On the assumption that you tried to hide your and "I like Burke's Peerage" involvement, it may well. I find this assumption plausible.
--tickle me 04:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't try to hide anything. I tried to stop an edit war. Like I said before, if you want to make accusations that I or anyone else involved is a neo-nazi, just come out and do it, but this ranting on and on about edits that don't exist anymore is silliness. Articles change, through discussion. That's the wiki process. pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I certainly welcome further clarification —hopefuly in a more comprehensible format— and make no predictions as to the outcome. El_C 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please don't post inside other people's comments, pschemp. It's making this hard to follow, and it's hard enough already. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Your're kidding right? It was one comment and is plenty visible. People do that all the time here. Even talking about this is less than useless. I tried to make this more comprehensible with section breaks, but nevermind. pschemp | talk 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

@Kylu: All I knew was this, which seems to be a good idea:

"Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow." (Wikiquette) If other -I suppose informal- guidelines apply here, I couldn't know. --tickle me 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There's just the two of you involved, and comments are indented to appear seperate (not interweaved) and properly attributed, as she's signed each indented post seperately. Now, if you'd commented on hers, some refactoring might need to take place, but quite frankly this is starting to seem less like a noticeboard request and more like a potential mediation case. Since you're mentioning wikiquette, however, you might want to consider if your comments accusing pschemp of hiding edits is, perhaps, a bit on the incivil side. Personally, I'd rather see less of this arguing here. It seems awfully...how to phrase it...disruptive to the admin noticeboard, to me. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well said. I certainly have nothing else to say, and continuation of this discussion is not neccessary here. pschemp | talk 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
"incivil": You might want to ask pschemp not to ask me to "go nuts", and I don't cherish the address "dude" neither. "seperate (not interweaved)": you are straining semantics here. pschemp's ways of editing this thread makes it hard for others to follow - incidentally, that's why they complain. Talk about disruptive. --tickle me 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Karl asks to be temp deblocked to help in the process, he will refrain from other edits. I support this. --tickle me 06:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I support this too, though I ask that he bear in mind he's making serious allegations here (if I've understood them correctly), and so it needs to be handled carefully and with evidence. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What "process"? Rooting out supposed neo-nazi admins here on enwiki? He can kiss my furry bum and that of each of my five cats before I agree to indulging in that kind of witch-hunt. Fold it until it's all sharp corners, and shove it. —Phil | Talk 07:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If the user is seeking an unblock, they shold place the {{unblock}} template on their user page per standard process, and uninvolved admins will review it. I see no sign of any such placement on their page yet. Since you're carrying messages back, make sure that when it's placed, it references this discussion, please. ++Lar: t/c 09:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, Lar! There's "the intelligent process wonk that everybody loves", and then there's "mutant Lar come to eat your children". To suggest that someone cannot be unblocked — or have arguments for unblocking them espoused by a mate — unless they use a particular template isn't process wonkism. It's stupidity. Naughty, Lar. Naughty! Do it again and you'll be sent to bed without supper. Yes, even in your timezone. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree. However "should" != "must"... if you want a new set of eyes, not already in this convo here on AN/I, that template is a good way to get them. My point is that, though, there is a drawback... people review and don't realise there's a big thread here to look at... that is all. NEVER would I say you MUST put it there to get unblocked, people get unblocked all the time without using it. Everyone here in this convo I would characterise as involved already. As for being sent to bed without supper... not gonna happen, and if you've ever seen pics of me you'd know it never has yet. ++Lar: t/c 12:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight…[edit]

Say I were to post here on enwiki "I heard there are some ultra-Zionist admins on hewiki, I'm going to take a poke at something, see what they do to me", and I went to hewiki and fiddled with something at the very least borderline controversial, and they blocked me for "disruption", would you guys here be defending me? Huh? Fsck it, I'd be blocking myself if I did anything that stupid. Get a grip, people. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the anti-witchhunt sentiment, but it's hardly fair to compare Zionists to neo-Nazis (and I'm not sure what an ultra-Zionist is). SlimVirgin (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Meir Kahane. --Calton | Talk 09:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What? POV is POV is POV. What Phil said illustrates that nicely. I've done my share of stupid things when visiting en.wiki (I'm the rogue admin over on en.wikt:) but sheesh, nothing close to this. I agree completely with Phil; if I did that, I'd be blocking myself. I would not be surfing about, fishing for support (based on petty, incorrect policy loopholes) nor continuing the disruption. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The substance of KarlV's edits[edit]

We should surely look at exactly what KarlV changed. He repeatedly changed the term "concentration camp" to "internment camp" (see e.g. [12]). He was right to change the terminology (though wrong to breach the 3RR, of course): the term is highly POV and isn't supported by the contemporary sources. If I hadn't been busy rewriting the article, I probably would have made similar changes. Does changing POV terminology really constitute a violation of WP:POINT? This seems to me to be a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. -- ChrisO 07:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

When a blocked user makes a sockpuppet and makes an edit, you're supposed to revert the edit, because regardless of how wonderfully brilliant the edit is, the problem is that it's being made by a user who isn't supposed to be editing at all, right? So, we already have a precedent that states that intent does matter. This user had the intent to disrupt English Wikipedia, and rather than it being a mitigating circumstance, ther fact that the user is an admin on a different Wikipedia actually should make the charge even more grave. They know better than to pull this sort of thing. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
KarlV was blocked because of his announcement of using the English Wikipedia as a social experiment. That has nothing to with 3RR, or even what article he edited. This breaching experiment is the only reason he was blocked. Nothing else. We don't excuse 3RR if the edits were right for the wrong reasons, why would this be different? pschemp | talk 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm still uneasy about this. His actions certainly caused a small degree of disruption, but I'm far from convinced that it merits an indefinite ban. -- ChrisO 08:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
To be clear... He was reblocked by me for exactly the same reason as pschemp gave, after review of the relevant edits, in order to remove the charge that it was an involved editor doing the blocking, which is a red herring but distracting. So... If anyone have a beef about the block, your beef is now with me, not pschemp. ++Lar: t/c 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a red herring at all, Lar, but regardless, the issue still stands that an indefinite block for what amounted to a 3RR violation, no matter its intent, is harsh. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry SlimVirgin to disagree: he provoked a interwikiwar. Enough is enough. I like Burke's Peerage 09:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Slim, if it was merely a 3RR I'd agree it was harsh, but it wasn't. It was a breeching experiment, admitted to as such by the user. We don't need that here, the user should find something else to do. This is a good block, because, regardless of what the inital violation was, the block is actually for breeching. I believe this has been explained quite eloquently by Phil above... and I'm surprised that you seem to be resisting the notion that when someone admits they are here to cause disruption and expect to be blocked for it that we don't oblige them. I'll note that there seem to be a lot of red herrings here, actually. ++Lar: t/c 09:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to support Lar's re-block. We really don't want to encourage this type of behaviour, and I still say it's absolutely scandalous that we should have to suffer this from someone who's supposedly a respected member of a sister Wikipedia. I'm thoroughly dissapointed. ~Kylu (u|t) 10:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've posted an e-mail from him below, where he explains, and apologizes for the misunderstanding. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


What can wie say for shure?

  1. KarlV waged an edit war
  2. KarlV violated 4RR (!)
  3. after having been blocked for that he declared ex post facto to have made a social experimant
  4. he provoked Godwins Law to fullfill

Do we really need to say more? Best regards I like Burke's Peerage 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please inform the German Wikipedia about Karl's infinite block[edit]

Karl and some of his adherents are still celebrating Karl as a kind of interwiki-heroe in social investigation; see [13]. It would be fair to let them know what happened here. I like Burke's Peerage 08:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Kein Probleme... [14] ... ++Lar: t/c 09:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. A la prochaine fois. I like Burke's Peerage

E-mail from KarlV[edit]

He sent me the following e-mail with permission to post it here. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was travelling yesterday and today and saw now the discussions that break up on en:WP. I am very sorry about the missunderstandings that occured now, perhaps because I expressed myself not in a right manner (excuse my English). So I never had the intention to disrupt. The main motivation for all my edits in the past (and will be also in the future) is to create a wounderful encyclopedia based on realiable sources. I never intended a "social experiment", but I described in my statement more detailed my motivation for my 4 edits on en:WP (I called it test, because of the warning of the user Rufezeichen not to come to en:WP). So the main sentence of my 4 edits on Bad Nenndorf was not to test, no - it was a concret edit against the POV-label "concentration-camp", which was defended by several users on de:WP and en:WP. And as anybody can see now, I was right. No reliable source is talking about a "concentration camp" there. So, whatever you decided, at least WP has won, the article has won, and that was the most important for me concerning this issue. Thank you. Karl

I'm not sure I'd characterise that as an apology... it reads more like a "see, I was right" to me but I could be misreading it. ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Me neither: By the way KarlV did babel himself as "This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English." Now he's babbling someting 'bout "excuse my Englisch". Sounds hypocritical not to say weird to me. Regards I like Burke's Peerage 11:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This situation looks like this to me: Someone tells Karl that there are biased admins here on en.wiki. So he comes here expecting to find a biased admin, and whichever admin was to stumble into trying to get a handle on the budding edit war was destined to be presumed to be biased by Karl. This is a fundamental lack of good faith on Karl's part. Instead of coming here to improve the articles by working with people to get the facts right and sourced, he was instead ready to assume the worst of any admin who gets involved. We need more AGF here.
The last sentence of his email also reads like something a dedicated edit warrior would write (sort of like I don't care if I get blocked for edit warring, as long as my version of the article stays). This is disappointing coming from an experienced user from another project. NoSeptember 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like he doesn't care if he's unblocked, so why bother unblocking? After all, he got his "win". Too bad he didn't realize no one said he was wrong here. Evidently even discussing such things makes us biased now. Also, he doesn't say anything about not doing it again, and the pompous tone indicates he'll gladly do it again because his cause is just. The issue here however, was never his cause, nor was it "winning". The issue is his behaviour, his violation of WP:POINT and the consequences of that. It is obviously he doesn't get that, and I suspect he never will. pschemp | talk 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Herewith I confirm by oath he's behaving exactly the same on the German Wikipedia and almost nobody takes offence at this. Sad to say so. (see: [15]) I like Burke's Peerage 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin has about the right take on this. I don't agree with pschemp's summary of the issue. I believe that it was improper for pschemp to block someone he was edit warring with. I also think pschemp was on the wrong side of the content dispute--he was definitely pressing for POV terminology. I don't think KarlV did a breaching experiment. A breaching experiment per that description would be putting in a bad edit on purpose, trying to defend it, and seeing what happened. Pschemp may characterize KarlV's actions that way, but KarlV's edit was in my opinion a good one, maybe with some characteristics of a honeypot since he wanted to see if anyone would revert it back to the bad version (which Pschemp did). I like ChrisO's new article very much and ChrisO's terminology is similar to KarlV's. KarlV did use the word experiment on the German page several times, but I think that aspect is being overblown in this discussion. The English article used a loaded POV term that needed to be fixed on way or another. I defer to the better German speakers whether Konzentrationslager is less loaded in German than "concentration camp" is in English, but there was edit warring over it there too (interestingly, it was introduced to the German article by someone with the handle "ProIsrael"). KarlV seems to understand the headache this all caused, so I think he should be unblocked. The edit war on the German article was not very pleasant and I hope Pschemp was not involved in it. Phr (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Phr: Your beef about the block is now with me, not pschemp, ok? It's my block now, not hers. I unblocked and reblocked so as to have the block come from an uninvolved admin. If you read over what you say, it's pretty clear that you yourself are enumerating the very reasons that she and I both saw for imposing this block... honey pots, experimenting, edit warring, and so forth. He might now understand the headache caused, but that's true of just about every troll and vandal, isn't it? What is lacking is any statement that what he did was wrong, any statement that he understands that the rules apply, any undertaking not to do it again, or any remorse at the wasted effort and time he's cost the project. Given that, this is a good block. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Following up on Phr's point, were any of the editors involved in this situation also involved in the edit war on the German article? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin: other than KarlV, I don't know. There were two or three registered accounts and a couple of IP's on de: trying to use "konzentrationslager", "folterlager" (torture camp), etc., but those account names weren't in the en: war. There were some similarities of purpose which is why I said I hoped pschemp wasn't one of the people (under a different account name; note that I wouldn't consider using different names on en and de to be sockpuppeting until we get SUL). Lar: that was a pretty lame excuse for an edit war (4 total edits) and should get a normal 24 hour 3RR block. As for "experimenting", hmm, suppose someone is reverting me in several politics-related articles and I think he's stalking me, so I go edit some mathematics articles and sure enough he reverts me there too, confirming my suspicion. Does that "honeypot" call for an indef block, if all the edits were good in their own right? I don't think you should list "honeypot" and "experiment" separately in that string of amplifications since they both refer to the same thing. Leaving aside any issues with pschemp's block, I have concerns about pschemp's conduct in the edit war (not just warring per se, but specifically warring in favor of POV-pushing propaganda terms) and pschemp's initial report which I see as having presented a somewhat warped view of what had happened. Maybe we need an RFC. Phr (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Phr. Perhaps pschemp or Samsara could say whether they were involved in the editing on the German Wikipedia. I agree with your analysis of what he did: honeypot seems more accurate than breaching experiment. Or if we stop using jargon entirely, he got annoyed about the POV pushing on the German WP and came here to correct the same error, wondering whether his correction would be allowed to stand. I'm having difficulty seeing that as disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, yes, Samsara was involved: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Nenndorf&action=history

I was mostly concerned about whether pschemp was involved and I forgot about Samsara. Phr (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

mmm...witch hunting again. lovely. I've in fact never edited de.wiki, but with all the bad faith going on around here, I doubt you'll believe me. pschemp | talk 01:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I don’t think anybody disputes that the basic underlying motivation was good. However, with any amount of AGF, I have a difficulty seeing how an experienced editor would forgo a longer debate on the talk page, WP:3O, WP:RFC, the mailing list and WP:JIMBO in favour of edit warring after initially encountering resistance unless disruption was the intent. —xyzzyn 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The sad truth about this whole affair[edit]

Had KarlV done the exact same thing, but instead gone to an article and replaced internment camp with concentration camp (tests the same hypothesis in the same manner) and announced it as an experiment on de.wiki, no one would be out here defending him. The truth is that people are blinded by the emotionally charged content and thus unable to see the true issue here. This knee jerk reaction to obliterate even discussion about what is correct and defend someone who set out in their editing not to improve Wikipedia but to prove a WP:POINT because you happen to agree with their point of view is disturbing. If you can't look at your personal biases objectively, you shouldn't be editing here.pschemp | talk 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on. You were defending original research and POV editing. The sources did not say the camp was a "concentration camp," yet that was the wording you initially defended. KarlV wanted to change it to what the sources say. In so doing, he was improving Wikipedia, regardless of any other factor. If that's a "breaching" experiment, long may they reign. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
nope. I am defending letting Wikipedia editors work out what is correct by following the discussion process. This is exactly what happened, and the final version of the article ended up NPOV, again, exactly what out process is supposed to result in. Additionally, by going back to ranting about content, you proved my point perfectly that you are unable to separate the two. 3RR isn't excused because of content, nor is WP:POINT. Are you suggesting they should be? pschemp | talk 01:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to find somebody in possession of the truth, rare feat, and I'm sorry you're sad. "This knee jerk reaction to obliterate even discussion": please point me to a diff where Karl, or anybody here involved, tried to hinder you discussing issues.
@Kylu:
  1. "When a blocked user makes a sockpuppet and makes an edit, you're supposed to revert the edit [...] So, we already have a precedent that states that intent does matter.": What article did he edit after having been blocked? I don't know of any such instance. Please point me to a diff.
  2. What Sockpuppet did he create after having been blocked? I don't know of any.
  3. "ther fact that the user is an admin on a different Wikipedia actually should make the charge even more grave. They know better than to pull this sort of thing.": what "fact" are you speaking of? He isn't, he didn't claim so, neither did I and I don't know of anybody who did.
  4. "This user had the intent to disrupt English Wikipedia": per the allegations and the false assessment above it doesn't follow at all. As stated before, his statement shows the intent of editing for sound reasons as he saw it, and, as it turns out, this is the version that prevailed after thourough debatte. He expected to be hindered, right, and he, somewhat pompously, labeled that expectation a "social experiment".
Kylu, if you don't substantiate your claims, it amounts to slander. And you actually base your point on these claims.
@NoSeptember: "...and whichever admin was to stumble into trying to get a handle on the budding edit war was destined to be presumed to be biased by Karl": an allegation, "whichever" being a distortion. What he expected were some admins trying to protect POV per edit war, as he had been warned in threatening tones on German wikipedia not even to try it, lest he wished to run into serious trouble. What was he to do? Announcing, "hi folks, edits xyz are wrong, but I'm one kraut and ought not to interfere - bye"? For what can be said at the moment, I_like_Burke%27s_Peerage forged a source into the contrary of what it said and admin Samsara edited it in a way that makes it likely that he understood what the source said. pschemp reverted to that version fo no valid concern. When I asked for the forger to come up, pschemp answered with uncivil blurb. He refrained from getting to the source however - until SV asked for it, eventually. As I see it, there's no reason to allege that admins haplessly "stumbled into trying" something, that's one possible outcome. Certainly there is quite a number of users eager not to wait for results.
Seeing Burke's accusing Karl of "provok[ing] a[n] interwikiwar" is rich. He forged, Karl corrected (possibly unwittingly, merely looking for POV), others tried to hinder Karl - where's the interwiki war? Is it me, as I support his edits? I contribute in a dozen or so wikis and I got 1348 edits on en:main since 2005/01. Call me lazy, but I'm no warring Sockpuppet, am I? Some people on German wiki support him too - do they come over to fight? Kylu'd rather less of my contributions on this page - I don't cherish his at all, see above. Is that an interwiki war?
Burke's, of all users, alleges German wiki celebrates "Karl as a kind of interwiki-heroe in social investigation", asking to "please inform the German Wikipedia about Karl's infinite block". Lar swiftly complied. Judging by his English language posts there he wasn't in a position to evaluate Burke's allegation's factuality. Burke's is wrong, all I can find is this comment by de:user Braveheart:
"Was mich aber nachdenklich stimmt ist die zeitliche Überschneidung mit einer Demo in Bad Nenndorf. Ich würde die Stellungnahme vielleicht auch noch an prominenterer Stelle anbringen, um ein Bewusstsein für solche Fälle zu schaffen"
(What strikes me is the chronological convergence [of the WP ongoins] with a protest march [by right wingers] in Bad Nenndorf. I'd rather post the [KarlIV's] statement more prominently, to rise awareness for such incidents)
One might not cherish that user's activism, however, where's "German wiki's celebration", where's the interwikiwar? Burke's edit forgery is as unbecoming as his incitement of what I'd call a turf war. If he doesn't substantiate his claim of krauts celebrating I'll call it a lie. I'd rather not see him "[h]erewith confirm[ing] by oath" Karl's behaviour "on the German Wikipedia" - or anything.
Again, I ask repliers to cite and answer, not to interpost. --tickle me 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin has repeatedly, intentionally confounded the issue by making the incorrect assertion that the block had something to do with the 3RR technicality, which neither the original indef block, nor Lar's reblock had anything to do with. To say that I question his neutrality (or any pretense of neutrality) would be the understatement of the year. It seems as if he (User:SlimVirgin) thinks that NPOV is insignificant, when in fact, it is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. User:Tickle me, User:Phr and other fished-for support, seem to be making the same misplaced arguments. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What does this have to do with my supposedly thinking that "NPOV is insignificant"? This situation is getting more bizarre by the minute. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
"It seems as if he (SlimVirgin) thinks that NPOV is insignificant [...] Tickle me, Phr and other fished-for support, seem to be making the same misplaced arguments. ": No, Karl has a POV, but he doesn't like POVed edits, and he has a history of doing so, if krautland is to be trusted. As far as you can tell, I support Karl in this. Besides, if you feel that we merely "seem to" err, may I suggest you, ugh, make up your mind first and edit later? Else you might want to point to details, asking us to clarify, so we can stand up to your compelling reasoning. Besides, as a fished-for support, I'm relieved to understand that you're a fish that doesn't stink, undoubtedly. --tickle me 22:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Tickle, I was using an existing policy to try to show precedent, not stating he did such things. Look here at the context:
"When a blocked user makes a sockpuppet and makes an edit, you're supposed to revert the edit, because regardless of how wonderfully brilliant the edit is, the problem is that it's being made by a user who isn't supposed to be editing at all, right? So, we already have a precedent that states that intent does matter. This user had the intent to disrupt English Wikipedia, and rather than it being a mitigating circumstance, ther fact that the user is an admin on a different Wikipedia actually should make the charge even more grave. They know better than to pull this sort of thing."
You're taking my comment out of context. I'm trying to show that the intent of the person does matter. You seem bright enough to comprehend this point, so please discontinue the line of reasoning that says I'm calling the user a sockpuppeter. I have a feeling that there are better things you could be doing than trying to dredge up false accusations of slander against admins, please go do them instead. I'm afraid you've exhausted my patience and I have no intention of replying to you on this matter again. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
To whomever it may concern then: Kylu is right, I didn't read that thouroughly enough, the points 1&2 of my post don't apply. He thinks I dredged that up, I say it was rash editing and thus a mistake, sorry though. I didn't accuse him of slander yet, as I asked to substantiate his claims first. He did that now with 1&2 in a way unexpected by me, but he did. However, I stand to call his flawed adminship fact rash editing too, and that minutiae was a point of his reasoning. The SP issue, which I misunderstood, was substantial to me considering slander. I don't concur with the rest of his post, but that's different opinions.
As for the intent that matters: yes, it does. However, Karl's intent was a bias against right wingers, wikipedically unwelcome as any bias, but not to be compared to a SP's malevolent intentions, much less to those of a blocked user's SP - thus not to be sanctioned likewise. Somebody else should throw the first stone anyway. We're all biased, in real life and here, check our contribs: will we revert 20-50% of WP and block the perps?
His alleged intent of experimenting with WP, a grave issue, is a construction based on a bragging metaphor he used. His edit's on German WP center indeed on right wing POV and distortions, so if he edits likewise here, it may well be assumed that he does for the same motives. From his edits centering on certain subjects we may infer on his motives too- so what follows? indef block? --tickle me 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not getting it here. KarlV made good edits, defending WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and was reverted. Eventually was blocked by one of the admins who was warring with him, though KarlV himself did not violate 3RR. The next day KarlV posts something saying he was editing on English Wikipedia to see if the same bias that he thought was present on German Wikipedia was also present on English Wikipedia. A second admin who was edit-warring with him then blocks him indefinitely. Then people here say those 4 proper edits were some sort of breaching experiment, and defend the blocks. Can anyone else see the problems here? Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Did he even violate 3RR? The summary below indicates that he didn't (I haven't checked the diffs myself). SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it seems he did violate it. KarlV made his first edit to Bad Nenndorf changing "concentration camp" to "internment camp" at 14:18 on July 31. This was not a revert. (Note: the sources used in the article did not call it a "concentration camp.") He was reverted by User:I like Burke's Peerage. An anon IP, probably KarlV, reverted at at 14:29 July 31. I like Burke's reverted for a second time. KarlV reverted, also his second revert, at 14:38 July 31. Burke's reverted him for a third time; KarlV reverted for a third time at 14:41 July 31. User:Samsara reverted, and KarlV reverted for a fourth time at 19:54 July 31. Samsara then blocked him for 3RR at 20:03 July 31. The block was made in violation of WP:BLOCK, because Samsara was one of the editors reverting against him. He should also arguably have been warned before being blocked, as it's not clear from his contributions that he had been advised before about 3RR.
KarlV made no further edits that could be described as disruptive. User: pschemp, who was also involved in editing Bad Nenndorf, blocked him indefinitely on August 2 after he made this edit announcing that he was about to make a statement on the German Wikipedia about what had happened. He subsequently posted on the German Wikipedia that he had been warned he might have difficulty making the concentration/internment camp edit on the English WP, and so he had come here to see whether that was true. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

Since the above discussion is a mess for anyone who has not been following it until now, I’d like to attempt a summary, as pertaining to the interaction with User:KarlV. I hope the following is a helpful partial overview.

Events
  1. The incident developed at Bad Nenndorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
  2. The article describes a controversial former British facility. Its description as a concentration camp was in question.
  3. User:I like Burke's Peerage was the first to describe the facility that way.[16]
  4. User:Samsara moved that description into the article’s text.[17]
  5. User:KarlV changed the description from ‘concentration camp’ to ‘internment camp’.[18]
  6. User:I like Burke's Peerage reverted User:KarlV’s edit with the summary ‘revert, vandalism’.[19]
  7. User:84.152.216.62, presumably User:KarlV, returned the accusation of vandalism and reverted the revert.[20]
  8. An edit war developed with User:Samsara and User:Pschemp supporting User:I like Burke's Peerage.
  9. User:KarlV was blocked for WP:3RR by User:Samsara.
  10. User:KarlV posted a statement.[21]
  11. User:KarlV was blocked for WP:POINT by User:Pschemp.
Statements of motivation
My own POV (hey, you knew this was coming…)
For xyzzy, as requested. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:KarlV returned the accusation, breaching ibid.
  • User:KarlV failed to follow WP:DR, which is another policy.
  • User:KarlV edit warred (remember that a WP:3RR violation is not a necessary condition for this).
  • User:KarlV breached Wikipedia policy for an ulterior motive (the ‘experiment’). Ergo, the user violated WP:POINT (which, surprisingly, is a mere guideline).
  • User:KarlV’s comments at [25] show that the user might continue to act in the same way as at Bad Nenndorf if allowed to edit.
My conclusions

Na, was ist? Keine Wunderkerzen? —xyzzyn 22:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, xyzzy. I particularly enjoyed the ibids, the ergos, and the ex post factos. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to respond in a while, I'm doing other things right now. I believe the "events" summary is mostly right but has a few errors. I differ on about half of the conclusions. Phr (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the above merits answer, except for the notion that Burke's, again, should be advised not to forge sources, while Samsara should be asked not to edit forgeries, polishing added weaselese. Reiterating the experiment issue for the umpteenth time, even for undoubtedly nonulterior motives is well worded, jeez, but unwarranted. And telling us that "KarlV did not engage in vandalism at Bad Nenndorf" is, ugh, what? Refuting claims nobody made?. btw: I wrote a list too. --tickle me 00:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
tickleme, why don't you read WP:AGF because you are breaking it in the extreme and still making wild accusations. Your witch-hunting here is tiresome. The block is now is User:Lar 's name anyway, making your endless rants again, irrelevent. Go talk to user Lar if you don't like it. pschemp | talk 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
...Kerze? Candelam non datur, autem candelabrum aliquammultus apponere aliquo, aliqua, aliquamdiu locum potest arbitratu. --tickle me 00:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (I might have to amend that, should a native speaker pop up)
I did not mean to ask for specific measures, hence my lax use of language near the end. If you think there are persisting problems with those users, please take the issue(s) to the appropriate places. As for User:I like Burke's Peerage’s edit summaries regarding vandalism, I am sorry if my assumption that that bit was relevant here is problematic for you. Please feel free to strike out the relevant line(s) if you feel strongly about this. —xyzzyn 01:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User xyzzy_n, was your ommission of KarlV's declaration between steps 9 and 10 (in your summary at the beginning here) intentional? I mean, gee, it is only the most relevant detail in the entire incident, is it not? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I included it under a separate heading to emphasise its role. I have now also included it as you suggested. —xyzzyn 14:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on block length for KarlV, Please comment[