Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive129

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:El_C Vandalism by Administrator(Removing Warnings)[edit]

Wikipedia:Removing_warnings: "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism...Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings." He didn't archive, he outright deleted the warning. Per Wikipedia:Removing_warnings he needed to use the proper method of {warning-for-removal} if he felt a template was being used incorrectly.

Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

Tag Added: 22:59, 10 August 2006 Diff: [[1]]

Elapsed time: 17 minutes

Tag Removed: 23:16, 10 August 2006 Diff: [[2]]

Sarastro777 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First, may I say, please don't troll. El_C is a responsible admin and there is no evidence of vandalism, therefore your misusing the warning templates. 216.78.95.229 23:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting coming from someone with only three contributions. Obviously you are either from another IP or a user who does not want to post these messages under their name. Paul Cyr 02:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no unqualified right to hand out warnings at will. Many people consider removing warnings inappropriate, but not in all circumstances. AFAICT, this was an ongoing dispute about the contents of your userpage, and there was existing discussion about it here on AN/I (which seems now to have disappeared?) in which several administrators were already involved. Given these circumstances, the appropriate course of action would have been to engage in the discussion here, or initiate the dispute resolution process, not issuing a warning. Labelling someone a vandal is not helpful, and will likely antagonise anyone who would otherwise be sympathetic towards you. --bainer (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI, the archived AN/I entry is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125#Personal Attack by User:Sarastro777. -Will Beback 02:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Attempting to dig up dirt on me (not the subject of complaint) is not going to distract from the fact an Administrator bypassed all procedure and deleted a warning tag, completely against the rules (above). This Admin was blanking my userpage and I was not informed of this incident board until later by an entirely different user. Again, if Admin disagrees he is vandalizing then there is a procedure to remove the tag which does not involve deleting it himself 17 minutes later. Don't attack me because HE broke the rule which is very explicit above. Sarastro777 04:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not an isolated incident. El-C have done this to me as well (removal of my attempts to resolve disputes with her). She has hard time dealing with critism in a comunicative way. She either drop the whole subject of try to remove her opponent - this at least have been my expiriance. It seems she thinks that Wikipedia is a zerosum game. Zeq 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How about you guys give us the full context before just piling on? --mboverload@ 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, the policies don't give any "context" where it says they don't have to be followed (?) Not sure what you are looking for here. Sarastro777 15:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, All Wikipedia policies are applied according to context. Slac speak up! 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The 'context' is that Sarastro777 is irate that his 'manifesto' was removed from his userpage, and is now working at a block for disruption and trolling. --InShaneee 19:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This guy is a master of double standards. In that 'manifesto' he blatantly implies that I am an Israeli government agent, but doesn't say it outright, obviously in a weak effort to avoid being blocked for personal attacks. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The only part on my userpage that mentioned 'rogue admins' was not added by me, but by OiBoy. I did document several very insulting and inappropriate personal attacks such as the one above made by you. Obviously the people catalogued were not proud of their behavior or the page would not have been censored. Quoting two news sources and excerpting from logs gets twisted into a "manifesto" and a "conspiracy theory." Rather than address the vandalism, which is the subject of the notice, opponents smear me personally to distract from the real complaint. Sarastro777 20:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets not forget Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive127#User:Sarastro777's user page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive54#Sarastro777. This user has a history here. -- Avi 01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Azskeptic (talk · contribs)[edit]

Azskeptic has threatened another user on this site using personal information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ParalelUni#Blocked

"Spike, stop it. Your identity is known and if you keep making threats a mental health evaluation will be asked for in your county court to see if help can be given to you. Sorry to the administrators to witness such a meltdown in public from a SC medical school student. Azskeptic 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"

I ask that this statement be removed and this user be banned. He knows this user from another site and this is def. cyber-stalking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.65 (talkcontribs) .

This drops, and Azskeptic is forgiven.
After advice from other admins, Azskeptic has already removed that threat, and rightly so, making threats such as this sets a poor example for other users. However I will not take any further action; Azskeptic was not acting out of malice, but (over)reacting to the most despicable trolling that I have ever encountered. Any rational user would forgive Azskeptic for this transgression. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not actually a threat you know. He's jocular, although angry, and saying that the fellow needed psychiatric help. That's help, not incarceration. It's still inappropriate, and it's well removed, but let's take it easy with this "everything is a threat" bit. Geogre 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Jocularity about this sort of thing is not something we should appreciate. Any comment about taking matters off-wiki into users' real life has to be treated seriously in my opinion. Metamagician3000 07:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
(Not an admin) Having responded to the issue, when it was posted at WP:PAIN, I can verify that Azskeptic retracted the offending statement [3]. It wasn't the best idea, but I'd heavily encourage anyone to take a closer look at the intense trolling surrounding that whole incident, before reaching any final decision. Luna Santin 07:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like Spike has been banned, and quite properly so. This person has shown a sick mentality, and I understand the extreme provocation; I just don't think we should ever be too quick to dismiss statements of intention to interfere with someone's personal life as being mere jokes. There have been too many cases where it has actually happened. In the circumstances, I'm not saying any action should be taken against Azskeptic, who obviously realised quite quickly that s/he'd done the wrong thing - just making a general observation to my wise colleagues. Metamagician3000 07:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the actions of Spike I see no excuse for this behaviour. There is never an excuse for threatening someone off wikipedia regardless of what they've done. You stop talking and report it on the proper pages if you can't remain civil and within the policies. I don't know the history but the IP has indicated this has happened before, and I don't see any blocks on this person. That is something that seems highly inappropriate about this situation.--Crossmr 23:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest that the related thread on WP:PAIN should also be closed. Newyorkbrad 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be closed? Crossmr brings up some excellent points. Regardless of the situation, what this user did was not something that can be swept under the proverbial rug. Doing nothing sends the message that this kind of behavior on Wikipedia is okay in certain situations. Is this the message that wikipedia wants people to get about how to interact here? MiloMein 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

POINT violation by PEAR[edit]

PEAR seems to be gaming the system, using Wikipedia to make a point. Please see user's page. However, I cannot see cause to issue a block so I placed a warning on the user's discussion page instead. --Yamla 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT's proper name is Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please explain in detail what the disruption is that you're claiming this user is doing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that this is exactly why I am not blocking the user. As I noted on the user's discussion page, the user does not seem to be disrupting Wikipedia. However, the user is most definitely gaming the system. --Yamla 21:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong on that userpage; at it's current version, it is just listing his edits/milestones, which many Wikipedians do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you notice that the pages he edited, when read as a sentence, suggest that the Bush family is responsible for the September 11 attacks and John F. Kennedy assasination? That cannot be construed as coincidence. Hyenaste (tell) 21:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see my message to Yamla [4] regarding this coincidence, which is nothing more than a coincidence. --PEAR 22:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely ridiculous to try to claim that's a coincidence, of course. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose this claim is more rediculous than the claim that a bullet could go through two people multiple times without even being scratched or having blood on it? Or the claim that the 3 first (and only) large buildings to collapse due to fire all did so on the same day at the same place? What I am trying to say is, coincidences happen everyday. People need to be more understanding of this. --PEAR 22:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
hey he's a pov warrior anyone surprised?i am --Golbez 22:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Who me? What's a POV warrior? (I'm new here, I just finished my 100th edit) --PEAR 22:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
(de-indent) While you did make me chuckle, it's ludicrous that you expect us to believe that the following five consecutive articles edited over three minutes were not thought of beforehand: Bush Family, IS, responsible, For, September 11, 2001 attacks. -- Samir धर्म 00:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Samir, the third article I editted was Responsibility not responsible.
--PEAR 00:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that you couldn't find responsible then. Don't get me wrong though. I think it's benign enough to stay on your userpage (and pretty clever). -- Samir धर्म 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't think of any constructive edits I could make to responsible because it's just a redirect.
--PEAR 01:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose PEAR is improving Wikipedia articles to illustrate a point, which is different from disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Except for the disruption caused by this AN/I thread due to the ambiguity in disruptiveness caused by point-illustration... *head explodes* Quarl (talk) 2006-08-13 01:17Z

Which is more important: the disruption part or the point-proving part? And what point is being proven? Hyenaste (tell) 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this has to do with WP:POINT...this is just a misuse of userspace as a soapbox for conspiracy theories. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also a blatant indicator that this editor likely has little interest in stowing his conspiracy theories and POV issues. --Golbez 02:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 : I'd say let the user keep it. The edits have been harmless and/or helpful, many people have various political statements on their user pages, as long as the user continues to make useful edits we shouldn't be too worried. I'm more concerned that the user initially claimed it was a concidence and then acknowledged that it was deliberate. Lying and taking up our time as a result is disruptive and will inevitable make further work with the user difficult. If the user becomes a serious POV pushing problem then we will deal with it then. JoshuaZ 02:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Why did I ever say it was deliberate?
--PEAR 15:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The edits may be harmless, but the list of them on PEAR's User page are not. I would suggest an MfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake. As things stand, there is no disruption of Wikipedia being caused by the Userpage, the contributor's edits are constructive - so where exactly is the problem? That s/he chooses to make a political statement on the Userpage using the first 5 edits in a witty and original manner is not reason for hysteria. The subsequent edits suggest to me that this is an editor who is probably here to do positive work. Let's not alienate someone over a non existent "problem" that is being imagined for no good reason. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? If this new account becomes problematic in the future, deal with it then, but let's not bash a potentially valuable contributor about the head needlessly. Time to move on. --Cactus.man 08:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, PEAR hasn't done any harmful edits, but (s)he just did a number of edits that are not constructive, leaving a "Hi" on a number of seemingly random user talk pages (possibly found the users to target from recent changes). I assume he's doing this to quickly get to 150 or 200 edits so he can keep his milestone structure in line while continuing his sentence structure. Whitejay251 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to promote WikiLove by saying Hi to random users. It seemed like a good idea. Since I recieved complaints that it might confuse people, I've decided to instead put my efforts towards welcomming new users.
--PEAR 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

<-- On the topic of sequential edits made to prove a point, I'd submit the case of Über_Nerd_2000 (talk · contribs). His contributions were clearly intended to spell out a personal attack. On the matter of PEAR, the listing on his user talk page is not a simple copy of his contributions log, so the arrangement does not appear coincidental. -Will Beback 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

POV edits notwithstanding, PEAR has a pattern of disruptive edits. For example, he nominated the article Wiktionary for speedy delete on the grounds of not being notable. He later altered a welcome message on a user's talk page, changing it slightly and removing the original editor's signature and adding his/her own. — ERcheck (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Icon ads spam making it like Wikipedia promotes commercial sites[edit]

Regularly, ads icons are inserted in front of external links, that make it look like Wikipedia treats them special, promoting or endorsing those sites. This gets worse now with the templates used for external links to IMDb, MusicBrainz, etc.

We really could use a specific, explicit point of policy against this (and a direct WP:ICONAD or WP:SPAMICON or something), that could be immediately cited in the edit summary for removing or reverting this spam without long discussions with each "new user" doing the spamming for those sites. We could also mention it in bold as a NoInclude warning in the related templates, so as to remove plausible denial to future offenders.

-- 62.147.37.34 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just revert it like it was normal spam. Plus, it is a violation of fair use rules to use images in this manner. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:MusicBrainz Album Icon.png is supposedly GFDL, though. [5] --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but we do not need icons, IMHO, to denote links to random websites. Just remove them. If there is any more problems, come see us. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think getting some background may be useful, from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject_MusicBrainz, for example. They may have some reasoning you're unaware of. · rodii · 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not opposed to the linking, since I have used template-links for FOTW, but the main issue for discussion is the little icon that appears next to the link. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We should get rid of these even if the MusicBrainz project wants to keep them. We would not insert Apple logos all over Wikipedia even if there was an Itunes project that wanted to keep them. Yeah, Musicbrainz is a .org and releases some stuff under free licenses, but the interesting stuff is under CC-NC, making it nonfree, and who knows what will eventually happen with it. This sounds like Gracenote all over again. Fool me once... Phr (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't care if it were Feed the Children.org, personally, as that's them, and we're us. We don't priviledge links, and putting an identifying graphic in front of a link is priviledging or deprecating. We don't do that. Geogre 02:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
it's not as simple. We privilege competent and important sites for being competent and important. This is a content dispute like any other, to be addressed both on a case-by-case basis and by policy debate (what sort of icons do we want, at all?). dab () 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully, Dab, we priviledge the good ones by inclusion or by classification within the article. The question raised here is, I think, wider than a particular article, as it is asking for policy on the use of graphical elements with links. In the absence of policy we do what? That seems to be the crux of it. My version would be "in the absence of policy, we make an article look like all the others and do not use graphical elements in links, whether the links are good or bad." We can, in text body, say, "See Linktext for more information," or, in the links, "Linksite: An excellent review of the subject," but I would suggest that inserting graphical elements is a bad idea. It is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but the chief one is the one the questioner brought up: it makes the link special on a universal basis and without explanation. Geogre 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying, this is a case for WP:VP/P, not for admin intervention. I tend to be generally anti-icons, but there are various icons in use with external links, and some templates even have built-in links to external databases. dab () 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
With the caveat that this is indeed the wrong place for this, I'd be against any sort of icon propogation in links. It's decoration (which is avowedly against fair use, as we all now know), and even if it's a free-use image, it's tacky and prejudicial. -- nae'blis 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any of those templates (e.g. Template:Imdb) including icons. This spewing of Musicbrainz icons might be an example of BEBOLD but should be reverted as BRD. They are a departure from existing practice that's existed for a good reason. There's nothing wrong with a VPP policy discussion but the initial state of that discussion should be with the icons gone, not with them presented as a fait accompli to possibly be reversed. Phr (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be putting icons in front of links. They're just reference external links, they should be treated the same as any other. Images should really only be used in an article as necessary, not gratuitously for decoration. Remember, we are making an encyclopedia that is to be as freely and widely redistributable as possible. The excess images might get in the way of that. --Cyde Weys 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the insidious thing, the rationale for these icons is that Musicbrainz has made the icon itself GFDL. All we need next is for Discount Viagra Spam dot Com to make some GFDL icons and start spewing those in the encyclopedia too. Phr (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent summary, User:Geogre @ 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC). Sorry if I wasn't very clear about two things:

  • I have nothing against MusicBrainz, or against external links to MusicBrainz, or against templates for external links to MusicBrainz (and IMDb, etc.).
  • I am only very concerned about the Pandora box of those little spam icons that keep getting added to external links, and thus make some sites look special and endorsed. And the templates just make it easier to spam (the spam icon on the MusicBrainz template stayed for 10 days until I reverted it, and is already on display on 400+ articles).

Also:

  • To answer User:Phr, it's not a matter of BEBOLD (because of the persistent additions after some debates), but the lack of an explicit point of policy against it: those icons keep getting added or sneaked in -- today again it was sneaked in for the 3rd or 4th time by CyberSkull who just sneaks it in every time he works on the template, and just shrugs that MusicBrainz is nonprofit when called on his sneaking it again.
  • Besides, after all those putting back the spamicon, isn't there ground for a Wikipedia:Checkuser of the false newuser User:Preacher Bob against User:CyberSkull (sneaked it 3 or 4 times) and User:Cparker (asked for it on the talk page)?

Last but not least, User:Dbachmann is right about my posting here, of course: all my apologies for forgetting to mention here that this message was actually crossposted for

-- 62.147.39.42 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu sock blocked[edit]

I have blocked VandalismCorrecter (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as a likely sock of Leyasu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). This newcomer has also been using surprisingly deceiving edit summaries ([6] [7]) and removed numerous references from Gothic metal, both of which would probably warrant a moreor less short block anyway. Circeus 01:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User has sent me a mail requesting unblock with at best misleading argument. It'll be available to whoever is interested. I am not planning to make a detailed explanation of the multiple issues with this user's editing, as the last thing we want is a harder to spot Leyasu. more Circeus 02:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Since I wasn't sure, I requested a checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu. VandalismCorrecter's arguments were slightly more convincing to me than they were to Circeus, but the IPs that Leyasu and VandalismCorrecter are using (see WP:AE) are very close and look like they must be from the same range. I've asked Circeus to unblock VandalismCorrecter after the checkuser request comes back, unless the result is Confirmed or Highly Likely. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it kind of looks like a violation of USERNAME with the name... or is it just me -- Tawker 08:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It does to me too. At best, if the two usernames belong to different users, VandalismCorrecter should consider changing his username. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: Checkuser confirmed VandalismCorrecter to be a sock. Circeus 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

YaR GnitS[edit]

Policing this sock farm is getting increasingly tedious, mainly because of the sheer number of socks and the puppeteer interfering with the process.

Any suggestions?--Rosicrucian 01:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And this is what I'm talking about. Twelve socks and counting, and this one's not even banned yet.--Rosicrucian 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, now it is. Next letter in the alphabet, I guess.--Rosicrucian 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Now the lovable scamp has left me the following via one of the usual AOL proxy IPs--Rosicrucian 05:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not bashful about listing my puppets, I'm dead serious User: AOL yada has no official affiliation to User: YaR GnitS. I'd never even heard of Aol yada until I saw it listed here. If it really follows my posts, then I guess it's just a fan. But if I was hiding puppets, why would I post them myself?
Listen, this deeply offends me, and if User: AOL yada isn't removed from the list by Tuesday 08/15 12:00am GMT, YaR GnitS & co. will double its efforts daily!
Also, FYI your post on the talk page is incorrect, all my info is pre-set, so I just add a suffix, and I'm good to go. For clicking "create a account" to submitting my ICP post, on an edit it takes less than 2min., often less than 1. On a create-a-page, it takes less than 3min. I'm pretty sure the greater effort is on the admin's end. ~YaR GnitS
And he's now trying to remove the sock tag from User:AOL yada via anonymous IP, and spamming this message on that page.--Rosicrucian 15:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, why did you tag my account as a sockpuppet? Just becuase someone decided that creating a sockpuppet tag with an autoblock feature was 'disruptive' doesn't mean that I'm a sockpuppet of anyone, and I wasn't removing sockpuppet tags, I was replacing them with the now deleted template. I got tired of getting hit with collateral damage from YaR GnitS so I created a template, someone didn't like the template, so block, and delete, nothing about that is sockish. If you care to do a checkuser you'll see I wasn't even logged in from an AOL proxy range, rather from a 172, which is not the least bit anonymous. So, if you wouldn't mind....--172.148.239.154 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If someone would like to take a look at the template in question, is just a sockpuppet tag, with an autoblock feature and notice to watch for collateral. The same feautre was worked into Template:Sockpuppet a few hours later. Just after the discussion here, not to mention here.--172.148.239.154 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have contacted the original banning admin to see if he can lend some insight. However, since you made a broad sweep of switching the sock tags on the socks of YaR GnitS, and since it is a violation of WP:DENY, I just thought it was more likely you were a sock, considering his own edits.--Rosicrucian 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


{{User Modernbushido}} and Cyde[edit]

It's this one again. For the THIRD TIME, this template has been deleted without a TfD, and without my notice by Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Thi is very disconcerting to me, especially since it was deleted for "Cross-namespace redirect, see WP:ASR", which makes no sense, since its a template (not a redirect) and not a self-reference. Normally at this point I would contact Cyde, but I have found that Cyde tends to attack, flame, and ban people who speak against him for no reason, violating basically everything in WP:CIVIL at once.

I undertstand that the German Userbox Solution moves the templates to User Space, but also, compromise and consensus must be followed. according to WP:GUS, "Compromise is the source of community."

Someone should speak to Cyde about his problem with civility and the way he treats other users. He seems to have a lack of Wikilove, and that should be addressed. Perhaps he does not understand the full impact of community consensus, especially when it applies to controversial subjects. Admins should not be above the law, they should be the epitome of it.

~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 14:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had similar problems, so I can endorse this (minus the incivility). Cyde has spent alot of time deleting templates without discussion, without a TfD, and with no better reasons that unclosed polls such as GUS. When questioned, Cyde barely says two words. Since then, a template I use for a WikiProject has been moved to another namespace. This leaves me with the notion that it was done so an admin can get his/her way, and be done with it. SynergeticMaggot 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just userfy it and be done with it per WP:GUS. I'm rather annoyed that you kept on recreating it behind my back hoping I wouldn't notice, by the way. --Cyde Weys 15:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Its been userfied, if you bothered to read my comment. And this is exactly what I mean. If you bothered to read GUS, there is more of a consensus to leave WikiProject user boxes in the template namespace. Mind if I ask under what criteria you are using to delete these? SynergeticMaggot 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What would be wrong with putting WikiProject userboxes as subpages of the WikiProject? That makes it them who own it. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just deleting the newly created userboxes, which go against the spirit of WP:GUS (what's the point of userfication if dozens more templates are created each day?) WikiProject-related userboxes should be housed under the projectspace to which they refer, i.e. "Wikipedia:WikiProject BlahBlah/Userbox", rather than just being out there stranded in template-space. --Cyde Weys 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't like templates very often. I don't like userboxes at all. I don't like tags, except procedural ones. I don't even like categories all that much. All of that, and yet I've been surprised and unhappy to see the way some people have been speedy deleting these things without using existing structures. Use the process, Luke. Use the process. When we don't use the policy, we establish a two tier site, where admins do what they like, and regular users are at their mercy. That's not our structure, it has not been our structure, and it should not become our structure, lest we empower all the administrator-paranoiacs. Geogre 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's easy to say, very hard to do in practice. You want me to file 40 new TFDs everyday?! It doesn't make sense that anyone can create this stuff en masse, but then we have to go through the whole rigamarole of process just to get rid of them when they shouldn't have been created in templatespace in the first place. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand, and I'm no more enchanted with these things than you are, but, pending an injunction or something clear about what they can and cannot be, we really don't have much choice in the matter. Whenever I've gone to a longtime problem user's page, it has been lit up like a pachinko board with boxes, and having more than one "joke" box stops being funny and crosses into juvenalia, but we don't have the bones yet for doing anything about it. Geogre 19:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Where is the process? A large portion deleted by Cyde did not fall under the speedy criteria. Cyde says it goes against the spirit of GUS. I dont seem to see this under CSD either. This appears more like an admin's opinion rather than policy.
Cyde: Maybe if you took your time and didnt rush into things, they would end up so complicated? Whats done is done I suppose? I'm asking for them to be undeleted as well. If you feel so strongly that so many templates need to be deleted, maybe you should request for a speedy be added to CSD, or some other more valid reason to one of the policies. Instead of what appears to be abuse of adminship. SynergeticMaggot 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Abuse of adminship? Sigh. If you want these things preserved, just userfy them. It's that simple. That's really all there is to it. That's what WP:GUS is about. --Cyde Weys 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What else should I call it? You have gone against a poll, which is not closed, and has current consensus to remain in template namespace. For reference: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userbox location straw poll#Wikipedia-related. I'll ask again, under what criteria have you deleted these? This time, I'd appreciate an answer. SynergeticMaggot 15:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The difference between the letter and the spirit of WP:GUS is probably worth remembering, as is WP:BITE, since I would suggest that this also applies to editors venturing into a new area. Obviously, informing people of what's happening via leaving them a message in their talk page would prevent so much hassle - with a polite enough notice, people would probably appologise and move it themselves. And once people have been warned once about this, there is better ground to stand on. LinaMishima 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Additional - surely Cydebot could be made to automate the entire process of notifying authors, changing templates on userpages and moving the userbox? Since then their pages will be without red text, most people would be non-the-wiser, and the author would understand why. That way Cyde can continue to attempt to impliment the WP:GUS, even if it's not policy? LinaMishima 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So wait, you're suggesting that Cyde's bot can continue to ignore process now? I'm still waiting for another admin to tell me that what Cyde is doing it correct. That admins can ignore consensus and do what they please. SynergeticMaggot 17:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No, of course not. I am, however, suggesting a compromise. I'm quite sure that although the lack of due process would still irritate, a fair ammount of upset would be reduced if the authors were kept informed and no-one's userpage was broken. LinaMishima 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I should note that I am suggesting a compromise until such a time as this matter is properly settled, rather than a compromise as the solution. That is not to say that the compromise cannot be a solution, but such a think is doubtful. LinaMishima 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Cyde:I'm rather annoyed that you kept on recreating it behind my back hoping I wouldn't notice, by the way.
Ok, what? I recreated it because I thought that it had been deleted by mistake, since I had received no notice, and there was big red link on my page; I commented as such. I didn't go behind your back. It had nothing to do with you. And yes, I think that "abuse of adminship" is a correct term. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me explain. I had requested via IRC that the template be restored. I checked the category linked from DRV, for admins who will undeleted, so long as it is in good faith. So I contacted AmiDaniel. And in turn, AmiDaniel undeleted. I have never previously discussed the matter with any other admin, so I hope this clears up at least that much. SynergeticMaggot 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all very, very simple, and I'm really sick of everyone on both sides bickering over userboxes to no end. 1) WP:GUS does not justify the deletion of anything except resulting redirects. 2) The deletion of userboxes in templatespace that are not divisive and inflammatory is not justified without a TfD. 3) Nonetheless, WikiProject affiliation userboxes make a hell of a lot more sense in project space than in templatespace. So the solution is very simple: Stop creating the userboxes in templatespace, and, Cyde, when you come across such a userbox in template space, use the nifty little move tab to put it in project space and then delete the resulting redirect. Then we can stop having these annoying and pointless discussions about absofuckinglutely nothing and get on with work that actually benefits the encyclopedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay. --mboverload@ 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't understand the situation. the problem is not with WP:GUS. The problem is with an adminstrator who abused his powers in order to throw all procedure out the window...again. You said it yourself: WP:GUS does not justify the deletion of anything except resulting redirects. The deletion of userboxes in templatespace that are not divisive and inflammatory is not justified without a TfD. The userbox was simply deleted, not substed or userfied. It was just GONE, leaving a red link. I had to recreate it myself on user space. Now do you see the problem? ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The process works. If someone wants it userfied, it is. If no one wants it userfied, it stays deleted. There's no point in userfying hundreds of templates that no one cares about and that no one is going to use. --Cyde Weys 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
How are you supposed to know who wants the box userfied without a TfD? Are you psychic? You are NOT above the rules. You ignored procedure. Plus, the box was in use by several people, including myself. Or do you not consider me a person? If not, say so now. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a solution that LA came up with to userfy the boxes Userfy Userboxes You can place boxes there to be userfied. May help for future box issues. Æon Insane Ward 15:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User 67.114.45.132[edit]

I first encountered 67.114.45.132 on the femininity page, where he/she continually reinserted inappropriate material that was rejected by multiple editors. The user then went on throw around inappropriate insults on the talk page. When I checked the user page, I found that it is full of complaints from other editors. Trnj2000 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

He obviously doesn't care much about whether his edits are helpful so I will block him indef. Ashibaka tock 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't do that, it's an anon IP. Unless it's a proxy, limit the block. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to rotate. If it does, the next user can just use {{unblock}}. Ashibaka tock 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Faggotstein imposter of Fagstein[edit]

This guy is either an impostor or a sockpuppet. Fagstein seems to be in good faith and would have to be monumentally stupid to pick this as a username for a sockpuppet, so I'm gonna go with impostor. Karwynn (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in their edits that makes you think it is meant to be an impostor and not a n innocenet user name? It might in any case be blockable for being confusing. JoshuaZ 21:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, currently its indefblocked by me...either its an impostor, or an inappropriate username. Syrthiss 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
"Faggotstein" is not an acceptable username. --Cyde Weys 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've always been uncomfortable with "Fagstein", as well, though he seems to be a good user. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW - Faggotstein posted to their talk page with "F@CK YOU UNBLOCK ME NOW!" (or something similar, my eyes went a little misty when I read the F@CK part). Since that wasn't one of the options in the {{usernameblock}} I ignored him. Syrthiss 18:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's sad to see people calling each other "Fatck." When will they realize that being fatck is simply how some people are? Geogre 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (tongue in cheek)

User:BhaiSaab[edit]

I blocked this user for violating the 3RR on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. He has complained about my block on the grounds that he has not tecnically broken the rule. However, I feel that his edits were deliberatly intending to prolong an edit war, and calculated to disrupt the article whilst falling just short of the rules technical paramters. Have I done the correct thing? If so/not, could someone please assist at User talk:BhaiSaab Robdurbar 22:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I support this block. This guy has been blocked before for 3RR offences, and it seems that his intent is only to push POVs on articles. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Webville[edit]

Sorry, I'm not certain if this is the correct procedure for this kind of thing, but here goes. User:Webville appears to be here solely to add links to isurvived.org, and add material to articles reflecting the site's viewpoint. This site, from what I can tell, represents a minority viewpoint, a claim made by User:130.39.232.221, who provided this link. Some of his contributions seem to confirm this, such as this edit to Hiram Bingham III, which claims he is a "bigot and racist of the first order" based on one letter he wrote, and goes on to call his son Hiram Bingham IV - a hero of the Holocaust, who, according to his Wikipedia article, helped 2500 Jews escape the Nazis - "a hater of Jews and a Holocaust denier." He has persistently made POV edits to Hiram Bingham IV (such as this), which made both the POV statement that he was "no hero," which is not the prevailing viewpoint, and the statement that he "was not a rescuer of Jews by and stretch," which contradicted material already in the article, without reference. On that article's talk page, he paid little attention to my explanation of the problem with his edits and made some borderline personal attacks. He also removed Bingham from List of people who assisted Jews during the Holocaust without explanation. He has also been warned by User:Dahn for making vanadalous deletions at History of the Jews in Romania, and appears to be a single-purpose account with the sole purpose of advancing the viewpoint of isurvived.org. I am not sure what the procedure is in such incidents, and I admit I am not personally familiar with this site - it could be mainstream and legitimate, but many indications point otherwise - but I think at the very least his contributions need to be closely watched and scrutinized. -Elmer Clark 23:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That many links is blatant linkspam (search I see 36 links right now). User should be warned with spam1,...,spam4 templates, and blocked if spamming persists, if not for the POV crap. Links should be reverted. I'll see if I can do it tomorrow if they're still there, I have to go offline soon and am not up for it for now. Phr (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Close AfD please[edit]

Can one of the Admins please close this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

It has been 5 days.Travb (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As usual, there is currently a backlog on AfD, with some articles from August 5th waiting to be closed. Someone may close that AfD anyway, but normally it would be one of those that a lot of admins would quietly pass by on the other side of the street rather than close. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a View of Ali AfD[edit]

AtShi'a view of Ali's AfD, Uncle G has repeatedly accused me of attempting a botched merger and to do it properly. Despite my attempts to correct this false assumption(and I explained why I want to delete rather than merge twice on the page), he has now closed the AfD, saying there was "no consensus" However, the only other vote before he closed it was to delete!

I'd like an admin to take a look at this please, and, if I have a point, to reopen the AfD. I don't want to be one of those crazy editors who sees anyone who disagrees with them as vindictive Nazis out to destroy them, but equally I really feel Uncle G has got the wrong end of the stick here, and won't let go. Thanks. Dev920 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the point Uncle G was trying to make was that you cannot delete an article if you have merged any content from it. It must remain as a redirect to the article the content was merged to in order to preserve attribution, even if it was a POV fork (I have no idea). Pointing you to the policy was his way of saying this, in my opinion. -- Kjkolb 07:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to be pedantic, it is possible to take information from a deleted article and put it into another one. GFDL doesn't protect facts or sources. So if someone takes (for instance) a single paragraph, goes and looks up the source, and types it into a new article in their own words we can delete the source article. - brenneman {L} 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to be correct ;-), nothing was said about putting things in your own words and I said "merge" not using information (as opposed to content) that is in one article in another article. In that case it would not be a merge, anyway. It would be using the article as an example or template to write another article or something else besides a merge. I do not know about legal requirements, but it does seem dishonest (claiming you (generic you) wrote it) and like stealing (denying recognition to the authors) not to give credit to the authors of the original content. They found all of the sources, identified the relevant information and presented it in an intelligible and possibly persuasive manner, depending on the type of content. All you are doing is reverse engineering it. It would be even worse if you are rewriting their words and crediting their sources instead of them. I had a tenured English professor who would insist on it being disclosed if even you just read/watched a work and did not use it as a reference. This would be a much greater usage of a work, so I think it should be noted. -- Kjkolb 10:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I support you both ethically and legally there, but that I would have said "theft." I was responding to the word "any" in "if you have merged any content from it" as much as anything. I shall retreat, bloddied but unbowed. ^_^
    brenneman {L} 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Have taken on board above and posted accordingly at AfD. Dev920 12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dovetail.tv[edit]

A User:Dovetail recently registered and made some edits to Tyler MacNiven and Kintaro Walks Japan, amongst other articles, adding external links to dovetail.tv, a new HD video site. I removed them and put a {{spam}} tag at his talk page, and much to my suprise he was willing to talk about it. Now, under normal circumstances I'd be more than happy to explain the policy, especially after noticing that dovetail.tv gets only 272 Google hits. But gosh darn it, I happened to notice here that Dovetail.tv is based in San Francisco, where Tyler MacNiven is from, and that User:Dovetail signed his comment "Jason", which is the first name of the contact at that page. I would not be the least bit surprised if Tyler and Jason were the best of friends, and Tyler, who I have reason to believe is aware of his article here, maybe even asked Jason to post the links here. It seems like this sort of thing always happens to me, and yet again I end up coming here asking for someone with more experience and comfort with this sort of thing to help me make sure everything is done correctly. --Maxamegalon2000 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not a link directory. He should submit them to dmoz.org. Ashibaka tock 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just talk about it politely with him, ask him to read WP:EL for extlink policy, and yes, dmoz.org is a good suggestion. Phr (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Shangwen Fang[edit]

Fanoffang (talk · contribs), whom I suspect to be Shangwen Fang himself (based on edit pattern and content -- compare with Shangwen Fang's own edits on Chinese Wikipedia), has been editing to introduce pro-Fang POV -- at least, in my view -- and I suspect Milx (talk · contribs) to be a sockpuppet intended to only attack Bobbybuilder (talk · contribs) on Talk:Shangwen Fang, and so i reverted Fanoffang's most recent edits to the article as well as removed Mlix's and Fangoffang's most recent comments on the talk page. However, I would like some extra pairs of eyes to examine the situation to see if I am already too embroiled into the situation to be neutral, and if so, to consider what is neutral and how the article might be able to be rendered neutral. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

WP:ANI Needs some attention. ViridaeTalk 08:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh I mean WP:AIV... ViridaeTalk 08:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on User:Mackensen[edit]

User:Mackensen Is A Lamer has vandalised User:Mackensen's talk page, and his name is inapropriate. This is obviously a account only for vandalism. Despite what it says on his user page, the user has not been blocked. Sergeant Snopake 09:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by Freakofnurture. --Doc 09:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we sure he didn't inherit Curpsbot? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Shhhh, you know that's a state secret. --Cyde Weys 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick work! Thanks, folks. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, using {{PUB}} would propose it for a username block automatically Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User: Elliot.kw[edit]

Despite previous warnings User:Elliot.kw keeps moving speedy deletion tags from Thomas & Friends Big Live tour 2002. Please ban.

We do nopt ban people for this. Actually, it isn't quite speediable anyway, use WP:AFD if you want it deleted. And please stop putting warnign tags on articles and article talk pages. --Doc 09:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't it speedible? I looked at the history and the actions of other users in his article log and I also asked a long-term member here before I warned the person.

Sorry about the warning signs on the articles but I am new here and getting to know the ropes!

~~Pepsimanchester

Up&Down - sockpuppet?[edit]

Up&Down (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) seems to be on a suspicious editing spree as of late. He replaced the contents of User talk:RyanGerbil10 with the contents of User:RyanGerbil10 with an added sockpuppet template [8]. He also removed User:JamesTeterenko from the list of Active users of WP:HOCKEY [9], on the ridicuolous claim that JT "does not contribute to Hockey pages in an ethical manner" (which, even if it were true, is not a reason to take someone off WP:HOCKEY's user list).

Additionally, this user also added this note on the WP:HOCKEY article claiming that User:JohnnyCanuck was wrongly blocked as a sock puppet. JohnnyCanuck's block log reveals JamesTeterenko had previously blocked him, and reverting RyanGerbil10's talk page revealed that JohnnyCanuck had requested RyanGerbil10 to unprotect his userpage, a request RyanGerbil denied. Additionally, RyanGerbil blocked the IP from which Johnny Canuck posted the request after JC vandalized the user page in response to the rejection. Given this evidence, I presume that Up&Down is nothing more than a sockpuppet of JohnnyCanuck and/or his suspected puppetmaster, VaughanWatch. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 09:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sussex Downs College[edit]

Is it possible that we can please have the sussex downs college page protected, or at the least semi protected as the ammount of criticism that has been posted by vindictive staff members is not representative of the positive reputation of the college. As a former student and now staff member I and the majority of my collegues feel that the vandalism is damaging both to the reputation of the college and the mentality of present students. The vandalism has been posted on several occasions by whom we believe to be one staff member under different alias's so this will prove to be an ongoing problem if not solved.

This is what we would like the page to read “Sussex Downs College is a large college in the South East of England. It has campuses in Eastbourne, Lewes and Newhaven. It was formed from the merger of three smaller colleges in the region - Lewes Sixth Form College, Eastbourne Vocational College and Park Sixth Form College. Although there was primarily some speculation over a successful merger Sussex Downs College has since proved itself of exceptional standard, achieving CoVE status (Certificate of Vocational Excellence) an award that very few other colleges have managed to attain. Offering 16-19, Adult, and International or Higher Education courses the range attracts people from all walks of life. Although functioning as one college the ethos of the individual campuses remains the same giving the students an individual choice as to how they learn, yet the security of a vastly equipped support network. Set in the heart of the South Downs, Sussex Downs College provides an inspiring and relaxed environment in which to study”

If you could protect this page we would very much appreciate it, and if there are any other concerns over the nature of our enquirey please dont hesitate to email me at sara.humphrey@sussexdowns.ac.uk

Hello, Sara. Protection of an article is a last resort and articles are protected for vandalism rather than criticism, although inserting unsourced criticism over and over could be vandalism. The only edits I found that had anything negative to say were this and this. The article was started in December 2005 and has only had two edits that inserted criticism that was not to the point where it would be called vandalism, so the article does not meet the standards we have for protection. I suggest removing negative comments if they are unsourced. Of course, if negative information is accurate, sourced and stated in a neutral manner, it should stay. It is expected that there will be some negative information about any institution. -- Kjkolb 10:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

more socks of user:EnthusiastFRANCE[edit]

See Petit Tonnerre (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Running Potatoe (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (already blocked) -Aknorals 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mainly this edit -Aknorals 11:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To say nothing of Mackensen Is A Lamer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)! It's good to know you're wanted, at any rate...Mackensen (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

haha, yeah, to think I never went off on anybody's radar before this dude showed up! -Aknorals 11:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagged and bagged. Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A Man In Black being uncivil[edit]

Hello, A Man In Black (talk · contribs) is being uncivil towards me. Modifying my comments after i updated my opinion and added my "vote" on a page and tidied it.

He first reverted my edits twice, saying i was being sneaky (maybe i would be if tehre ahd been conversation branching off but there was not, if so i would of left the original comment there as well) [10] [11]
He then proceeded to remove warnings from his talk page (3RR for his 3RR vio, WR0/1, 3RR and attack) calling my 3RR warning trolling [12] he then proceeded to wipe more warnings [13] and [14]
He then started changing the subject firstly "MatthewFenton can't be bothered to link what he's talking about or open a new header" [15] which is blatently uncivil.

I can only assume his hostility towards me is because i reported him for a 3RR vio this morning, but as ana dmin he should WP:AGF and act civil towards me. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does every dispute you are involved in have to esculate like this? This is what people are complaining about in your RfC. The JPStalk to me 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I wish they did not have to, and i my self have honestly tried to stay out of disputes but said users are not helping by messing up pages when the variable is being used in hundreds of pages.
I asked them all to leave it till dispute was over however they all ignore. I can only think there nitpicking, the fact remains that: its useful, does no harm and serves a purpose. Also no one makes users use it. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your intentions, and I fully understand your logic in wanting to make the changes. But the problem is that you are failing to acknowledge the logic of those opposing you. You are automatically assuming that those who disagree with you are vandalising, or disrupting Wikipedia. This is not good, particularly when they have valid concerns. You are the one who changed the template without discussion, so it's unfair to play that card! You need to be at least acknowledging the validity of those opposing you are saying, and not automatically dismissing them. The JPStalk to me 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I do ackknowledge them, but it needs to be there until at least the discussion is over as it is being used in litteraly HUNDREDS of articles. I've even volunteerd to remove all instances my self after the discussion is over if its decided they should be gone. Also about teh discussion part.. i was unaware i had to ask permission, but if you notice Ed [the one who warned me i had to ask and said my change was major] went and made a real major change 5 minutes later (bolding text, recoding and aligning to left -- which also happend to break the ifbx) he did not ackknowledge this as major at all and it took him time to fix it, the fact that he thinks he does not him self have to ask is bias. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a particular element of this I find quite bizzare. Reading the talkpage for the template, AMIB tells you in quite explicit terms that he does not support your changes and wishes you to stop, other editors share his point of view. You tell those editors that you take this as SUPPORT for your changes! I will assume good faith and assume you have some form of learning difficulty that affects your reading comprehension - the only other explanations involve bad faith. --Charlesknight 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No actually there was an oppose section which ed wiped (would it not of been better to put his comments in there - in the first place). Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Please point me to the edit where AMIB says "I support your change" or words to that effect - if he said it, it must be in the edit history. So all I require in response is a link. --Charlesknight 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
He never said he supported or opposed, nor did i say i said he supported or i say that AMIB supported it on the talk. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok I'm moving from finding your behaviour "bizarre" to downright disturbing. AMIB Quite clearly says he opposes your changes, you QUITE CLEARLY state that you take this as support ". This now goes beyond wiki-lawyering (which you have been accused of in the past), you seem intend on creating a false impression of a situation when anyone reading the talk page for the template can see what you actually said. I am baffled why you try such a gambit. I am going to be blunt, I no longer assume good faith and I consider you a danger to Wikipedia. --Charlesknight 13:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What? Where have i said i took his comments as support? If you read the articleyou may notice i didnt even count him AT ALL! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What on earth is this then?

Voting is useless and divisive, and your vote count seems to discount me, Combination, and ed g2s. Get support for the colors, then add them to the template. Revert with vandalism-reversion tools and I will block you, and recommend that your AWB/VP/whatever access be stripped. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

YOU ARE ALL IN THE SUPPORT SECTION*, Ed has made comments (note he also removed the oppose sect.) and there seems to be support, and for making threats saying i cannot revert i intend to report that. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 07:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How is "Ugh. Please don't implement series-by-series coloring" ambiguous? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

--Charlesknight 13:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I made them aware they where in the support section (patetntly obvious) also, thank you for adding more proof of his uncivility (threats etc) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
How is "please don't" either uncivil or threatening? The "ambiguous" part is because you said there were 4 support / 0 oppose when it was clear there wasn't universal support for the idea. --Interiot 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Notice the threats? Thats uncivil. He is giving orders saying i cant revert, now i'm not conscripted so i dont have to obey his orders. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering of the worst sort - how would you interperate AMIB comments to be SUPPORT no matter what heading they were under? I give up at this point and will leave this to the rest of you. --Charlesknight 13:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you cant be botherd to read the talk dont bother, i made them AWARE i did not INTERPRET! AWARE i never even counted them as suppoters I made them AWARE! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Charles, I'm pretty sure that Matthew wasn't saying that he thought MIB and co. supported his idea -- he seems to have been complaining that someone else deleted his "Oppose" heading[16] and that the debate was getting peanut butter in his chocolate, or putting opposition in his support section, or something. TheronJ 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to avoid this whole mess would have been to discuss before making a major change to a widely used template. Since that didn't happen, the next best option would have been to discuss the matter rationally as soon as someone opposed the change. Arguing that someone's obviously opposing opinion was actually in support because of some arbitrary section break is absurd. I've seen matters involving Matthew pop up around the Wiki over the past few weeks and they all seem to be minor issues becoming major ones. In my opinion, it usually stems from Matthew's insistence that he is right and others are not only wrong, but their actions will harm Wikipedia. Yeah, this is all a bit blunt, but this behavior needs to cease. Aren't I Obscure? 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to see how you can call this major. a) its optional b) no one forces you to use it c) it alters the design in no way unless !called!.
Furthermore how is adding {{Colour|#<Default>}} compared to Eddys change here, which no one seemed to care about? If you ahve to ask permision to edit pages why was it not protected? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
When this matter spilled onto ANI, the focus shifted from the template itself to how you reacted to opposition. With the huge number of editors we have, disagreements over changes (major or minor) are inevitable. It's essential that editors are able to handle opposition in a rational and calm manner. This includes taking to steps to prevent conflicts from escalating. Sometimes it even means backing down and letting a matter drop. However, instead of picking your battles wisely, you seem to want to fight every battle to the bitter end. Just in this section, you've managed to argue with every editor who's posted an opinion. Is it really the case that you're right and everyone else is wrong? My advice is back away from the template for a while and edit your favorite articles. Also, it wouldn't hurt to reread your RfC with the understanding that the majority of these editors are raising valid points. Aren't I Obscure? 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A very reasonable way of implementing the colour coding was proposed by Ed near the start of the discussion. It is a /much/ better solution than manually handcranking the colours and not considering accessibility at all. When things are specified via a style sheet users have the freedom to turn off "daft colouring" and actually see the content (consider colour blindness). It's a shame Matthew did not seriously take this on board. His later behaivour and attempt to get mob rule to decide the issue (as in it's far to early to vote - discuss first) is bizarre.

Personally I don't think we should ever mess with article text colours. Thanks/wangi 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobodys been messing with text colours.. so what are you talking about? :\ Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh, you are... See this edit - "Colour" for the background colour, and "TColour" for the text colour in the headings. Thanks/wangi 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It changes !NOTHING! unless called!! Does nobody understand? The bland gray is !STILL THERE! and only changed if variables are CALLED Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Mathew, I think you're still failing to see the concerns of other editors. You added the "Colour" and "TColour" params to the template. Why did you add them if not to use them? Thanks/wangi 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying dont use them, i'm saying the objectionists dont need to use them [if they dont want to]. I've jus had an idea tho.. would it be possible to have some css so those who dont wish to see colours see teh default and all they have to do is paste css to m-b.js? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't think about us editors, think about the readers. Read Ed's suggestion for the answer to your "idea" - as in you use CSS classes, not explicit colours. Thanks/wangi 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Edwards suggestion is limited, however a template has been created for colours however it is not worth implementing when it will be reverted. Thus a waste of time. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

RyanGerbil10 talk page[edit]

Recently, socks of VaughanWatch have repeatedly blanked my talk page and/or replaced it sock puppet warnings, due to the fact that I have block two VaughanWatch IP addresses and a user account, User:Up&Down, who all seem to be VaughanWatch. I don't want to protect my talk page, (my userpage is already protected), but I'm pretty sure my talk page is going to suffer some fairly severe vandalism today, and I will be unable to fix it from 14:00 UTC August 15 until 00:00 UTC August 16 because I will be at work. Could a few administrators keep it relatively clean for me? I think once Vaughan discovered I blocked his latest account, he'll hit me pretty hard. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What about s-protect? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I do a lot of RC patrol, sometimes anons come and point out my mistakes (I do make them, from time to time). Anyway, I'm home now. Thank you to everyone who helped keep my page clean. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Aknorals blasphemous summary edits[edit]

Hello, I noticed the User:Aknorals did unacceptable blasphemous summary edits here, in extenso "OMFG, the bible says my actions are ill-ee-gal! ONOS!!!". i'd like to remember "OMFG" is the acronym for "Oh My Fucking God", and that blasphemous insults are not tolerated on Wikipedia as well as flaming. This vandal deserves AT LEAST a warning. Irrelevant Edit 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Who was being insulted? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your note. You've been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet along with your proxies. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a quick look will reveal that this edit by User:Aknorals was in response to a ridiculous allegation by another user, who invoked the Bible in his support. Aknorals could possibly have been more restrained, but under the circumstances it was mild; this is certainly not worth taking any action over. DJ Clayworth 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That and "blashemy" isn't a prohibited action on Wikipedia.

This is just our good friend EnthusiastFRANCE (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) making his daily appearance. Disregard. Mackensen (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert war at Naruto Uzumaki[edit]

There's a revert war going on at Naruto Uzumaki between Pentasyllabic, TTN, and Kingdom hearts III. They're reverting each other over and over, about every 5 to 10 minutes, and have been for the last few hours. Baseball,Baby! ballsstrikes 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

24 hour blocks for each. I'm looking to see if Narutomaniac (talk · contribs) should also get one. Kirill Lokshin 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability issues in a Star Trek article[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia --Doc 16:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

IP indefblock[edit]

I just noticed that 216.190.11.36 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) picked up an indefblock as a sockpuppet.

Can someone who knows the ways of IPs better than I do take a look and make sure an indefblock is in order? The only time I'd heard of it before is for open proxies and all-vandal accounts with mass vandalism and no positive edits. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a dial-up ISP. Indef probably not a good idea. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In which case, could someone with The Button shorten the block? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I've shortened it to a week. If it recurs as a vandal after that, then it's probably not a rolling IP and can be blocked for much longer (say 6 mo.). Geogre 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh...?[edit]

Wikipedia has a problem
Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.
Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.
(Can't contact the database server: Unknown error (10.0.0.2))
Candidates for the Election for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation
are being accepted until 23:59 UTC Monday, August 28, 2006.

  • Eh?? Anyone know what's causing this?--152.163.100.65 17:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's you. No...just kidding. It was me. (Actually, someone probably does know, but server load fluctuates with server health. A certain amount of this is to be expected, and donations are always gratefully accepted. It has been occurring very little recently, and some of us old timers were probably getting nostalgic.) Geogre 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

yeeeeesh[edit]

Huge Backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion--64.12.116.65 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mexico123[edit]

Mexico123 has just uploaded his sixth image without licence info, having been warned not to do so. Could someone have a pursuasive word with him, asking him to stop. Now. --David Mestel(Talk) 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if he speaks English at all. In any case he has not responded to a single warning so I'll block him long enough to wake him up to the fact that he is not being helpful. Ashibaka tock 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte again[edit]

I have permablocked Georgianis (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) as a sockpuppet of Bonaparte (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). The block is based on this edit of him.

There also a few strange facts about the User:Georgianis:

  • His signature is a copy of the signature of Romanian User:Ronline with substitution of the Romanian flag with Georgian flag
  • His articles Anti-Georgian discrimination is very similar to Bonaparte's Anti-Romanian discrimination
  • His style of discussion is very similar
  • Before registering, he edited for a few hours as an IP user 140.203.12.4 and 193.136.242.251 . One IP is an open proxy from Moscow and the other is an open proxy from Portugal, using open proxies is a trademark of Bonaparte

I had an edit conflict with User:Georgianis. so please review my block abakharev 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Good catch Alex! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually catch is Khoikhoi's. The block is mine abakharev 22:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well kudos to you both in this case :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ex-Homey[edit]

See also:

Ex-Homey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly emailing me about allowing him to edit wiki-wide rather than being restricted to his arbitration cases, which was the condition I imposed when I unblocked him. I would not agree to this; if for no other reason than that he has been such a pest. Any thoughts about relieving the restriction I imposed on him? Fred Bauder 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to allowing him to edit any place but arbitration pages. I blocked his original account for abusive sockpuppets because of his involvment in the WordBomb case. Additionally, Ex-Homey mistated the reason you unblocked him in his statement on RFAr that he has against me. I'll post more later. I sent an email to the Arbcom list about this before you posted here. FloNight talk 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel I should wade into this mess since I missed most of the earlier discussion. I am strongly opposed to considering Homey to be under an indefinite community ban. He has unquestionably gone way beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour in recetn weeks, but this does not negate the fact that he has made several tens of thousands of valuable edits and several years of good behaviour. In the Canadian areas Wikipedia, where I am most familiar with his work, he was for a long time considered a pilar of the community. - SimonP 00:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Not an admin...but...As the goal here is to create an encylopedia, as long as that is what a user is doing I don't see a problem with it. I am sure you guys know better than I since I haven't followed this all that closely, so if you feel that if he is unblocked he wouldn't be helping to create an encylopedia, disregard this uniformed comment. Arkon 01:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This is also my view. Looking through the edit histories of his alternate accounts they, for the most part, have done little disruptive and almost all the contributions have been totally legitimate. If another account like User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish appears and starts making a stream of productive edits, I see no reason to not let Homey quietly work under the new name. - SimonP 01:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to this as there is strong consensus for him to be under a community ban for his use of sockpuppets and other behaivor see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive126#Proposed_community_ban. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm also strongly opposed to any relaxation. These are just some of his recent sockpuppets, and here are some others. Some of them have been used abusively e.g. to file a false 3RR report, to pretend to be another banned user in order to cause confusion, or to harass editors he's been in conflict with. Any editor behaving the way he has would have been community-banned by now. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
SimonP. Could you give me some idea what you think the proper sanction is for abusive sockpuppets made to break rules, harass perceived advocacies, and avoid sanctions being handed in several arbitration cases on Homey's main user account?
Seems like your buying into Homey false assertion that his block is punitive when in reality it was preventative. And you therefore look like you are giving him a get out of jail free card. In reality Homey was blocked for refusing to follow dispute resolution by instead fake leaving and coming back and engaging in deceptive and abusive editing with sockpuppets. Knowing his recent history, I think blocking his accounts and forbidding editing outside arbitration pages is prudent. Preventing future disruption in the face of his past disruptive editing should be our purpose. I think limiting him to the arbitration case pages is the only way to make it happen.
Also, I think letting him freely edit now sends the wrong message to him and other disruptive editors. Why should they bother involving themselves with the arbitration case against them. Just leave and come back with different user accounts and do the same or worse. FloNight talk 04:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree as per FloNight and SlimVirgin's concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 05:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why this is even being raised, at this point. He's created all sorts of sockpuppets, many for the purpose of harassing, deceiving, or confusing other editors. He's still pretending some of the sockpuppets aren't him, and he's using his active sockpuppet to try to spread as much FUD as he possibly can, including making various false and arguably defamatory claims. When faced with an ArbCom case, a responsible editor would not pretend to leave Wikipedia, then create a dozen sockpuppets and harass other editors with them. This is just disruption. Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I oppose giving him free reign. Homey and his various incarnations have been a constant source of sockpuppetry, 3RR violations, ceaseless RFArs and disruption. FeloniousMonk 06:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
These arguments would hold more water if the majority of the new accounts and IP addresses had done anything remotely disruptive. Even if you look at his ArbCom case, which tries to bring up every poor decision over the last several months, I have to agree with CJCurrie that "most of the evidence presented in the case is extremely dubious." Certainly any account that is being disruptive should be blocked, but blocking one that is only making goods edits is purely vindictive. - SimonP 12:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
SimonP, which Arb case are you discussing? FloNight talk 12:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homey. - SimonP 16:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SimonP. This user has made over 35,000 edits in a period of several years. This is not a user you block through a community ban, this is a case that requires the arbcom. Homey has already indicated that he will appeal a community ban, and I support him in that. People claim the many abusive sockpuppets, I would like to see the evidence for the many abusive ones, and equally about the remaining accusations. As the tenstions between groups have gone to high, I think this needs to get away from the discussion boards.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add, that even editors as User:Blu Aardvark are not indef banned by the arbcom, and Homey's 'disruption' is not nearly as bad as Blu Ardvark's. With that comparision, an indef community ban is way out of proportion in this case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is rather odd that some people's reasoning for not banning Homey is basically "but some of his sockpuppets are making good edits!". The idea that we should only pay attention to the example's of one's best behavior seems kinda odd. I would also argue that Homey's recent behavior has been worse than that of Blu Aardvark, think of what he has done in a matter-of-fact way: Harrassment, vote stacking, malicious sockpuppetry, abuse of process, and continuous incivility, plus all sorts of behavior that cannot simply be explained in terms of wikipedia policy. He has caused a huge amount of disruption by pretending to leave and then acting as if his account has been "hacked into" for the sole purpose of getting out of an arbcom sanction, and then he tried to launch an RFA against two admins because they called him on his recent behavior. I don't really see how all of this is canceled out because some of his sockpuppets have not yet engaged in any violations of policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence of maliciousness from Homey. Many of the people commenting here have been very involved in disputes with him with regards to the article Allegations of Israeli aparthied. --Ben Houston 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You sadly miss the point of the Israeli apartheid articles. They were simply a part of Homey's disruption, not the cause of this situation. He has been editing and behaving disruptively for a long time. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
And what is the relationship of the people defending him?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
More to it than that, but based primarily on SimonP's position I am relieving Ex-homey from the condition I imposed on him. He says he may create another account to edit with quietly. Should it be found using checkuser, please leave it alone unless it is doing something wrong. Fred Bauder 20:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, there were no sockpuppets. I recently had a few alternate accounts, none of which were used to edit the same articles or vote stack in AFDs or do anything opposed to WP:SOCK. Several of the accounts were single purpose accounts that made a handful of edits before being discarded because I didn't want to be drawn into anything on an ongoing basis - I will not be using such accounts in the future. No one has pointed to one edit made by these accounts that is at all worthy of a saction - the closest was SV pointing to a request for a 3RR that was made feigning ignorance of how to do a 3RR. Only one of those accounts was blocked initially and that was because someone wrongly suggested it of being a Wordbomb sockpuppet because it asked for the checkuser results of Mantanmoreland to be posted. Without the erroneous Wordbomb suspicion there would have been no grounds to block.

As for the supposed Sonofzion sockpuppet, I deny having used that account and checksuer did not "confirm" that it was me, rather it produced a "likely" response. There is evidence that Sonofzion was in fact User:Dervish Tsaddik using a Toronto are proxy or zombie computer since other posts signed "Sonofzion" originated from Sweden as did one signed "Daughterofzion".

According to the ruling on the Saladin 1970 appeal:

"The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban."

This is not the case here as per Fred and SimonP's remarks as well as several other admins who have either spoken publicly or sent me emails. There are no sanctions against me, there have been no findings against me thus there is no reason to harass me with a witch hunt or arbitrary blocking.Ex-Homey 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that User:Sonofzion was a Dervish Tsaddik sockpuppet, "using a Toronto area proxy" or anything else, and none of the posts by the account User:Sonofzion "originated from Sweden". This is another example of the kinds of disruptive falsehoods that Ex-Homey has been spreading. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg's accusations above are opinion, not established facts -- that should be kept in mind. --Ben Houston 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No, they're established fact, and that should be kept in mind. Sonofzion did not edit "from a Toronto area proxy", nor did it edit from Sweden. And this is the kind of disruptive edit I was talking about. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Then why was the checkuser result "likely" but not "confirmed" Jayjg - you never did answer my question about whether checkusdr showed "same system" or not? And yes, there was a poster from Sweden who signed himself "sonofzion" [17] and then "daughterofzion".
I am changing the other sockpuppet tags to "alternative account" tags, following the example of Mantanmoreland and User:Lastexit (lastexit and manatmoreland edited the same articles and voted in the same AFD's, what normally would be called "abusive sockpuppetry). If you want to change the tags back then also change his tag.Ex-Homey 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Fred Bauder unblocked you so you could specifically participate in arbitration only, not edit war over notices on your sockpuppets [18] and harass others at their talk pages. Again, another opportunity from the community squandered. I've reinstated your block. FeloniousMonk 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Felonious, please take note of Fred Bauder's comments above: More to it than that, but based primarily on SimonP's position I am relieving Ex-homey from the condition I imposed on him. He says he may create another account to edit with quietly. To the specific point, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether or not these alternate accounts can be described as "Sockpuppets" -- Ex-Homey has acknowledged using some of them on a per-day basis, but only after his previous account was voluntarily blocked. This doesn't correspond with any definition of "sockpuppetry" that I'm familiar with. CJCurrie 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
CJC, perhaps you haven't been following this closely. Homey used the accounts for the purposes of deception and harassment. He turned up at articles his "opponents" edited a lot and tried to start trouble on them; he filed at least one false 3RR report against one of them; he tried to interfere with the election to the medcom of another; he pretended to be another banned user in order to cause confusion; etc. It has been the worst disruptive behavior from a former regular user that I've encountered in my time here. Anyone who wanted to create a new account simply in order to contribute to the encyclopedia could have done so without interference, and would not have engaged in any of this behavior. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that HotR has specifically denied most (if not all) of these charges, and that they remain unproven. In any event, Ex-Homey was not restricted to participation on the arbitration case and from a procedural standpoint he should not have been blocked. CJCurrie 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
CJCurrie, please don't post here and on my talk page. I don't want to waste a lot of time discussing Homey. You used to engage in what Homey would call "tag teaming" with him (note: this would be Homey's term for it, not mine), so you're well aware of the trouble he used to cause. Then you stopped editing with him so much, which I can only hope was a recognition on your part that he had gone beyond the pale, so please don't start up again. That Homey denies something is no reason not to believe it. He is disruptive, malevolent, and disingenuous, and is thoroughly enjoying causing this fuss. If he had wanted to edit the encyclopedia quietly, there was nothing stopping him. But it's not what he wants. What he wants is THIS. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was responding to your comments on my talk page, but as you wish. I do not agree with your assessment of this situation: I've worked with HotR on Wikipedia since 2004, and consider him to be a knowledgeable and productive contributor to the project. I acknowledge that he's made some mistakes in recent times, but I do not believe that anything he's done merits punishment on the level of a community block.
My intepretation of recent events is that Ex-Homey's decision to recategorize the "Sockpuppet" pages may have been unnecessarily provocative under the circumstances, but it was not disruptive (ie. it did not jeopardize the integrity of the project; designating these alt. accounts as "Sockpuppets" was always questionable). In any event, I don't believe that it's sufficient procedural grounds for a block. CJCurrie 05:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how you distinguish between "unnecessarily provocative" and disruptive. Using your def of disruptive, almost nothing would meet that standard. Look, the situation with Homey is sadly very simple. He has lost the confidence of almost all the editors who edit the pages he inhabits. More than "lost the confidence of": he is strongly disliked and not trusted by them. Even you, his staunchest ally, are forced to admit that his behavior is "unnecessarily provocative." Therefore, his editing of those pages is going to cause misery and trouble. That is a fact that nothing will change now, because he went too far, and there is now no way to repair those relationships. I tried very hard to get formal mediation started in order to avoid that total breakdown in relationships, but several others, including Homey initially, scuppered it, and then his sockpuppetry (or whatever you want to call it) started, and things went downhill from there. Therefore, in a case like this, it's not a question of deciding whether someone has lost the confidence of the community. He simply has. It has gone. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I suspect we're not going to reach full agreement on this matter. In any event, I should clarify that I said his recent behaviour "may have been" unnecessarily provocative, by which I mean that it rekindled animosities that might have been better left dormant for the time being. I do not believe this behaviour was "disruptive" to the project. CJCurrie 06:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, Jayjg, what exactly is your rationale for listing "Sonofzion" as a HotR sock, when this was never confirmed? CJCurrie 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It was confirmed as well as any sockpuppet can be confirmed by CheckUser. CheckUser is not a magic crystal ball, it's just another piece of evidence. Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
SonofZion turned up as soon as Homey was blocked for 3RR and started reverting to his versions of articles, then edited articles Homey had edited a long time ago under different names, and the check user evidence was consistent with it being him. SoZ claimed he knew about these articles because of a post on a discussion board for leftwing students, but he refused to say which one. It was clearly a sock or meat puppet and we don't distinguish. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe my reading skills are less than yours, but I was reading likely, not confirmed. Furthermore, I have seen a Swedisch IP signing off with Sonofzion, so I am not surprised that there is doubt. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Kim, please, please start reading posts before responding to them. I wrote "consistent with." The check user evidence was only a part of it, and there is no reasonable doubt. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Slimvirgin, please stop bashing people. I have read your post, and for me, likely is not equivalent with consistent with, especially not when Swedisch IP's sign of with Sonofzion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Dervish Tsaddik pretended to be Sonofzion, in order to assist Homey in sowing confusion; however, Sonofzion never used a Swedish IP, so that's irrelevant. Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you don't know what "consistent with" means. Please stay out of this. Every single thing you get involved in ends up with people at each other's throats. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I will NOT stay out of this. If my pressence causes you so much stress, please take a break before responding. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
CJCurrie asked me a question. I answered it. There is no need for YOU to get involved in everything. Please stop responding when I discuss issues with others. I want to have nothing more to do with you. You make no contribution to the encyclopedia. All you are is trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Kim has made very significant contributions to the encyclopaedia, and to my mind, a noticeboard is not the place for two-way conversations. Regards, Samsara (talkcontribs) 10:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that she'd e-mailed you. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we e-mail, already from the beginning that I was at wikipedia. So? You e-mailed me too several times, and I am sure you e-mail with a bunch of other editors as well, so what? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If I may interject, I have watched this situation looking from the outside. My personal belief is that this is a clique war, and Homey became the casulity. Putting that remark aside, I see no point placing Ex-Homey under a block. This only encourages Homey to re-enter Wikipedia under an assumed name, and after his treatment, I can't blame him. It is better to know who your enemy is, rather than not knowing, there is nothing to gain from his ban. If he chooses to change the template of his banned accounts, so be it, I do not feel there is any harm done. I feel as though the Admin who revert those User page edits, are just spiting him, and incorrectly asserting their power. I think the behaviour of most the Admin invlovled here, really looks poorly on Wikipedia. Pete Peters 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "from the outside"? From Queens University, which you attend/attended, and where Homey often edits from? Do you know Homey? Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "where Homey often edits from?" I graduated and left Kingston in 2003 and have been back only once. It's quite the embellishment to refer to a single day out of the past three years as "often". Sorry Jay, but I've never met Pete Peters or even heard of him prior to the above post and as engineering is a four year program the likelihood is he started going to Queen's sometime after I left. Ex-Homey 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as you are very involved with the disputes regarding Homey, you should undo your denial for unblocking as that should be done by an uninvolved admin, as you repeatedly has indicated yourself towards other admins. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I second this request. I have specifically refrained from unblocking Ex-Homey myself, for the simple reason that I do not want to create even the appearance of a conflict of interest. CJCurrie 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read my post above. Homey could be unblocked a thousand times, he will always be reblocked eventually, because the confidence of the community has gone. KimvdLinde, you are in large measure responsible for this total breakdown in relationships that occurred, because you encouraged him. What was needed was formal mediation and a complete end to wikilawyering in order to get Homey back into the fold, as it were. In your wisdom, you forced the situation in the opposite direction, and now the editing relationships are beyond repair. If you want to stop making things even worse, you might consider staying out of the situation completely. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have read your posts, stop assuming I do not. He is continuosly reblocked by the same small number of admins, most who had conflicts with him, or have made their opposition towards him more than clear. As such, neither of you is uninvolved, and neither of you should block him. If the community is so fed up with him as you claim, there should be sufficient number of uninvolved adimins who want to block him. Your accusation that I encouraged him is beyond the pale, but I have gotten used to your wrath by now. I suggest that you finally proof your accusation that I am to blaim for the breakdown of the RfM, you have made the accusation now so often without any evidence. And I suggest you stay away from homey completly, because it is very clear to me that your continued emotional involvement causes the situation to escalate time and time over again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with the abouve statements by Kim van der Linde.Pete Peters 06:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no emotional involvement. All I know is this: things around Homey were always tense, because he got into a lot of conflict. But they were manageable. Then you came along with your craving for trouble, your insults, your wikilawyering, and your process fetishism. You got involved in his disputes, made them a thousand times worse than they would otherwise have been, and destroyed the remaining trust that some editors still had for him. Then you scuppered the formal mediation which might have saved him. What you forget (or never knew) is that I have known Homey a lot longer than you have, and he and I used to be very supportive of each other, so I didn't particularly want to see him go down the tube. It was in order to save those long-term editing relationships, which you neither knew nor cared about, that I tried to arrange mediation. I asked your permission to reproduce your e-mails — in which it is clear that you scuppered the mediation — for the first ArbCom case involving Homey. You refused, and said not only could I not reproduce them; I should also not mention their existence!
I don't know what you're up to, or what you hope to achieve, but this is the result, and I can only hope you'll stop before you make things even worse. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
As usual, you just assert things, with no evidence linked to it. You even now claim that some unpublished e-mails will provide the evidence to that accusation. So you want to continue the claim that my involvement was essential for the RfM?
As for the e-mails, I asked you why you needed them (Fred Bauder was cc'ed on these second series of e-mails), and I even provided you with the diffs at wikipedia that provided the same information you wanted to use the e-mails for, so there was no need for them to become public, as people write things different, and sometimes are less nuanced in e-mails than online.
If you are so affraid to make things worse, I suggest you take a few steps back yourself, and let uninvolved admins deal with the issues. You are very deeply involved now in this extended conflict, but you still try to maintain that you are not, resulting in making admin decisions even with regard to homey. This is very troublesome because of your strongly expressed opinion that admins that, when they are involved even marginally in a dispute, they cannot make decisions. Apparently, you use two standards for that and that is a clear indication that you should take a step back and think some things over before telling other people not to be involved. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
CJC, I have done as you requested. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll remove my comments accordingly. CJCurrie 06:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you as well. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Fred has said he supports the current block, [19] so I hope that's the end of this latest round of disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in here to point out two key things:

  • The fact that an admin has taken action against an editor (through blocking, requesting checkuser, tagging socks, etc) does not mean that the admin is somehow "tainted" and not permitted to deal with user conduct problems with the same user in the future. This is a misconception that comes up frequently in the project's dealings with tenacious troublemakers who game the system. Policies such as WP:3RR, WP:BLOCK, and WP:PP only discourage admins from intervening in users with whom they have an editing dispute, that is, a content dispute. Were it not so, we would constantly have to rotate admins in dealing with a conduct problem, which is burdensome to the project because of the time it takes to understand the history behind a particular individual, as well as the very human tendency of admins to give second chances to anyone whose misconduct they have not witnessed personally.
  • Given that there is widespread consensus that Homey has edited with a considerable number of sock puppets, thus making it difficult for the project to track his activities, there is no need for proof or even necessarily strong evidence that any particular sock puppet is either (a) homey or (b) disruptive before it can be blocked.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • My reading of this situation is a bit different. JayJG had been involved in numerous content disputes with HotR prior to the "sockpuppets" controversy, and his actions have created (at minimum) the appearance of a conflict of interest. To your second point, I don't believe there is a widespread consensus that HotR "edited with a considerable number of sock puppets". He has acknowledged creating one-day alternate accounts after quitting the HotR handle, and has specifically denied the most significant sockpuppet accusation.
  • Given the contentious nature of this controversy, we should be especially wary about jumping to conclusions not supported by the facts. I do not believe it's appropriate to list "Barbamama" or "Fluffy the Cotton Fish" (for instance) as socks, when the evidence clearly points in a different direction. CJCurrie 04:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
"Numerous content disputes with HotR prior to the "sockpuppets" controversy?" Hardly. I barely edited his Israeli apartheid article, and we haven't been in "disputes" in months. There was no "conflict of interest", and you and Homey constantly claiming this will not make it true. In addition, I can't understand why you talk about "not supported by the facts", when you are completely unaware of them. The evidence (which you have not seen, and therefore should not have commented on) points specifically and solely to Homey (or perhaps, the aliens that took over Homey's computer) being the sockmaster of "Barbamama" or "Fluffy the Cotton Fish" . Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Readers should note that HotR and JayJG were involved in a bitter dispute on the New anti-Semitism page shortly before the present controversy began. I'm standing by my comments as to the existence of a conflict of interest. To Jay's second point, I'm not certain that seeing the evidence would make any difference: HotR has acknowledged that he used "Barbamama" as an alternate account, and has also indicated that a housemate was the primary user of "Fluffy the Cotton Fish" (although he also posted from that account a few times). Unless Jay has some magical device that can distinguish housemate from housemate and alternate account from sockpuppet, his evidence would seem to be superfluous. CJCurrie 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all I really don't see how you can state that the evidence doesn't support Barbarama and Cotton fish being socks of Homey. They edit in similar ways (although the negative characteristics of Homey are even more pronounced in those socks), they either seem to carry grudges or edit the same articles as Homey's "enemies", and as far as I know checkuser seems to all but confirm who the puppeteer is.
Second of all, Homey has gotten into multiple disputes with almost every administrator who touches the articles that he frequents. I really don't think we disqualify all these people based on your notion of "perceived conflicts-of-interest".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above statement by Moshe about getting into conflicts with every administrator who touches articles he frequences is incorrect and misleading. There are a select number of administrators he had issues with - SlimVirgin, Jayjg and Humus Sapiens. These administrators came to the table with views that were in opposition to those of HotR and this was the original cause of conflict. --Ben Houston 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The original cause Homey's conflicts were not "opposing views", but POV editing and outrageously aggressive behavior on his part. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that Barbamama and (sometimes) FtCF were alternate accounts of HotR. What I'm disputing is that they should be classified as sockpuppets. CJCurrie 18:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Barbamama was created for the sole purpose of stalking and harassing me and Zeq but mainly me, as can be seen by reviewing its seven hours of existence.[20] That gave it all the apperance of the psycho stalker Wordbomb. Instead it seems to be an ex-admin who has a vendetta against some other admins, and knows how to manipulate the system in what appears to be some kind of malicious game. "Wordbomb" has been actively trashing myself and SV on the Wikipedia Review website, so none of this is the slightest bit surprising. --Mantanmoreland 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm... A bit of a stretch. This is an obvious clique war in which Homey was out numbered. Is this the same Zeq whose perfect behaviour is illustrated here.[21] Pete Peters 23:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No, my only interaction with "Homey" was being harassed/stalked by his "Barbamama" incarnation.--Mantanmoreland 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
A checkuser request isn't harrassment. Btw, readers might be interested to read Barbamama/HotR's first sentence in this post. CJCurrie 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Mantanmoreland claims Barbamama "harassed/stalked" him yet the only edits referring to him were made tat