Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive131

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

Noticeboard archives



About three weeks ago Maru was blocked indefinitely by me for a fairly serious BOT useage violation. The incident was discussed here but is now archived. Maru has now requested the block be removed, which I've done, as he's given a promise [1] that he won't do it again. -- I@n 00:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Reblock if the bot reappears though, I assume. --W.marsh 01:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This has become a most serious and depressing affair.
Quite a while ago, Maru was blocked indefinitely for continually running an unregistered bot that constantly misbehaved. He unblocked himself, claiming that the bots were shut down, then resumed running his bots that same day.
Some time later he was blocked again, for the same reason, and during the discussion around this later block it was discovered that he had previously unblocked himself on a pretext. He was then warned in the strongest of terms that he must not unblock himself. IIRC, Essjay even threatened an emergency de-sysopping.
As I@n says above, Maru has now promised not to run any unauthorised bots, and requested an unblocking.
However, now things get really sleazy. Maru has just disclosed on his user page that he sometimes uses another account, Rhwawn. [2] Nothing wrong with that, and kudos to him for making it public, except...
He created this account three days after he was blocked, and has made over 700 edits with it. If blatant evasion of a block isn't bad enough, most of Maru's edits through the Rhwawn account are unauthorised bot edits!
This has gone on too long. I am going to apply indefinite blocks to both Maru and Rhwawn, ask Essjay to look into an emergency desysopping, and request a CheckUser.
Snottygobble 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Endorse permanently banning Rhwawn as an unauthorized bot account and sockpuppet. Endorse indefinite block (in the sense of to be determined) on Maru. Essjay has not been around for several days so you might want to contact another bureaucrat about the de-sysopping and an arbitrator about the checkuser. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
If the main account is unblocked, I don't see a (policy) reason to block the sock, if the evasion was in the past. An alternative is arbitration now, but since as far as I know he's promised in good faith to stop the bot then I think we should give him a chance. --W.marsh 02:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI As far as I've been able to gather (from Marudabshinki), he *is* using the pywikipediabot framework, but he's using a manual or semi-auto tool. This is a lot faster than editing the wiki directly, but it's still under manual control. Kim Bruning 01:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about Maru's bot flag anymore. It is about Wikipedia having an admin that
  1. Unblocks himself on a pretext
  2. Creates socks to avoid blocks
  3. Requests unblocking on a pretext
Snottygobble 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Endorse block and emergency desysopping. This guy has always struck me as a bit reckless, and he isn't playing by the rules anymore. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Opinion struck per below. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, like the original block was really dumb? I think the separate account is for when running the bot... (as long as he possibly declared it) , and requesting unblocking is always ok. Granting the request is something else.
I'm not saying that I'm nescesarily right, but it does still seem possible to assume good faith in this instance.
If Marus story is true, then perhaps we could think about desysopping someone else. There's some decent ways to determine the truth though.
We could have an admin or two unblock him, and watch him carefully for a little while. Is that ok? Worst case he messes up, and they can block him again. Kim Bruning 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you clarify your "perhaps we could think about desysopping someone else" comment for me? Snottygobble 02:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Um that pretext stuff is pretty assuming bad faith there snotty. Did he evade the block? Yes. Was it stupid? Yes. Is it worth a desysopping? No. He didn't abuse any admin tools this time, just made a sock that did good edits. pschemp | talk 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
In the first case, Maru was blocked indefinitely, explicitly told not to unblock himself, and told that he would be unblocked once he agreed not to run an unauthorised bot. He unblocked himself, with edit summary "bot shut down", then started up the bot again the same day. That is unblocking on a pretext; its pretty hard to argue with that. The quality of his subsequent edits have nothing to do with it. Snottygobble 02:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am inclined to reduce the blocking to maybe a week or less. Others agree? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocking is a means to protect the wiki. Not a punishment. Unblock right away, but keep an eye on Marudabshinki for a while so everyone stays happy. If he's truely the root of all evil, we can always block him again for good. I have some doubt if that'll happen though. Either way, I'd just like to have a couple of extra pairs of competent eyes on the matter. Kim Bruning 02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
If you guys want an admin running around that unblocks himself, evades blocks by creating sockpuppets, and promises not to run unauthorised bots while running an unauthorised bot through a sock, you go ahead an unblock him. I won't wheel war with you, but I will think your decision is stunningly stupid. Snottygobble 02:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Maru has posted this on his user page; posting here as a courtesy. Snottygobble 02:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with this block. I don't particularly mind you blocking the Rhwawn account, since it was originally for the Board election, and I don't expect to need it again, but blocking my main account for semi-automated disambiguating and de-selflinking edits really cooks my chestnuts. Was I ban avading? Under a strict interpretation, I suppose so. A process wonk could surely argue that this is grounds for a few days or weeks banned, but an indef ban? Look at my edits. THey were good edits. We're supposed to judge by results, not mindlessly follow process; that's what IAR is all about, and we keep it around for a reason. Does de-sysoping, an indef blocking (with an apparent intention of making it truly indefinite and infinite) truly seem proportional to my actual offenses? I've contributed so much good work to Wikipedia, and so little bad work; doesn't that merit any consideration when I violate your interpretation of policy in my haste to actually get something done? I'd reply on AN/I, but there seems to be some technical problem. --maru (talk) contribs 02:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're having him follow procedure now, and watching him. If he is really being stupid, that's all there is to it. If he's actually being smart and someone else is being stupid, we'll find that out quickly enough too. Kim Bruning 02:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Zscout has unblocked citing "reducing duration to time served". That's a strange basis, considering the block was for running an unauthorised bot, and Maru spent his "time served" running his unauthorised bot through a sock. Honestly, I find this decision absolutely mind-bogglingly incomprehensible. Snottygobble 02:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to be making any more suggestions of my own here but some history might be useful. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive124#User:Marudubshinki running unauthorized robots.

  1. He ran a bot account, Bot-maru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), which was blocked as an unauthorized bot, and because it was not assisted and was making mistakes. Rather than go to WP:BRFA, he started running the bot on his main account.
  2. He was blocked again because the bot was making mistakes, with the understanding that he could unblock himself if he stopped running the bot. He unblocked himself, and started running the bot again.
  3. The bot was deleting pages, using Maru's sysop bit. Quoting Essjay, This is greatly concerning, as the use of bots with admin privs is opposed very strongly on (with the possible exception of Curps, though his is not without it's critics, and may or may not still be running) and by the Foundation (an adminbot on another wiki was desysopped by Anthere not too long ago).
  4. He was blocked again with instructions not to unblock himself. He did anyway, and started running the bot again.
  5. He was blocked a third time and told to stop running the bot. Rather than accept responsibility and seek bot approval at WP:BRFA, he started running the bot on a second account, thereby violating both bot policy and policy against using socks to edit while blocked.

I'll let the rest of you make the decisions. I wonder whether you really expect he will stop running the bot this time, or you just don't care; and I wonder how long he will run it in assisted mode before he turns it loose again; and I wonder if he will lend it his own sysop functions again. But it's not really in my hands. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If he runs the bot again without requesting approval first, we will take him out for some ParkingLotTherapy. Basically we're giving him a bit of a last chance, but watching him carefully. We'll soon see if he behaves or not. :-) Kim Bruning 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just come back here after an hour off-line and see the sh*t has hit the fan. I'm in total agreement with Snottygobble - I'd thought that his last block was his last chance. Maru must have been awfully close to being de-sysopped after he was exposed for unblocking himself to continue using an unauthorised admin-bot. We now find he was using a sock in order to to evade the block. I'd assumed good faith in unblocking him but clearly that was misguided - Maru was cheating his block all along. He is a loose cannon and has shown ongoing behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. -- I@n 02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that he should be de-sysoped but not blocked because he makes lots of useful articles. JarlaxleArtemis 04:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Based only on the information presented here (having not yet done the research myself) I'd support the dead-minning. - brenneman {L} 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the death penalty is the answer here. --Cyde Weys 05:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe take this to a RFC, and/or the ArbCom? If I was an admin, I wouldn't have bots running until I got them authorised.

Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has made good edits, as JarlaxleArtemis said, so I don't think an indefinite block is warranted. --TheM62Manchester 08:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a de-adminship (not an indef block, too harsh) based on evidence presented here too. - Mailer Diablo 08:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't an RFC or ArbCom be a better solution? --TheM62Manchester 09:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, just that we'll need someone willing to do the filing process. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to be saying that an indef block is too harsh. But I haven't heard anyone actually propose an indef block, so I'm not sure who you're arguing against. I hope you people don't think my reinstatement of I@n's block was intended to be a final solution; as I stated on Maru's talk page, I reinstated the block "while we thrash out the implications of you running unauthorised bot edits through an alternative account created to avoid an indefinite block applied for running unauthorised bot edits".

For the record, I also do not think Maru should be blocked indefinitely. But I am firmly opposed to him retaining his sysop flag. Snottygobble 09:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Indef block isn't appropriate given his good contributions, but unless someone is disputing the facts as laid out above, he has clearly abused the admin tools, and thus should not retain them. Just remove the problem and allow the good contributions. Then block later if it becomes becessary. If consensus here isn't enough for a steward to go on to desysop, send it to arbcom. - Taxman Talk 11:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not rush to any unnecessarily hasty decisions. This isn't dangerous. This isn't an emergency. Bring the case to the ArbComm. De-adminship in non-cut-and-dry situations (i.e. repeatedly unblocking self or deleting the main page) is the role of the ArbComm. He is unblocked. Don't reblock him, please. If you think it's serious enough, bring the case to the Committee. No vigilante justice, thank you very much. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Concur. ArbCom is appropriate if someone wants to do it. If there are further problems, I'll do it myself. Extra chances are good for minor infractions, but at a certain point we have to assert firmly that admins are as bound by policy as everyone else. -- SCZenz 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should take you up on that. If you're willing to draw up the formalities for ArbCom, let it go there. The alternative is going to be widespread support for a steward taking action anyway. The current situation is clearly not satisfactory, per Snottygobble and others. Metamagician3000 07:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I said I'd do that if there are further problems. Have there been further problems? If not, I need to think and look a little more (and maybe talk to Maru a bit) before initiating a case personally; once started, they're hard to unstart. But if there is a case started by someone else, I'll certainly fill in what I know and let the arbitrators decide. -- SCZenz 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
My bad. You did indeed say that. Metamagician3000 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
To expand on my earlier comments: I do not think that any amount of quick-poll on this page is sufficient to justify the removal of privledges. Barring the making of a recall proposal into policy, the only (normal) route to do so is through ArbCom. My statement of "support" before was based upon the presumption that a suficient such supports would give someone the stones to request opening an arbitration case. If no one else goes and does it, I'll will:
  1. Go and confirm myself the substance of the statements above,
  2. Create a scratch version of a request for arbitration in my userspace, and
  3. Post a link here to allow it to be "tuned up" or "cast out" by consensus.
Does this sound reasonable?
brenneman {L} 01:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I would say you should start the case if you think it's warranted. I think the case would be well-justified based on past actions; at the same time, confronting a valuable contributor who may now be turning over a new leaf is probably not good for the encyclopedia. So now you have why I'm not filing the ArbCom case. But, as I said, I don't think we should have an extra community discussion and a hanging committee to present the case to the ArbCom. If you think a case is warranted, just give them the facts and let them take it from there. -- SCZenz 03:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a case should be made, in the spirit of SCZenz's "just give them the facts and let them take it from there", but lack the "stones" (whatever that means) to make the case myself. Aaron, if you are willing to take this on, I will be happy to take on share the load of presenting diffs. Snottygobble 06:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What SCZenz and Aaron want you to do is that if you feel there should be a case against this user, then you should have the balls (that is what "stones" is) to start the processes yourself. If you are not willing to do the case, then there is nothing much we can really do, since we are not going to do the legwork for you. Of course, we will leave comments and stuff when you file the arbcom case, but, to put in simple terms, it's your turn now. The ball is in your court. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I will. It doesn't take balls; why would it take balls? It just takes time and effort. Snottygobble 11:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


I have drafted a RfAr statement at User:Snottygobble/Drafts/RfAr, and have advised Maru of my intention to take it to ArbCom.

Currently the only users listed as "involved parties" are myself and Marudubshinki. I think it is appropriate that I@n and SCZenz add themselves as involved parties and make a statement, but I won't insist. If anyone else considers themselves an involved party, now is the time to begin preparing a statement. Feel free to do so at User:Snottygobble/Drafts/RfAr if you want; just be sure to restrict your edits to your own section.

I have also begun gathering evidence at User:Snottygobble/Drafts/Evidence. You should feel free to add evidence there if you wish. But let's maintain a Brennemanesque insistence on neutral, verifiable facts, okay? This is not a vendetta; it is an invitation for the ArbCom to make a decision, so that we are not left to live with the consequences of a non-decision.

Snottygobble 01:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This request is now pending at WP:RFAR#Marudubshinki. Snottygobble 11:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


I would like User:Halibutt to be warned for personally attacking me(WP:NPA), multiple times, not only on my user talkpage, but also in numerous discussion threads.

one example comes from my talk page:Then perhaps you could tell me why do you believe black people should be exterminated? //Halibutt 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never made any statements about black people and this was totally nonsensical and out of the blue, check my contribution history to see proof of that. This all started when he started a revert war over the proper name for Polish September Campaign

--Jadger 23:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This was merely an example of the tactics Jadger's been using against my good name for the last week or so (claiming I said something I did not and then accusing me of it on several pages). And from Jadger's comment on my talk page it seems pretty obvious that he understood it as such, that is an example of the said tactics and not as a personal attack. It seems that this report here has been motivated solely by his recent actions being noticed and by the recent warning he received from one of the uninvolved admins, as well as from one of involved admins.
However, if Jadger indeed mistook my comment for an offence, which I seriously doubt, then I'm sorry, as it was not meant to be one. //Halibutt 23:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Jadger? What happened? It looks exactly like you removed Halibutt's comment, without even leaving a comment about doing so—without even an edit summary. I assume that was some glitch or mistake? Bishonen | talk 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

If you were truly sorry, then why have you never said so on my talk page? or anywhere else for that matter except for where you can be punished (here). it was not "an example of the said tactics and not as a personal attack" or else he would of stated so, and my statements on his userpage show that. As for accusing him of saying something he did not, on his userpage I cited from the talk page where he did indeed state what I was indicating.

I did not "understand it as such" as you can see by my statement on his talk page, (which BTW is what I have been told I have been warned for) as I am forced to tell him in the statement that his attacks on me are logical fallacies.

--Jadger 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I want him warned simply for justice (or else I would ask for him to be blocked), not for a vendetta. when two people make personal attacks, they should both receive the same punishment for the same crime, or else it gives the illusion to Halibutt that he can continue to do so, which he has indeed continued to do on my talk page, now he has progressed to thinking he can order me around.

--Jadger 23:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, this makes no sense and is a loss of time. I asked you to remove your offensive comments. You did not and instead claimed that it's perfectly ok to accuse me of things I never said. Above you even claim that you provided a link in which I explicitly state that I have been in a mood that I can revert anyone, which is obviously a lie, since you did not provide any citation for that (no wonder since I neither said nor shown that anywhere - anytime). Anyway, after repeatedly asking you to stand by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and getting nothing but further offences and accusations, I simply asked here for some intervention. You've been warned and I thought that solves the issue.
However, now it seems that this childish tit for tat is going on even further. You ask me why have I never apologized on your talk page? And why did you never state on mine that you misunderstood my comment? Anyway, if anyone believes I crossed the lines - feel free to punish me. I don't try to evade any punishment, but would like some basic respect from Jadger. That's what's lacking in his slanderous accusations and that's what sparked this entire discussion. Whether it was my fault to be offended by Jadger - I'm not sure. Whether he misunderstood my comment - I don't know. I did apologize the first second I realized he might be offended. I still await apologies for the offences Jadger has cast. //Halibutt 18:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked me to remove my "offensive remarks" but I did not because I could prove that you did indeed say such things (and my remarks were thus not offensive), and I indeed did cite it on your talk page. perhaps you should stop skipping over the occasional line in paragraphs and read the whole article, rather then just what u want to see.

I never stated that I misunderstood your comment on my talk page because you have changed your meaning now (in order to cover your tracks), as you have done before elsewhere, and have been charged as such by others. If you were actually the bigger man as you pretend to be, then you would have done some actions (such as apologising) in order to end the dispute, instead of dragging it out here.

I am not apologizing for the "offences" i have committed because I firmly believe in what I said, and I have been punished for it by a warning which I feel is unjustified. You however have had the chance to end this by publicly apologizing to me on my talk page, which would end the "discussion" and add closure, but you have decided not to do that, instead you have decided to continue making up excuses on here in order so that you can pretend to be the victor . You will only get some "basic respect" from me when you have earned it, I have been brought up knowing that you have to earn respect, and so far you have not.

All Halibutt needs to do is apologize to me and admit that his statements were wrong, and this would be over, but he will not do that.

--Jadger 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You repeat that over and over again, yet you did not prove anything at my talk page. You did not prove that I've been in the mood that I could go revert warring, you did not prove that I believe I could revert anyone for no apparent reason, nor did you prove that I think I can state anything I like and then prevent people from removing it. These were your baseless accusations I asked you politely to remove. You denied to remove them and instead stated that it's all ok to suggest such things. It is not and you've been warned by an admin that it was not ok. I wanted that piece of filth removed as per WP:NPA, but you insisted on keeping it in, so instead I asked for some apology. And what did you do? You continued the same disruptive behaviour. Sorry, Jadger, this is just as much time I had to waste. Do not expect any more comments from me unless you apologize. I have a right to defend my good name and believe me I will.
You state above that you firmly believe in what you said. So you firmly believe that you know what I think, right? And that's a reason enough to state what you believe is true and then accuse me of it? I could firmly believe that deep in your heart you're a devoted Nazi, and then start casting such accusations here and there. Would that mean that it's perfectly ok to accuse you of Nazism just because I believe I know what you think? That's absurd and I'm not going to waste more of my time on it. Over and out. //Halibutt 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

stop twisting my words Halibutt.

--Jadger 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Peculiar user behavior[edit]

User:S-man, User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, and User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz seem to be behaving in a very peculiar way. At one moment, they appear to be very naive: at another, they seem to know an awful lot about the technical details of Wikipedia editing. Their writing style seems very similar. All of this at the same time that various vandals with different MOs seem to have descended on the en: Wikipedia... -- The Anome 22:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno...their styles don't seem to be similar enough to convince me of sockpuppetry. However, feel free to open an RCU on them if you're really convinced. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I would second an RFCU, also I'm not too happy about this at all. Yanksox 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah. That there is definitely some bad news. And Cute 1 4 u is a confirmed sockpuppeteer herself (see User:Raven Symone). However, I'm still not sure about the three up there being the same, but an RCU would definitely convince me otherwise. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
User:S-man states he is 9 years old, and User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz that he is the second-youngest editor on wiki. This might explain some of the concerns... Tyrenius 23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Exactly. Not to be ageist, but it seems unlikely that a nine-year-old (S-Man) would create two sockpuppets, have them interact with each other, and have different styles of writing (S-Man seems very proficient grammatically and in terms of spelling, whereas Qmwnebrvtcyxuz is not - see his userpage). Also, S-Man seems like a legitimate contributor, having been around since December 2005. And as for Yanksox below, can you provide some diffs? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not refering to Wikipedia, just look at the userpage of S-man and look at some of the links he gives out. Yanksox 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to sound evil, but when I visit some of the links, I find it very hard to believe their ages. Yanksox 23:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
His MySpace says he's 16...although he could be lying to bypass MySpace's "14 or over" rule. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that, it's other links that he supplys and the fact that he has a father and an aunt on the website according to his userpage. It's too complicated to describe, but something just doesn't seem right about this whole situation. Yanksox 23:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (editconflict)To be honest, I think it's either one of two things. One, assuming good faith, it's about 5 users that don't understand the concept of Wikipedia and focus too much on the social aspect or two, thinking about it for a while (paranoia), it's a few users trying to test the patience of the site to get a reaction. It could be either thing, but it is very concerning. Yanksox 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now indefblocked User:S-man as a self-declared vandal. His "secret vandalism project" seems just too knowing of other Wikimedia projects for a kid just playing around. I suspect that these are adults, trying to see how patient we will be with self-described kids. User talk:S-man now seems to have giant images on it: I find the fake page title of "Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..." oddly reminiscent of someone else as well... -- The Anome 23:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you did that, as I was getting concerned about this account. He says he is nine, but the writing is sometimes a lot more mature than that, and on other websites, he gives different ages. He has concentrated his time here making contact with what appears to be a bunch of very young users, mostly girls or purporting to be. He said his father and aunt edited here too, and linked to two user names, one of which had made one edit, the other of which had made none, and in both cases, S-man had created their user pages. There was something decidedly ... odd, and I wasn't looking forward to trying to work out what it was. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at this edit, for example. There is something seriously wrong here. I think we should stop assuming good faith at this point. -- The Anome 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth are you associating me with these characters? I’m mystified and disappointed by your misguided insinuations. Take a look at my edit history. I know my contributions aren’t terribly impressive (unless you count my rewrites of Battle Dome, Detachable Penis and Wynona's Big Brown Beaver), but you’re going to have to look hard to find any vandalism. Anyway, I just happen to find humor in some of the edits of S-man (and I'm sorry to hear you've blocked the little guy; there are people out there causing a lot more trouble than S-man, who's still learning and trying to make useful edits). If you’re looking for sockpuppets, I might direct you elsewhere.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What, like this edit? -- The Anome 23:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with that? That's my user page. A couple sockpuppets of Solipsist3 threatened to kill me for nominating his article for deletion. I chose to make light of it; that's my sense of humor--it may not be yours. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's put a darkly tinted joke on his user page. Lighten up.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I never believed that you were S-Man's sockpuppet - I think you're innocent. However, there's definitely something bad going down with S-Man - my AGF has been stretched to its limits. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It gets more ludicrous by the minute. Here, User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz claims to be eight years old, and furthermore claims here that another user is three months younger. I would suggest that we either:

  • take them at their word, and block them from editing on child protection grounds, or
  • block them for impersonating very young children, and starting conversations with other apparently very young users

-- The Anome 23:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Jkelly 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I may have to rescind my comments above about them not being the same person. As of now, I'm thinking that S-Man and Qmwnebrvtcyxuz are possibly the same child impersonator - as I said above, an RCU would clear that up nicely. I think Fat Man's probably okay; he's never stated his age to my knowledge. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think the Fat Man is probably real, and just got caught up in the paranoia backwash.

However, in this edit User:Cute 1 4 u claims to be 11 years old. Very similar writing style to the other two apparent child impersonators. Again, real or fake pre-teens are just too young to be editing here. -- The Anome 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is another purported 8-year-old editor. Note the similarities to the others. Claims to have two other siblings who are editing here. -- The Anome 00:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't give a link...did you mean Bethicalyna2? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That's right, thanks for the correction. I've now deleted the pages in question. -- The Anome 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been following most (though not all) of these users for some time. I have serious doubts that most of them are the ages they claim to be though I have been unable to come to a conclusion. I figured at least some of them may have been the ages they claimed to be. Anyway, I was uncomfortable enough to have most of them on my watchlist but apart from the occasional copyvio image upload and excessive socialising (WP:NOT), I didn't see enough for me to step in. I am concerned that the stated reason some of these users were blocked is because they are too young. My understanding is that we allow people of any age to edit the Wikipedia and simply judge them on their actions. However, it is possible the real reason for the block is their actions. One more note, most of these people claimed to be siblings. For this reason, a checkuser will show one group of people (six to nine users iirc) editing from the same IP. We don't generally ban for this if they really are separate people. --Yamla 00:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

However, their actions included either posting personally-identifying information about themselves, or being online child impersonators. Either of which justifies an immediate indefblock. Blocks are not punishments, they are intended to stop bad things from happening, and either of those is a bad thing. -- The Anome 01:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that most of these editors came from This shows up at least one other editor in that family. I am not advocating that we block anyone who has edited from that IP address, however. --Yamla 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe User:Bethicalyna (mostly edits as claims to be User:Lindsay1980's sister. El_C 01:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. By the way, I've deleted Lindsay1980's user page, at her request, see her edit dated 01:30, 21 August 2006 in the deletion history. -- The Anome 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser I filed came back inconclusive. I've asked for an explanation, but I haven't received one yet. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser is not magic wiki pixie dust. It provides a very narrow type of technical evidence. Inconclusive means Mackensen can't say they probably are, but can't say they probably aren't, either. It's hard to be more specific without giving away info that could help other sockpuppets avoid detection. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about Cute 1 4 u's block; it seems predicated on very flimsy evidence (based on the block log comment); if there's more to it than that, I can't see it (most of the diffs linked above are broken). Powers T 13:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I find this totally unbelieveable. The blocks that User:The Anome has performed recently have been completely unjustified.

  1. Blocks User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back for this, with block summary "faking talk pages: possibly a multi-sockpuppet" – does not realise that it is within his userspace, and can do as he likes. Does not investigate that User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back is only preserving an edit which an anonymous user previously added. Unblocks later with summary "unblocking for now", with no apology for any confusion.
  2. Blocks User:S-man for vandalising other Wikipedias. This does not warrant a block on en.Wikipedia in any way at all!
  3. Blocks User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz, User:Cute 1 4 u, User:Bethicalyna2, User:Lindsay1980 and User:Pizzachelle for being young, with block summaries such as "we don't let very young children edit here". That, is absolute rubbish. We do not hold age, race, sex, sexuality or any other factor against editors here.

-- 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with We have absolutely no policy concerning age of contributors. ~ «ct» (t|e) 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked. If there are reasons to block that relate to their edits (and the blocking policy) then feel free to reblock (putting this reasoning in the block summary). Otherwise, he can stay unblocked, and continue to edit peacefully. We do not hold any personal factors against editors. Full stop. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Subhash bose has been blocked for 1 week[edit]

This is a long standing issue. User:Subhash bose (Nataji) has been blocked 6 times since July 7th for 3RR vios, for violating NPA and other offenses. He came off this last block on the 19th. Since then, he's done such things as call User:Geek1975 and any other user who has opposed him a "vandal". He's also made edit summaries such as "rv. I kept the facts. Read my damn edits" and "Ahh. the sweet smell of fact distorters in the morning". He's also removed material which can be considered properly sourced. And he's also been incivil by Doing an edit summary in ALL CAPS. And then this morning, he essentially declared that he was going to no longer assume good faith and assume "guilty until proven innocent" if he considers a posting to be a "deliberately false edit". And also today, he has labeled edits to his talk page as "bogus", has struck out comments he hasn't liked. And he has also accused other users of being incivil, which he has done in the past. I decided to block him for a week. Given all of his blocks, I wanted to make it indefinite but I know that many admins don't believe in that for violations such as this and I respect that. If someone wants to extend the block, so be it. But to me, we have a user who has been given multiple chances and yet refuses to follow our rules. And if anything, he's getting worse not better. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And he keeps on calling me anti-Semitic. BhaiSaab talk 16:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Good work on the part of User:Woohookitty here. Hopefully when Subhash bose (talkcontribs) returns he/she'll be inclined to work with more civility towards making this great encyclopedia even better. (Netscott) 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose for compelling evidence that he's sockpuppeteering. A checkuser is pending as well. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I have not tracked down similarities in their edits, given the interaction between this user and Bakasuprman (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) I wouldn't be surprised if there was puppetry afoot there especially in light of this diff on Subhash bose's talk page. (Netscott) 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
How am I a sock? Netaji was active on 21 and 22 when I was playing golf in Warm Springs. The diff merely tells him that I was planning to go on wikibreak. Also, I feel these accusations should be treated as personal attacks, because they hurt users. The Muslim users are trying to get Hindu users out of the way.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Syiem and RSudarshan have both been blocked by Kilo-Lima as socks of Subhash bose. I'm not sure about Bakasuprman, since he hasn't been edit warring on Indian nationalism. Keep an eye on him just in case, though. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Per the ruling here and at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose, I have extended the block to 15 days. IolakanaT 17:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He has contested that these are not his sockpuppets on User_talk:Subhash_bose. I suggest you guys do a checkuser, and if it fails to confirm cases of sockpuppetry, reduce his block to 1 week. BhaiSaab talk 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RFCU is currently in progress. IolakanaT 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks for all of the help. It's always appreciated! :) If he is sockpuppeting, I'll increase the block. The user doesn't seem to respect our rules one iota, so I suspect this to continue for awhile. Again thanks for the backup everyone. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Wondering if anyone agrees with me on this. I think it's time to lock the user's page. It's being used to attack others and for others to attack the user. He had put up a couple of requests to go onto the suspected sockpuppet page. But it looks like he's finished now. At this point, I think it's time to lock the page and give him time to cool off before he and others make this situation even worse than it already is. Thoughts? --Woohookitty(meow) 07:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am impressed with the promptness with which violations are dealt with at Wikipedia. Hope Wikipedia continues with its great job. Thanks. --Geek1975 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the other users were his sockpuppets, he has continued to use (other suspect) sockpuppets to get around his block: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose (2nd). BhaiSaab talk 21:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Tywright back to removing information[edit]

As previously reported here, Tywright (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is back to removing information on the Charlie Crist page after being warned multiple times, I think a block may be necessary. --CFIF 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

He's now back to vandalizing the Tom Gallagher page. He needs to be stopped before his pov pushing goes too far. --CFIF 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone actually care here? --CFIF 12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC for Preying from the Pulpit[edit]

I think some opinions are needed to end a 3 month old revert war at this article. Mainly it appears that one person and some anon. want to change the POV of this article. As recently as yesterday the POV was shifted.[3] The user who keeps making the reverts has a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi ongoing since 20 May 2006 on these articles. Yet, that has not stopped or slowed using these articles as a battle ground.

So if anyone has some extra time to clean up and throw their two cents in visit Talk:Preying from the Pulpit or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi to end this. C56C 21:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi is like Gastrich without the sockpuppets. Just zis Guy you know? 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot running from anonymous IP?[edit]

Question: Is it legitimate for a bot to be run from an anonymous IP? See Special:Contributions/, apparently a bot modifying interwiki links. Fut.Perf. 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Probably got logged out by accident, looks a lot like Cydebot, you might want to ask around-- 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • We've had this discussion before, it's adding interwiki links, it was blocked before cautioning it to stop, I've blocked it again, hopefully, it will log in next time. Yanksox 22:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't look at me, it's not my bot-- 22:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not looking at you, I'm just commenting. Yanksox 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like User:Escarbot. Someone might want to tell him. pschemp | talk 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked further and this probalby isn't Escarbot, but probably is someone else's bot. Anyway, its running the buggy version of Pywikipedia that removes incorrect links so it is blocked indef until an owner comes forward. pschemp | talk 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reporting abuse of tools.[edit]

User:Pilotguy is acting like a vandal. He blocked me for creating a page he attempted to delete. What gives? Chuckcidi 0:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I would say that Chuckcidi has nothing to complain about. Chuckcidi created the article Play Pals as if it were a real company, with no sources or context. After Pilotguy speedy-deleted it, Chuckcidi recreated the article with no improvement. I have redirected it to Child's Play with a note on the talk page. NawlinWiki 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Chuckcidi also placed a test message on pilotguy's homepage, for what it's worth. Though pilotguy might provide a better reason for the (indefinite) block on chuckcidi than "out"... --EngineerScotty 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BITE an indefinite block seems way overreacting in this simple case, and the same thing applies to denying the user to be unblocked. User was editing in good faith and deserves to be unblocked. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Suspected rôle account[edit]

This appears to be a rôle account used by multiple people at a company named IAMAS corporation. See the user page for the evidence. Uncle G 00:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See User:Vilerage/Iamas for more. Uncle G 01:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a role account to me. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it doesn't matter if it is a role account as it violates WP:USERNAME. We don't allow accounts that are the name of a company, as their signiture is tantamount to advertising. These names are usually blocked on sight. Spcifically here, "Accounts with usernames that advertise a particular website, company, etc. (e.g. "visit [name of url]" ) are discouraged and may be blocked." The use of this username is tantamount to advertising and has been blocked. I've blocked this account, as it has admitted to be belonging to an employee of the company. pschemp | talk 13:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Vtak (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) is a single purpose account associated with St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, a commerical enterprise located in the UK and currently subject to Arbcom thanks in large part to the actions of ParalelUni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher). This editor uses the word "we" when discussing the subject, so admits being associated with the colege in question, which is expicitly listed as not accredited by the British medical licensing authority (the General Medical Council) as well as by at least two US states. Right now his principal objective seems to e to replace the text of {{unaccredited}} with some text about it being accredited by the government of Senegal. Which is nice, but it is located in England and takes most of its students from the USA and it's not accredited in either place. I warned Vtak against edit-warring on this article, due to his evident vested interest, but his response is to assert that others agree (true: but the others are also single purpose accounts), see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Evidence#Evidence presented by JzG). Anyway, please review the warning I left on User talk:Vtak and reinforce or pacify as necessary in the light of the subsequent revert. Just zis Guy you know? 00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandal bot from several AOL Ranges[edit]

For the past few hours tonight there has been massive vandalism by a user coming from (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) and several registered users all blanking pages and replacing them with {{deletedpage}}. There have been several temporary range blocks put in place, after which this vandal goes onto another range or creates a new address. This started with Deletedpage (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and is now at Make blocks work, plzkthx (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and It seems someone's block didn't work (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). There needs to be other measures made for this unique entity. Ryūlóng 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This confirms my suspicion that most vandalism comes from very young children, why else would this come so close to the start of fall semesters?-- 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Besides, there are already measures in place to deal with AOL, namely, sit back and allow it to be consumed by autoblocks. I'm not sure how well it works at stopping vandalism, but it does stop constructive edits quite effectively-- 01:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well AOL could fix it (m:XFF). Short of that if the vandal is still going I will block all the ranges, anon only, account creation enabled, for three hours. I think the vandalism has stopped though, at least based on AIV. Prodego talk 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on the ranges block logs he/she is still going, so I am going to block as outlined above, unless someone objects in the next 5 minutes. Prodego talk 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it stopped, so no block. Prodego talk 01:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 hours, anon only, account creation on. Prodego talk 02:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Xyz233 (talk · contribs)[edit]

is an account created to expose the identity of historian2 (talk · contribs) and should be blocked, I think indefinitely. I am frankly not sure if this a matter for the AIAV, so forgive me if this is the wrong forum. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely and removed the personal information from the edit history. Cowman109Talk 01:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:I'm not on trial here[edit]

I'm not on trial here (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is clearly a very malicious vandal. I don't know why he wasn't blocked for his username alone. Danny Lilithborne 02:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, keeps creating vandal templates and vandalizing old guy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)'s page (who is also probably a sock of I'm not on trial here). All the templates have been deleted, but the user continues despite multiple warnings. GeorgeMoney (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Indef. blocked. Vsmith 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment If someone could wipe out and protect the monstrosity that is User:Old guy's userpage, it wouldn't get used in this vandalism. Fan-1967 02:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Attack on my user's page[edit]

See my page here where a user named User:-Jkb- instead of my name -jkb- posted a pornographic image. This is not the first time as there are still some former users who has been banned on the, trying vandalism in idfferent wiipedias (see also history on my page). Please block this user. Thx, -jkb- 15:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

blocked them as an impostor. Syrthiss 15:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Potential legal threat[edit]

User Veronicadittman has made what appears to be a legal threat against me on Talk:Joe Ochoa (diff), and I'm very unclear on how to respond. Kickaha Ota 15:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

She seems to have characterised the contents of the article as libelous, but not threatened you or anyone particularly with legal action. If you read her later comments, she seems to be most interested in calling the contents libelous so that she could revert them without being affected by 3RR or other rules. In this, she is encouraged by the template at the top of the page which uses the words "Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately." So I don't think this is a legal threat as such. Also note she calls herself a new user, so Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. She seems intelligent, and like she can probably be reasoned with. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, for someone claiming to represent one organization to state that repeating someone else's claim to be a member of that organization is defamatory is pretty questionable. That's what's happening here; the article on X says X is involved with organization Y; agent-of-Y is claiming this defames Y. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
and I really don't see any defamation occuring here. He made the claim, if they don't want it in the article, they should get their history page in order so it can be refuted.--Crossmr 17:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

spam reverser?[edit]

First, I assume the contributions from (talk · contribs) are deletable spam.

That being the case, what tool do we use to roll back all of his added links?

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just click all the rollback links on the contributions page. (sysop only) Prodego talk 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Gee, I knew that. I'm wondering if there's a mass rollback tool to do it more efficiently. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is. No, I don't know anything about it, nor do I have it. Try asking Voice of All, he may know more. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If you're using FireFox, you can go down his contribs page middle clicking "rollback". It'll open a million tabs, but it's easier than left clicking rollback and having to find your way back to his contribs each time. Failing that, vandalproof enables you to revert an entire users contribs with one click (as far as I know). -- Steel 17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, someone who is (this morning) less lazy than I has done the reversions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Or some of them, anyway. Special:Linksearch found some more, and a user, Joann1108 (talk · contribs), apparently created after they were reverted. Just zis Guy you know? 18:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

IP spammer adding advert links to radio articles[edit]

Please see (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s contributions - all in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:NOT (crystal ball, external links). Block as appropriate. --TheM62Manchester 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the IP's talk page is empty...have you considered talking or warning him/her first? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I just warned them now about it. --TheM62Manchester 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair and sockpuppets[edit]

Copperchair (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is currently blocked for one year and a day, but obviously can't seem to wait that long. He/She has created numerous sockpuppets, (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (2nd), Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (3rd), Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (4th) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (5th)) which keep appearing on WP:SSP. I am beginning to get quite annoyed at this user, for their repeated use of them; and I fear to think what will happen when his block expires, despite all of this happening when they are currently blocked. A full list of the blocks and bans are available [[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair#Documentation of bans|here]]. Whether an increase in the duration of the block will work, I have no idea; it might just make them worse. Comments are appreciated. Thanks, IolakanaT 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

How about giving an indefinite ban. As User:TomTheHand noted in the latest SSP, the most recent sockpuppet wasn't created until immediately after the 2 week block on expired.--Bobblehead 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user: block request[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Allyoops (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (impersonator of User:Ali-oops) are both sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked user (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (same POV edits to same pages about Ireland and Croatia, converting external links to the same nonstandard style [4], same ethnic abuse [5]). Can an admin block please? Thanks! Demiurge 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Indefinitely, if you don't mind, on User:Allyoops - I could do without trolls like Robert Sieger impersonating me - Alison 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Formats, date[edit]

I'm puzzled. I changed the date format from International Dating (12 March 2004) to American Dating (March 12, 2004) in an article concerning an unambiguously American subject, and an editor has changed it back!

It's not as if this user is ignorant of the discussion on this subject, so I'm wondering what's going on here? I'd like to think it was an honest mistake, but that's too much for me to swallow. --Jumbo 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The convention is to use Yankee spelling/punctuation/grammar on Yankee articles and proper spelling/punctuation/grammar on British articles and likewise on articles that would tend to derive from those linguistic origins. In this case, it's an article about an American, so the American date system is used. Note that because the dates are wikilinked, provided you have your Special:Preferences set properly (see date/time) it will be rendered to you in the way you prefer. -Splash - tk 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Weeeellll, the American for Americans and British for Brits thing is more like a gentleman's agreement than an actual policy. Folks violate it pretty often, but the key thing is that, if there is a dispute, it's a guideline. People who war over orthography are pitiable to me. Warring over date formats would require an even greater bur in one's saddle. Geogre 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, up to a point. What concerns me is an understandable focus by editors on editors as end users. In fact, most users of Wikipedia are readers who do not have accounts and thus do not have date preferences set. For far too many articles they see dates in the "wrong" format (and it goes beyond U.S. vs U.K.; most tof the world's nations use Inteernational Dating rather than American Dating), or worse, a confusing jumble of formats, including un-linked dates. We should be editing, not for our peers, but for the main users of the Wikipedia - the general internet public. --Jumbo 06:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Surely everyone using the world wide web has already experienced this "confusion" and knows how to do the mental athletics necessary for converting? I don't see how this should be a big deal. Most of our users are readers, I agree, but Americans are still probably dominant among them, and, if they're not, they're close to a majority. If Americans are more insular, innocent, and possibly uneducated, then we would need to be more protective of them than other nationals, if we make the argument that discomfiture of the reader is a reason to change the editing rule. 12:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo's recent comments at Wikimania about improving quality are particularly relevant here. Are we going to be happy with a slap-dash, more or less, bit of this bit of that, encyclopaedia? Or are we going to have something we can really be proud of? I hate to be anal about fine details in the Manual of Style, but if we are going to present a polished product, it's only through the MoS that we are going to achieve it so that we are all singing from the same sheet. --Jumbo 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
With that last independent clause I disagree entirely. It is not a volunteer assembled encyclopedia if there is an editorial board enforcing style sheets. In many prestigious publications, essays submitted by scholars will have local variation (festschrifts, e.g.). Unless a person is actually wrong, I don't believe they should experience correction, and I also don't think that we will be "slapdash" by having variation in trivial matters like orthography (especially since the "American" orthographic reforms were all British reforms until Noah Webster made them and then suddenly were anathema) and date formats. Geogre 19:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
We had this discussion earlier and the overwhelming view was that Jumbo was doing the right thing with these stylistic changes. I think changing them back simply for the sake of changing them back is something we should disapprove. Let Jumbo get on with this. Whether it is high priority is open to debate, but it is not work that anyone should be trying to frustrate. Metamagician3000 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I thoroughly agree. The worst is when there are several formats in the same article, but overall it is something we should have consistent across the project. --Guinnog 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've left a warning on the talk page of the relevant editor. Metamagician3000 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you'd leave me a "warning" for objecting to Jumbo's changes. It's not at all clear that there's a consensus for his programmatic changes; in fact I'd say the discussion here tends toward the opinion of tolerance of different dating systems and against his unilateral Wikiwide program. There is no provision for such enforcing of uniformity in the manual of style. To be warned about this on an article on which I am the only substantive contributor, and which seems to have been chosen by Jumbo for precisely that reason, is particularly galling. - Nunh-huh 00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The consensus is unambiguous. Galling or not, as it is an American topic, under the MoS it is supposed to use American English and American Dating. It is crystal clear. Meta's warning was completely correct. FearÉIREANNIreland-up.png\(caint) 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The question of consensus most emphatically is ambiguous because of the issue of quorum, which is always unsolved on Wikipedia. What tends to happen is that some of the wire-pulling topics (particularly MoS, but also images, copyright tags, etc.) grow contentious and then distasteful to the wide community. The result is that those who care, perhaps too passionately, about enforcing their will on these matters populate the discussions. If they manage to agree with each other, it's a blue moon, but it's also not representative. To some degree, the low participation rate in MoS debates is a testimony of the "no preference/no uniformity" position. The only people who will participate are interested first and foremost in a uniform presentation, so the broader question, "Should we all have to follow exactly one format?" is begged. Geogre 01:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus for Jumbo/Jtdirls actions, no matter how many times they say there is. The MoS talks about changing dates only for substantive reasons, and the idea that an article is American and therefore has to have a certain date format is not supported by the MoS, which speaks only about various considerations that might be made by those who write the articles, and does not envision or encourage programmatic changes simply to dates. It is precisely to prevent such arbitrary changes that the date formatting syntax and preferences were devised. It's also clear that Jtdirl's change to the article (to which I am the only substantive contributor) is not an improvement. As he has edited it, it is now rendered for me as "June 19 1793 – 16 February 1882" (The first date is in a format used by no one, as it has no comma.) This is not an improvement over "19 June 1793 – 16 February 1882", the way I wrote it and the way it's been for the past four months. - Nunh-huh 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason why Jumbo should not continue to do the valuable wiki-gnome work that he is doing in bringing date formats into consistency with each other and with our style. This has been discussed before on this very board, and it appeared clear that Jumbo was given the green light. We should accept that and move on. I've asked [User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] to drop this issue for 24 hours on a voluntary basis and then see how he feels - though he has not been receptive to the idea. I'm very reluctant to impose a block on a user with clean record, but I think it will be called for if he continues to disrupt edits that conform to good style and continues to revert pages to stylistically worse versions. Whatever he thinks of Jumbo's actions, there is never a reason (except in extreme cases involving banned users or whatever) to revert on an article on point of style to a worse version as defined by our own policies. Metamagician3000 01:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Enforcing your interpretation of consensus by blocking me would clearly be inappropriate. The version I reverted to was not a worse version. That is your interpretation. - Nunh-huh 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If the point is correct that the comma is not coming out in the American format, then that is a specific different issue and Jumbo obviously needs to do it correctly. Of course, I have no objection to Nunh-huh making that correction if it is needed, or bringing it to Jumbo's attention. If that is the problem, then it was certainly not clear to this point. I would apologise to you for misunderstanding this, but you've had numerous opportunities to raise it before now if it's your only problem. If it is your only problem, then of course I see your point of view. Please clarify this. To clarify what I'm saying: my objection is to any reverts that you make from a properly-formatted version of an "American" article to International Dating (or vice versa). Metamagician3000 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The point is correct, but the main point is that it is Jumbo's edits that are disruptive, and, as you have no doubt noticed by now, not universally approved of. His changing of perfectly acceptable format to one he prefers, in an article he's had nothing to do with, as part of a program to enforce style conventions that are in fact not "enforced" but merely suggested as possibilities by the style manual, is inappropriate, and certainly not supported by consensus. His choosing an article, Joseph Earl Sheffield, to which I was the only substantive contributor is, of course, to make a point, and not a very nice point, either. - Nunh-huh 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hang on, isn't this just a basic edit war? Two valid formats. One is American, the other British. MoS supports both. Nunh-huh is reverting to one, and Jumbo to the other, but both are supportable by MoS. I write about British subjects, for the most part, but I use the date format that's natural to me, which is "American." I also prefer to link all dates so that monobook settings will magically make them seem natural to the reader, but we had a similar crusade against linking dates. I had to endure three or so people using -bots to unlink virtually every date, whether a person very much wanted to draw attention to it or not, and now, because they're all unlinked, we're going to get someone else changing from one acceptable format to another? Perhaps it's time for an RFC: "One format for all dates or not?" I'm not a believer in either format, but I have to agree that they're both acceptable, so coercing a change is at least a bit bullying. Geogre 03:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
To the extent that it's an edit war, it's one started by Jumbo who is running a jihad to change date forms. I am resisting the jihad, and agree with you that dates should basically be left as found, rather than changed in a systematic way. If you can think of some other way to discourage this jihad, I am open to suggestions. I had already suggested several times that he try to gauge the feelings of the community on his conformity program, but he decided he didn't need to do this. - Nunh-huh 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we all please just get along? I'm not for one format or another, except that full dates should all be wikilinked so that they show up correctly in user preferences, and for those users who do not have prefs (which is most of the internet) the dates should be in the appropriate format for the article. Conducting edit wars on date formats as a matter of personal preference is just plain counterproductive. We should be working together on improving the quality of the project, and I'd like to see these sorts of issues thrashed out in the relevant MoS talk pages. My beef here is with people going around and reverting my careful changes because they think I'm on a campaign to change WP to my personal format. I'm not. I change jumbles of dates to uniform wikidates in the correct format as per the MoS. I'd like to have a lot more help in this, actually. --06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It's the latter part of your program (all articles must use the date format suggested by the MoS) that is controversial. There is no agreement that month, day, year must be used on so-called "American" articles, and no where else, and that day, month, year must be used everywhere else. The MoS does not assert that there is one "correct" format, and embarking on a program to enforce suggestions is not justified. The way we "got along" before you began your program is by leaving these things alone, and I once again suggest to you, as others have, that the way to "get along" is to stop making those changes. Change date formats only when there is a mish-mosh of styles. - Nunh-huh 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Nunh-huh says that the date comes up for him in a non-standard form. If that is so, then the method you are using is not correct. I think you are doing the correct thing in-principle, but it actually has to work. Is the problem that you are leaving out the comma? It seems to me that you have a fair bit of support for doing what you're doing, but it's hard to give you that support unless it's done properly (though why Nunh-huh couldn't have simply inserted the comma rather than reverting is mysterious to me). Metamagician3000 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he could be right. Dates shouldn't be displayed in an incorrect format for those editors who have set their preferences correctly.
The first two are my preferred formats. I have tested these and they show up correctly for me. The second two have commas included and should show up exactly the same.
With no date prefs set:
  • [[12 March]] [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
  • [[March 12]] [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
  • [[12 March]], [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
  • [[March 12]], [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
With date prefs set to International Dating:
  • [[12 March]] [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
  • [[March 12]] [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
  • [[12 March]], [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
  • [[March 12]], [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
With date prefs set to American Dating:
  • [[12 March]] [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
  • [[March 12]] [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
  • [[12 March]], [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
  • [[March 12]], [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
Is anybody else getting a different set of results? --Jumbo 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the actual problem is that Jtdirl inserted a space character, thusly: June 19. I have not tested it, but I am reasonably sure this is the reason it is rendered incorrectly. - Nunh-huh 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, you've been removing the necessary commas from Month, Day, Year dates. This is wrong, since your (purported) rationale for changing the dates is to make them render "properly" for those who are not signed in. - Nunh-huh 18:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like having a leading or trailing space [[ June 19]] [[2006]] or [[June 19 ]] [[2006]] => June 19 2006 gives an incorrect result. But this is clearly a minor point, easily rectified by removing the space so that it shows up correctly. As is easily seen, removing the comma from the source does not prevent it from showing up correctly in the displayed text. [[June 19]] [[2006]] => June 19 2006
Minor details such as this do not bother me overmuch, but what is perplexing me is your attitude, which is not entirely helpful, and the reason I raised this point here.
You also make much of the fact that the MoS does not say that format changes must be made. Indeed it does not. However, it says that they may be made, and that is the approach I am taking. Your changing of date formats in British articles to American Dating and American articles to International Dating is not supported by any guidelines, and I wonder why you do so when you are not ignorant of the discussion over this point. --Jumbo 22:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The MoS says such changes should be made only for substantive reasons, and the reason you have evinced as substantive is not. The discussion thus far seems to me to indicate a far from unanimous support for the program you have embarked on. I encourage you to reconsider it. As for Joseph Earl Sheffield, I wrote it, I didn't "change" it. It is you who "changed" it. I changed it back, as you had no substantive reason for changing it. - Nunh-huh 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed a biographical article on an American so that it had wikidates in American format. That's completely in line with the letter and spirit of the MoS. If you are trying to assert some sort of ownership of an article, then please reconsider. Each edit page has a warning in bold: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. My edits are in line with the MoS, which is the result of intense and detailed discussions. If you disagree with the MoS, then raise it there, please. The unpleasantness and edit warring over this issue is not something anybody should be happy with. --Jumbo 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of mischaracterising what I say, how about absorbing it and considering it. Your editing is not in line with the spirit of the MoS. I'm therefore doing what you should have done before embarking on your program: making a request to help gauge whether the community prefers the proposition "It is appropriate to embark upon a program to change all dates not in "American" articles to day, month, year, and all dates in "American" articles to month, day, year" over "it is not appropriate to change an article with a consistent date style merely to switch date styles from one to another". - Nunh-huh 00:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Let's see what sort of comments you get. --Jumbo 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana Irey[edit]

For the past two weeks a anon IP has been stalking this article. (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) keeps putting an [ad] tag on a news report. This has been reverted 5 times.[6] Looking at the contr. history the user is pushing POV at D. C. Stephenson and Madge Oberholtzer. C56C 06:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP put it back in. If you visit the talk page and history, a similiar/changing IP has WP:OWN. C56C 06:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed look at the articles for D. C. Stephenson and for Madge Oberholtzer; I was extensively involved in giving them content. Either an edit-gang or one fellow with a several sock-puppets (Grazon?) has subsequently been trying to erase D. C. Stephenson's involvement with Democrats and the Democratic Party. (See the Indiana Historical Society page on their D. C. Stephenson Collection, to which a link has long been present in the External links section of the Stephenson article) for some of the substantiation of Stephenson's ties to both major parties, and earlier to the Socialist Party.) And before C56C (using that account) stepped into the article for Irey, I worked to remove both left- and right-wing spin from that article. C56C nonetheless felt it appropriate to declare the listings of the positions that she'd taken as ad-like, and then to include a critical section which was no less-or-more ad-like. — 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Putting an [ad] tag and reverting it in 5 times is not acceptable in a section discussing her news appearance. Neither is taking quotes from her campaign website and making a section for each issue listed. C56C 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Since what was presented was a selective quotation whose cited source was a political advocacy group, it was no less ad-like than the section that you marked as ad-like. In both cases, we are talking about “what she really said”. And, while I cannot peer into the mind of whomever originally created the Political Views section of that article, it was easier to quickly locate political views of peculiar interest when they were subsectioned. Ease of parsing ought to be a consideration in the writing of any article herein.— 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC) is a stalker troll who needs to be banned. 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No. You're systematically editing articles to disparage one major party — going so far as to claim that the Simpson's character of Mr Burns is based on a politician who was unknown when Monty was created — while erasing any unfortunate ties of persons or events with the other major party. — 04:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC) someone took the "political views" off her website and was written in her words, thsu I added a [ad] tag. You added a [ad] for a word for word transcript of a national news program. C56C 20:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
First, not only is quoting Irey a legitimate part of presenting her (alleged) views; you continued to quote her in your version. The principal change that you effected was to collapse subsections into a single section (making the article somewhat harder to read). Second, if you'd tracked the actually history of the article, you would see that someone with my same ISP (unsurprisingly: me) had already made numerous changes to the “Political Views” section exactly to removed right-wing spin. Third, as you well know, many ads have used selective quotation. Fourth, it was not even just an excerpt from a pure transcription, but had been tweaked with such things as the (false) use of “conclude” to describe Matthews' final quoted remark.
I doubt that the administrators are going to try to bring edit-gangs such as yours under control; I'm not even sure that they could if they wanted. But if they don't, then Wikipedia will be nothing more that a BBS. Indeed, the term “BBS” will better fit it than it does traditional BBSs, exactly because on those systems, while it might have been hard to find content of value, it was not so readily obliterated. — 04:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Writing what you've heard isn't doing anything wrong.

BTW troll also goes by — 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Octagon is a sockpuppet of Young Zaphod?[edit]

I recently became active editing the Hummer page, and noticed shortly thereafter an odd post under criticisms that used a job interview/resume as the basis for GM rolling out the Hummer H3. After going back and forth ( some of his edits were abusively titlely, see the talk pages), while the sentences were still disputed, it was agreed that they belonged on Hummer H3. However, at the same time, the original citation changed ( see the Hummer H3 talk pages). Doctor Octagon's other edits are very strange. Gomco, for example, does not manufacture a Gomco clamp for performing circumcisions. Googling Herbert Elwood Gilliland III turns up Wikipedia sockpuppets of Young Zaphod. All in all, the edits seem bizarre.

All in all, I'm little confused about whether to care, or how to proceed.

cheers, Kristan 03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, he's naming himself after a famous person/performer. Doctor Octagon is/was a legendary "beats" performer along the lines of DJ Shadow. Geogre 03:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It's the same guy. He's got a pattern of inserting references to himself in wikipedia like this. Ehheh 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've started cleaning up after him. He's pretty clearly a sockpuppet to my eyes. Nandesuka 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked him for 5 days -- 2 days for repeatedly removing warnings (after being specifically warned not to do that), and an extra three for this edit. Nandesuka 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:3 Brands[edit]

Hey. I came across a confusing situation with this user. He has been blocked by an IP address ( for being a sockpuppet of User:OzWrestlemaniac. Though this is true, he is a sockpuppet, he has done absolutely nothing wrong since creating this account to get himself banned, plus I'm not sure that IP address should be capable of blocking with the amount of contribs it has made. Can someone verify wether he shouild be banned or not for me? By the way, this user and myself have had some conflict in the past but it has been resolved...I think. Normy132 05:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... You have to have a username to be an admin (in order to block.) The IP just added an {{indefblock}} notice to the user's userpage. Nevertheless, it's an odd block, and I am unfamiliar with the banned user this is a suspected sockpuppet of. I'll ask DVD RW (the blocking admin) to comment here. Grandmasterka 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I figure since I saw Grandmasterka's message to DVDRW that I'll leave a comment too, as original blocking admin back in June. As Normy pointed out, Ozwrestle has had conflict with both himself and Moe Epsilon in the past, to the point of harassment (which was what my original indefinite block on the account was for). I'd just like to comment that DVDRW approached me for advice and I suggested a block as it's block evasion. The new account has also continued to harass Moe, so in my opinion a fully legit block. – Chacor 05:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I was glad to recieve Chacor's advice, as he had placed the original block, and I was unfamiliar with the case. As my summary indicates, I blocked this user for creating a new account to evade the outcome of his disputes in June. It was pretty obvious, after being brought to my attention, that this was the same user that was previously indef blocked for harassment. The discussion that shows this is on my talk page, and if any one has any further questions, please ask. DVD+ R/W 01:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Slrubenstein[edit]

"this is just your own delusion, due to your neurotic splitting of the workd".[7] I asked him to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and stop this, but he continues: "Go ahead and report me. I dare you." "There is no double-standard, only your neurotic splitting."[8]

Please warn him, I want a civil discussion on Wikipedia without being attacked as a person.Ultramarine 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment, I do not think your personal opinions are very interesting, directed at the user you are complaining about, does not seem particularly civil either. While original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, no article could be written without the editors having some opinion on what should be included in the lemma, and this is what the two of you need to constructively sort out. Feel free to report any users that are being unilaterally uncivil, and they will be warned. In the current situation, I would prefer to see both of you sit back, take a deep breath, and take a trip to the museum or the zoo if this isn't something you usually do. Come back when you're ready to have a laugh about the dispute. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that I'm being wikistalked by User:Light current[edit]

I had an altercation with Light current about a week ago (I can find the diffs, they're numerous and all over the place), where I tried to help him out and he ended up getting blocked. When he was unblocked he was unnecessarily unpleasant regarding me and my help so I told him I wasn't going to have anything to do with him [9]. He apologised but I still don't want to have anything to do with him. Lately he has started addressing me personally in response to posts I make on the Reference desks, asking me if/when I am going to 'forgive' him and 'talk to him again' [10] [11] there are more diffs but they're just a chore to find in the ref desks.

But this edit [12] gives me the creeps. I want him to stop and leave me alone, but I feel that asking him myself will be exactly what he wants, because if you look at his contributions, the large majority of them are to threads I am posting to and I think he's trying to draw me out to make any acknowledgement of him. I appreciate any help forthcoming. --Anchoress 01:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you say "OK I forgive you. Please no more weird comments." after one of his ref desk asides? I wouldn't call it stalking as he didn't follow you to the ref desk-- you both have been doing more ref desk answering in recent weeks than anything else, and he seems to be enjoying the social interaction there with lots of people. There are several of us who answer lots of the same questions, and we should all be a little alarmed if it constitutes an appreciable portion of our social lives. alteripse 02:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your POV, and I'm not suggesting he's posting to the ref desks just because of me, but I'm not going to be pestered into giving him an insincere acceptance of his apology. Because that is what he is doing. I've told him several times I'm not going to have anything to do with him, and he continues to try in the most public way possible to engage me. He has never made any attempts to contact me privately, either on my userpage or through email, and the incident that got him blocked was because of a combination of his desire to make his conflict with another user as public as possible and his lack of understanding of how inappropriate his communications were. Listen, maybe it isn't stalking, and if it isn't, I don't mind nothing being done because it isn't impacting my life. But if I say 'I accept your apology, 'kissy kissy' (to quote him) 'we're friends again' (to quote him) 'sure, let's date' (to paraphrase him) just to get him to stop making unnecessary and unwanted overtures to me, that's giving in to bullying IMO. His comments to me are not helpful to the threads they are posted to, and they are not helping to build a better encyclopedia. I'm not asking him to be blocked or to be banned from posting to the ref desks, but I think it's not inappropriate for him to refrain from making the same personal asides to me in pretty much every thread we both post to. Also, really, the 'here is my blood' thing was really creepy. I mean, YUCK. Anchoress 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at my suggestion again. It says "please no more weird comments", not "let's date", "let's be friends", or "kissy kissy". What you do is up to you, but now it looks to me like you two are playing a game. Sorry to have gotten involved. alteripse 02:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh...he is totally making creepy comments. I'd say something but i'm not his favorite person :( pschemp | talk 06:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So how would you feel if somenone didnt accept your sincere apology for something you didnt actually do in the first place and if then they started to say you were weird and complaining about you for trying to make amends and resolve the situation?--Light current 11:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Whats creepy about trying to restore a working relation ship. Over here, if people want more than you can give, we say 'What do you want blood as well?' Not creepy at all unless one is of a nervous disposition. Only trying to joke her along not scare her.--Light current 09:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Anchoress has completely misrepresented the sistuation to everyone in saying I was nasty to her. In fact all my posts were either thanking or apologising to her or trying to cajole as you would a small disgruntled child. Im surprised in the extreme that she has sought to make a mountain out of a mole hill by complainig here.--Light current 09:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The comments are inappropriate, even if made in jest -- Samir धर्म 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Which comments were inapproprate exactly?--Light current 11:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What would you say to him? "Please stop being creepy?" – ClockworkSoul 06:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's clear to me that User:Light current is just trying to be funny, but sometimes comments made in jest can be interpreted in different ways by people. He has already been warned by an administrator about his comments on the Science reference desk page [13] and was blocked for incivility and personal attacks [14] as recently as 2 weeks ago. I know it's fun to try to inject humour into edits in projectspace sometimes, but when many others start complaining about the appropriateness of your jokes, you probably should tone it down a notch -- Samir धर्म 07:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I was just trying to be friendly in a jokey sort of way as you would with an upset child.--Light current 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've left this user a message about it, I agree with Samir. ++Lar: t/c 07:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions[edit]

Speedy Deletions is getting out of hand. 100 pages now, with a blatant copy of a page I tagged over 1/2 hour ago still there. exolon 01:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

C:CSD tends to fluxuate, but it goes down once people take the time to clear through it. Nothing too much to worry about. Cowman109Talk 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, mentioning it here sure makes it empty fast! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:User strip[edit]

Is this really nessecary? I suggest deleting it, it's worthless. — Moe Epsilon 02:56 August 24 '06

Subst then delete is what I think. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Its no different than any of the other hundreds upon hundreds of userboxes out there.--Crossmr 03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Try WP:TfD. Eluchil404 03:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Think WP:GUS as well. (Netscott) 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I read all these comments and the best solution looks like substituting it onto the only users userpage and then deleting it from the Template namespace. Someone will have to delete this though.. — Moe Epsilon 03:12 August 24 '06

Done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

possible sock/meat puppets causing disruption[edit]

Recreated article Jared_Bolton KTM Jared 683 (talk · contribs) on the talk page cites this recently created article as defense of this: Jan_Blackwelder given its recent creation and obvious non-notability, and the users obvious non-knowledge of wikipedia, I'm doubting he just happened to come across it. Creator is likely either one in the same or a friend. Given Foodshin (talk · contribs) few contribs to create that article and remove a speedy from another, they only seem to have one goal in mind here. --Crossmr 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

KTM admits to using someone else's account here [15]. I think I read something against that somewhere, but it should be noted.--Crossmr 03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

this is how the Jan Blackwelder article was found by my brother he told me "i looked under something about speedy deletions that had been challenged and found her" as for my brother using my account I was VERY angry because that is mine to use and not his.

The latest sockpuppet of blocked user Peterklutz?[edit]

Indefinitely blocked user Peterklutz may have returned under the latest sockpuppet name Peterjoe to continue his edit war to include only pro-TM content in the Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and Yog