Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive132

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

Noticeboard archives



User:Netsnipe noticed suspicious activity and suggested I report it here. From my talk page: "Just a warning that a vandal might be wikistalking you. Your request to Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse has now been removed twice without explanation by IdlP (talkcontribs) and Rm104 (talkcontribs)." Followed by: "Even this message was deleted by QFMC (talkcontribs)." At Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse I had posted a request for advice along with a link to this page: User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. The only other activity by User:IdlP was to a featured list candidate where I voted on 21 August. [1] Another new account User:CF18000 deleted posts of mine from two different project talk pages on 21 August. Please investigate. Durova 14:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone else got there first. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What was the upshot? ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Any news? Durova 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been two days now. Could I please have some sort of response or update? At least the username of the investigating administrator? Durova 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have mistakenly assumed that Netsnipe was on the case [2] [3] was watching these users. I also erred in thinking Netsnipe was an admin. However, none of the three users have been active since 27 August, which was when Netsnipe issued his note of advice to Durova [4] and advised a checkuser. The users have been warned for their transgressions. There is no rationale for action if things remain calm - maybe someone can give a second opinion on whether a checkuser is still advisable. Otherwise, let us know if any other new users in your neighbourhood become disruptive. If this is a case of someone playing games, they're likely to try to change their cloak regularly. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. You should have really mentioned this. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me for the lapse. I've never been involved in anything like this before and didn't know I ought to report that here. Durova 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee is abusing his administrative authority[edit]

I wish to file a complaint against InShaneee for abusing his administrative authority. Under the guise of removing "personal attacks," InShanee has deleted comments he disagrees with which are not at all personal attacks. For example, one of the edits he deleted was my argument in support of another administrator, Bishonen: [5] He also removed another section further down that is critical of one of the goals of the Wikiproject Paranormal - the Wikiproject that he appears to run. My comments are directed against the sources that some Wikiproject Paranormal members insist on using for the Natasha Demkina article. Apparently, he's taking this criticism personally and is calling it a "personal attack" so that he can remove it under his authority as an administrator (and threaten me with a block if I revert it - see additional comment below).

Another editor and an administrator has joined in my objection to InShanee's actions: [6] [7] I hope other editors and administrators will also tell him that he should not abuse his administrative authority and that censorship is not a practice welcomed in Wikipedia. If his abuse of authority continues, that authority should be rescinded. Askolnick 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where you're saying he used the admin tools in doing any of this. Well, unless rollback counts, but that's just a shortcut for something anyone can do. Friday (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This is about an admin who removes legitimate arguments/comments and labels the comments as a "personal attack" in order to censor this user. If this user reverts this admin's edits, I'm quite certain he will be blocked by this admin. This is unacceptable behavior for an admin, and I have seen so many complaints against Inshaneee that a desysop should be considered.
Complaints of abuse are normally signs that an admin is doing his job right, but yeah, I can't see how it constitutes as a personal attack, but it wasn't an administrative action; as Friday said, rollback is just a shortcut. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Rollback is only supposed to be used in the case of vandalism; let's get that straight right out of the gate. That particular edit probably should have been trimmed by hand, and by preference commented on rather than excised. -- nae'blis 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There is some consensus on that, but it is not universal, and it is not policy. Generally though, the arbcom does frown upon it. Still, it is not as cut-and-dried as you state. FeloniousMonk 22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, two administrators, User:Friday and User:Sceptre, are unaware of the fact that rollback is an admin-only feature that is supposed to be used only in cases of obvious vandalism? Dionyseus 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that people frequently say that about it, yes. Friday (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is that supposition documented? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Make that three administrators. Rollback is supposed to be used only in the case of vandalism. Dionyseus 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is neither policy nor even a guideline. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The link you reference above says this:"If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to leave an explanation...". DJ Clayworth 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's also stated here: Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary. Mike Christie (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Nor is that policy or guideline, but an essay. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What the hell? That's not an essay. Where's the {{essay}} tag? It's a list of facts, just like Wikipedia:Editing is. Is that now an essay as well? Also, if that's enough, I point to the MarkSweep, Gunaco arbitration case, a rollback revert war that led to Gunaco's desysopping, with MarkSweep "strongly cautioned to use the administrator's rollback tool only when reverting vandalism." Hbdragon88 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it labeled guideline? Is it labeled policy? Did the arbcom say that their caution applied to all admins or was it specific to one in one particular case? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe it's a matter of community consensus, therefore your insistence on a formally stated "policy" is a bit misguided. As for Arbcom's take on the issue, it seem pretty clear, it's been stated in numerous arbcom cases. ([8]). Fut.Perf. 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As is clear from this page, no such consensus exists. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The policy that matters here, IMO, is WP:CIVIL; reverting non-vandalism edits with rollback is potentially uncivil since you are not explaining yourself. (Personal opinion; no AC consensus implied) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Is naything from the RFAR ever labeled as strict, by the rules, policy? (besides user punishments and probation). You just have to infer. Obviously the rampant misuse of the rollback, especially in a revert war, was strong enough that the ArbCom had to say something about it. And in this case, they said only vandalism. I think that applies to all admins, but if you disagree, Ic ould ask the ArbCom for clarification. Hbdragon88 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Dionyseus, the edit summary of the second and third reverts clearly mention disruption. Instead of using the typical anti-admin one liners, "counting who disagrees", and using strawman arguments, why not talk about how those edits where disruptive. Disruptive flaming/vandalism can clearly be reverted. That is why the admin reverted. The actual item in dispute here is whether those edits were really "disruption", which I currently do not agree with the reverting admin on.Voice-of-All 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I left out the part about his threats to block me if I reverted his changes - or made any similar comments like those again. That's abuse of administrative power. IhShaneee appears to believe that he can use his blocking power to stiffle arguments he dislikes. Askolnick 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Bishonen. I don't see anything here obviously crappy enough to use rollback on, unless there is something I missed.Voice-of-All 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, it appears that User:InShaneee is placing unwarranted blocking threats on Askolnick's talk page. [9] [10] Dionyseus 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment of an outsider: InShaneee left a warning for "No Personal Attacks" and threatening a block, pretty much immediately before this note was left of AN/I. Askolnick is not helping the situation by pretty much continuuing a verbal assualt on InShaneee on Askolnick's own talk page. While InShaneee is focusing also on other things (Unblock declining, I noticed), Askolnick is still focusing on the conflict (Hence this discussion). I have the odd feeling that this inter-editor conflict is just going to escalate if both editors remain "Unrestrained".
The first dif I see is sort of unwarranted, since removing even completely idiotic things (Like bots reverting past your revert of vandalism giving YOU a warning) from talk pages is met with (6.5 times out of 10) with a warning on not removing comments or blanking.
This has obviously escalated too fast and too far. Both editors likely fall under Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption of this Wiki. It needs to be made clear that catfights shouldn't be tolerated. Logical2u 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While Inshaneee was justified in removing some of the many links (really, you could have made your point with much more brevity, or created a subpage in userspace to link to), the majority of Inshaneee's rollback was inappropriate, and the blocking threats seem questionable. While rollback can occasionally be used for edits that are not vandalism (occasionally WP:IAR does apply)), in this case it was clearly an inappropriate use of rollback. Furthermore, it seems disingenuous to describe the edits in question as personal attacks, unless Natasha or her representative has edited Wikipedia. While Askolnick needs to be cautioned to calm down and focus criticism on actions, not people, I think a formal review of the actions here is warranted. Captainktainer * Talk 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've at times both admired and found reason to criticize in InShaneee's firmness in enforcing his view of the NPA rule. In this instance, my impression is he's overstepped a line, both in the initial revert and in the way his subsequent warnings and counterwarnings have escalated the situation. I'd say an RfC might be in order. Fut.Perf. 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My involvement with the Demkina article has been off and on for several months (it began with my admittedly bungled first attempt at a MedCab mediation). I have found that Mr. Skolnick quite often steps over the line of civility in his discussion contributions and edit summaries, and has been repeatedly guilty of personally attacking and/or insulting fellow editors, taunting, harrassing editors on their user talk pages, and making assumptions of bad faith. This is just a sample of some of the violations of WP:CIV and/or WP:NPA with which I and other editors (primarily Keith Tyler and Dreadlocke) have had to contend in our attempts to work with Mr. Skolnick to improve the article. I have only recently taken a step to officially warn Mr. Skolnick against making personal attacks, in my limited capacity as an editor.

I do not believe InShaneee's reverts are entirely without justification, as Mr. Skolnick is implying here that Dreadlocke and InShaneee are aligning themselves with "pseudoscientists, psychics, quacks, and other New Age charlatans," and is also implying that they are acting in bad faith. If I recall correctly, reversion of personal attacks is an option for dealing with them, though a controversial one. I don't think this edit rises to the level where reversion is necessary, but I can see why InShaneee would see this as a personal attack and would revert it. I do agree that this reversion was not justified. Skolnick is attacking Demkina's mother's credibility, but not another editor. I have no opinion on the specific method InShaneee used to revert ("rollback," the existence of which I am only newly aware).

Though I do not necessarily agree with InShaneee's recent reversions, I do believe that s/he has acted in good faith, and that, given Skolnick's long history of personal attacks and incivility, a warning from an administrator is long overdue, and will perhaps be heeded where mere editors' warnings have not. At worst, I think InShaneee's warnings were the right action at the wrong time. Rohirok 04:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok, you are ignoring the fact that InShaneee repeatedly threatened to block me if I reverted his improper deletion of my comments.[11] That is an abuse of his administrative authority. Administrators are not allowed to use their blocking power to threaten and intimidate editors who they disagree with. Not a single editor or administrator has supported InShaneee's claim that he removed a "personal attack." The speech he removed was speech he objects to. He then threatened to block me if I put it back. That clearly an abuse of the authority granted to him by the Wiki community. In light of the comments from other editors and administrators who say the speech he removed was not a personal attack, he has modified his reason for removing it (and threatening to block me if I restored it). He now says he removed "disrepectful" speech.[12] I believe InShaneee is further abusing his administrative powers when he stretches those powers to include blocking editors for speech he finds "disrespectful."
Nearly a century ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wisely observed that the best remedy for improper speech is more speech, not censorship. Wiki administrators should uphold that philosophy. Those who don't should not be a Wiki administrator. Askolnick 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:I just noticed that Rohirok has misrepresented my complaint by using a link to only part of the material InShaneee deleted, under the guise that it was a personal attack. Here is the one of my statements InShanee deleted and threatened to block me if I restored it:[13]

Bishonen is on solid ground in her objection to including Natasha's mother's claims that contradict the widely held views of child psychologists and pediatricians. She is also correct about Wikipedia guidelines that warn against including such dubious information without compelling support: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" and among those are "claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community."[71]
In opposition to the prevailing view of the relevant academic community of child psychologists and pediatricians, we have the claims of Natasha's mother - who has already received great profit through the promotion of her daughter as a miracle worker - and who made the clearly false statement her daughter has never ever made a false diagnosis, even though the record shows many of Demkina's diagnoses are false.
Clearly, Demkina's mother has publicly spoken falsely about her daughter's abilities. And her motive for doing so is not just a mother's pride. She and her daughter have already enjoyed great income from Demkina's readings (earning up to 40 times the average government worker's income in Saransk, with her part-time, after-school "job." [72] And she and Demkina stand to reap even greater wealth by convincing people that her daughter's diagnoses are 100 percent correct. Such exceptional, self-serving, and profiteering claims do not constitute exceptional evidence. They are far more consistant with the trumpeting of a quack. Wikipedia is not a medium to be used by quacks to promote themselves. That is why Wikipedia has guidelines concerning reputable sources - such as the one that directs editors to ignore exceptional claims that contradict prevailing views of the relevant academic community in the absence of exceptional evidence. Bishonen is absolutely right. Such self-serving and highly dubious claims do not belong in Wikipedia without compelling support from reputable sources.
I added this comment in support of administrator Bishonen's statement. Disagreeing with it, InShanee falsely called it a personal attack and deleted it. I challenge Rohirok or InShaneee to explain here how that text in any way may be forcefully removed under Wiki's No Personal Attack rule. Askolnick 17:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I struck out the incorrect statements above and I apologize to Rohirok. He brought to my attention that he had indeed mentioned the deletion of this part and that he agreed it was inappropriately removed by InShaneee. It was in a second link that I overlooked. Sorry Rohirok and thanks for bringing this to my attention. Askolnick 03:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Another thing I think is unacceptable for a Wiki administrator is to use his authority in a biased manner. Under the pretense that he was removing a personal attack, InShaneee deleted my criticism of the Wikiproject Paranormal, which he appears to be running. Yet, he is allowing one member there to repeatedly post incenderary personal attacks against editors skeptical of paranormal claims, such as these:[14]
  • "Are the psuedo-Christians up to censorship, again? Andrew Homer 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)"
  • "In your first day in Cultural Antropology class, your professor will inform you about oral traditions. Andrew Homer 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)"
And on the Wikiproject page itself:[15]
  • "The under informed are doing their censorship and harrassment, again (as they continually do in the Astrology article). So, that's why I'm replacing valid material that the psuedo-Christians and the psuedo-academics keep deleting:"
At the risk of sounding like a "pseudo-Christian," InShaneee should remove the log from his own eye before poking his finger in the eyes of others. Leaving his fellow Wikiproject member's personal attacks alone, InShaneee removed my criticism of the Wikiproject and threatened to block me if I restored what he wrongly called a "personal attack." This is biased and inappropriate conduct, which should not be tolerated in any Wiki administrator. Askolnick 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank InShanee for taking action against User:Askolnick who is an abusive, harassing and threatening editor that engages in a constant stream of personal attacks, uncivil and disruptive behavior. Askolnick has used the Pravda.RU debate as a weapon to attack and harass other editors on their own talk pages, [16], [17] repeating the attack on Rohirok on Askolnick’s own talk page [18] and on the Natasha Demkina discussion page.

Askolnick has repeatedly posted reams of headlines and attack material against the use of the tabloid, completely unnecessary when his point was made in the first such posting – much less the fifth, six, or tenth postings of repetitive material – purely disruptive behavior, meant only to harass [19] his opponents: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] (there are more).

Instead of any RfC on InShanee, who acted in good faith and with just cause in his warnings to Askolnick, we should have a user conduct RfC on Askolnick, who has long engaged in personal attacks on other editors, even after friend and foe alike have warned him against this type of behavior. [25], [26], [27], [28], [29].

He attacked and insulted [30] a new Wikipedia editor, Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate and distinguished scientist who has his own Wikipedia article: Brian Josephson.

Askolnick has engaged in a continual stream of personal attacks, commenting on the contributors and not the content, apparently in an attempt to discredit and marginalize those that disagree with him: Here is just a small sample of Askolnick's personal attacks, there are many more: [31], [32],[33], [34], [35],[36]

He has unapologetically pushed forward with his attacks, apparently viewing himself as some type of crusader whose job it is to “drive stakes” into the hearts of his opponents. Not very Wikipedia-like behavior.

Thank you InShanee for recognizing and taking action on the abusive editing by Askolnick. More needs to be done to stop the abuse by Askolnick. Dreadlocke 21:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than explaining to us why he thinks InShaneee's deletions were proper and not censorship, or why InShaneee's threats to block me if I restored what was wrongly deleted is NOT an abuse of InShaneee's administrative authority, Dreadlocke has launched a long string of personal attacks, none of which is relevant to the complaint against InShaneee. If all of Dreadlocke's accusations and insults were true and I were the spawn of Satan, it still would not justify InShaneee's act of censorship and abuse of his administrative authorities. Apparently Dreadlocke believes a bad offense is more effective than a good defense. Askolnick 03:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
One question, and correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t Askolnick’s posts above [37] and [38] attacking Natasha’s mother violate WP:BLP as potentially defamatory material against a living person, or at least lack the sensitivity that Jimbo talks about, making it a comment that should be removed according to WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_negative_material? Dreadlocke 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC).
Consider yourself corrected. Askolnick 03:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Having spent a lot of time today reviewing the history of all this, I totally understand why Askolnick may feel frustrated at the tactics of some editors who have attempted to "take every point", as lawyers put it, however lacking in merit - i.e., require him to prove every little thing that should not even be controversial. On the other hand, he does seem to find it difficult to avoid attacking the good faith of opponents. There is obviously some off-wiki baggage here, but we do expect editors to leave such baggage behind, at least in what they say (we can't try to control what they merely think).
As for the specific material deleted by User:InShaneee, I think most of the material was acceptable, but a small amount of it consisted of unnecessary speculation about the dishonest motives of other editors. I think InShaneee was right to insist that that component of the material remain deleted, but not to insist that all the material remain deleted. To that extent, InShanee overstepped the bounds, IMHO, but not in a way that shows bad faith or requires some sort of investigation.
If my view prevailed, I would allow Askolnick to restore the material in a form that does not cast aspersions on the motives of anyone here. In particular, it should not contain claims to the effect that editors have dishonest ulterior motives in wanting to use particular low-repute publications as sources. It is sufficient to attack the repute of the publications themselves without speculating about the motives of other editors. If the material is restored in that modified form, which probably requires the deletion of only a small number of sentences and phrases, I would, with all respect to InShanee, be opposed to any block and be minded to undo it (but not without due discussion etc.; I'm not into wheel-warring).
I also respectfully suggest to Askolnick that he should, in future, continue to argue his position in a robust way, but without straying into incivility or personal attacks by speculating about other editors' seemingly (to him) dishonest motives. I'm sure that most of his arguments could be put forcefully and persuasively without that current running through them, however much he may feel tempted to include it. In fact, that current really seems to detract from the force of the arguments, by tending to put the focus on personalities. It also makes it difficult for administrators who might have some sympathy for the position that Askolnick finds himself in, but who are also under an obligation to keep order and stop debates from getting personal.
I welcome any views on the above comments. Metamagician3000 10:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Cretanpride and Homosexuality in ancient Greece[edit]

Cretanpride (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been POV-pushing at Homosexuality in ancient Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related pages for a while now, including a bad-faith AfD, and the use of several sockpuppets.

I became involved in the matter on August 24 when I noticed a 3RR violation, and I subsequently tried to address the user's concerns in the article and on its talk page. (I think I had edited the page once or twice before in a fairly insignificant way.) I ended up contributing a fairly major rewrite/expansion of the article yesterday, because although I believe Cretanpride's position was academically unsupported, the article provided insufficient context and might be misread by someone with an insufficient understanding of the subject.

Cretanpride's most recent sockpuppet account is Ellinas (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (confirmed by checkuser). As Ellinas, Cretanpride presented himself as a less extreme advocate of the positions he had previously advocated more rabidly; I don't think that the Ellinas account actually vandalized or violated any Wikipedia policies except the WP:SOCK. Aldux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Cretanpride for 48 hours after Ellinas was confirmed as a sockpuppet. I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could take a look at this situation and see whether a longer block is warranted. I don't really trust my own judgment in this case, in part because I've become an editor of the article and in part because I was fooled by the Ellinas sockpuppet, who I took at face value.

Aside from one suspect edit and one good-faith contribution from the Ellinas account, Cretanpride hasn't edited the Homosexuality in ancient Greece article since his 3RR block. I think the real issue is that Cretanpride has exhausted the patience of the article's regular contributors (see Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece). I'd appreciate any feedback on the matter. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, an anon identifying himself as User:Ellinas has now reiterated on User talk:Aldux that he is only a personal acquaintance, not a sockpuppet, of User:Cretanpride, but that he let Cretanpride use his computer to subvert the block on Cretanpride's IP ([39]). Which might plausibly explain the positive Checkuser evidence but the slightly different personal styles. Fut.Perf. 08:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, allowing the friend to use your computer is absolutely a no-no. First, it's the story usually told by people with abusive sockpuppets. Second, that makes the donor as guilty of block evasion as the recipient. Third, no single account is supposed to be multi-user. Geogre 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if Ellinas and Cretanpride are different people (which I personally doubt), Ellinas meets the definition of a meatpuppet--he has only contributed to the pages that Cretanpride did, and he said that he started an account at the invitation of Cretanpride. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
True enough. To Geogre: I think he said he let the other guy use his computer (hence positive IP identification per checkuser), not his account. But you're right about the aiding-and-abetting-block-evasion issue, of course. Fut.Perf. 14:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The question I suppose we should ask ourselves is whether the Ellinas account should be treated differently if it is a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet. If Ellinas is a different individual (and therefore a meatpuppet), he is guilty only of helping his friend evade the block. Right now, Cretanpride is under a 48-hour block and Ellinas is blocked indefinitely. If Ellinas is a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet, I'd say that was backwards. Allowing Cretanpride to use his computer to evade his block is a no-no, but Ellinas probably didn't know that, and doesn't deserve to be indefinitely blocked for it. Cretanpride, on the other hand, had had the sockpuppet policy explained to him on several occasions, and should have known better. Would anyone object if I unblocked Ellinas and indefinitely blocked Cretanpride? Even if Ellinas is a sockpuppet rather than a meatpuppet, that account has been much better behaved than the Cretanpride account, and the individual behind it might take this as an opportunity to reform. Or am I being too generous? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:SOCK says: "Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." Checkuser found that Ellinas is a sockpuppet; even if this is mistaken (and I doubt that it's a mistake), Ellinas is a single-purpose account. If Ellinas is unblocked, that would be more generous than the stated policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose what I'm suggesting is an application of WP:IAR in the spirit of WP:AGF. If Ellinas were unblocked, I would act as a mentor for that account. And I do think that a longer, if not indefinite, block of Cretanpride would be helpful and appropriate, given the extensive history of sockpuppetry. Put it this way: would you rather deal with Ellinas or Cretanpride on the article? As things stand now, Cretanpride will be returning in less than a day. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but all this assumes that Ellinas is really not a sock of Cretanpride. Personally I find no good reason to believe him, principally because, as, Gerge said, it's the story usually told by people with abusive sockpuppets. Also remember Cretanpride's previous record, confirmed also by checkuser; Cretanpride is habitual to sockpuppetry, and Ellinas is only the last of them. He is only quite habitual to not telling the truth: consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in ancient Greece, where Sac222, checkuser confirmed sock, says: "As for me being the same user, I'm sure the others are, but I am not. I made the account today and I started my first edits. I came across this page and voiced my opinion." Also consider the strange start of Ellinas: "I am a new user. I am not a sockpuppet of Cretanpride"; new users generally don't start with such declarations. Also he "forgot" to say that he was using the same computer of Cretanpride. In conclusion, I strongly oppose unblocking Ellinas; WP:IAR has value only when it is used to better articles, and unblocking an obvious sock will not do this. And as for WP:AGF, it is of no value for socks, and it shouldn't be extended in such an unreasonable way. As for Cretanpride, if no one objects, I will extend his block for a new block evasion, [40], the edits mentioned by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise.--Aldux 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I support Josiah Rowe on mentoring Ellinas, in the spirit of assuming good faith. One of three things will happen.

  1. Ellinas is a separate person, continues to be a good contributor, and doesn't make this mistake again.
  2. Ellinas is a sock, but Cretan takes the opportunity to moderate his tone and editing style.
  3. Ellinas is a sock, picks up where Cretan left off, and gets swiftly blocked by Josiah Rowe.

The third case is essentially the same result as no action at this point, and the first two cases help the encyclopedia. Where's the harm? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, MIB. That's a useful and accurate summary. I assure everyone that if the Ellinas account does act up in any way (excepting today's edits from (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) I'll block it quickly. But I won't unblock Ellinas unless another admin supports it (right now it's one for and one against). —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ellinas (posting as User: has indicated on Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece#One_last_message that he's not interested in having the ban lifted. Perhaps matters should stand as they are; Cretanpride may come back once his block expires, or perhaps he won't. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm really sorry of having to disagree in this occasion Josiah, because I greatly appreciate and admire your work, but I have learned in editing on balcan-topics that good faith should not always be assumed at all costs, when good sense tells, at least to me, exactly the opposite. When a brand new editor emerges exactly on the same day his spiritual brother has been blocked, and interrupts his edits exactly when the block expires, my knowledge of sockpuppetry tells me that the probabilities of the new account being a sock are very, very high. Dozens of socks, even when ascertained by checkuser, have continued to cry me "no, no, I'm not a sock, you're wrong". I've simply heard these stories too many times. Cretanpride has another chance, if he wants to use it; but lets not hide ourselves behind a phantomatic "good user" Ellinas.--Aldux 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well. I'm still agnostic over whether Cretanpride and Ellinas were one person or two, but given the tone of Ellinas' last posting I suppose the question is moot. The manner of Cretanpride's behavior upon his return should indicate something: as Kurt Vonnegut said, "We are who we pretend to be," so if Ellinas was a sockpuppet, then for a few days Cretanpride was a fairly respectful and civil user who showed the potential for becoming a useful Wikipedian, because that's who he was pretending to be as Ellinas. If he could do it then, he can do it upon his return. If, on the other hand, Ellinas was a different individual, then we can expect Cretanpride to be as abusive and abrasive as he was before he was blocked, possibly more so because he will have the "unjust block of his friend" to stoke his fires. (We will also, incidentally, have turned a potentially positive contributor into someone bitter and angry about Wikipedia's lack of openness, but I suppose that's a risk we take in making the "meat=sock" equation.)
It's true that I haven't had extensive experience of sockpuppetry, but I'm a little bit concerned that this time the boy crying "wolf" may be doing so because there really is one. But I won't go against the apparent consensus of my fellow Wikipedians. I suppose we'll just have to see what comes next. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


[[41]] The most egregious action on Barefact's part --- that I have seen, were his false accusations of sock-puppetry against me, and two users[[42]] and [[43]] , for which he had no evidence. I would consider that an attempt to game the system.

He even tried to use his false accusation of sock-puppetry(unproven and untrue) to reinstate a POV article of his [[44]] by saying that it was deleted by sock-puppetry. This is a clear example of lying and deception.

One of his former articles was deleted because of OR [[45]].

Even after an RFIC in Scythians he removed all reference to Scythians being Iranian recently.

The user Template:Barefact puts OR research from his website For example he disfigures quotes: [[46]]. For example the following quote: However, it retained its grammatical structure and basic lexical stock; its relationship with the Iranian family, despite considerable individual traits, does not arouse any doubt. has been taken from this book directly: [[47]] (the first link pg 6), yet he disfigures the quote that has been taken directly from the scholar to a totally opposite quote! He is putting a one man show on the ossetic language, since all the sources Britannica, Encarta, Columbia and all available English sources agree with me, yet he is taking material from his ultranationalist webpage and cut & pasting it. Please ban this user for his disruptive behavior on multiple accounts specially OR, vandalism and false accusation of sock-puppetry and using the false allegation of sock-puppetry in order to change the mind of other administrators about the deletion of one of his false articles [[48]].

Finally there is the admittance of the vandalizing user himself from his own webpage: The following discourse addresses the reasons for the current universal acceptance by the scientific community of the preposition that the Scythians were unambiguously Indo-European, and specifically Iranian speaking, and the methods to reach this conclusion. [[49]] (note the link above is connected and is written by this user per his own admission). Note the user believes that he can go against universal acceptance of scholarly facts in Wikipedia. I have warned him numerous times about [[50]] but with no success. He clearly admits he is going against universal accepted position of scientific community and wants to put his cooked up theories instead of accepting the universal judgment of relavent scholars of the field. --Ali doostzadeh 00:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While I share your concerns about Barefact's disruptive behaviour, I believe you'd better resolve the issue using traditional Wikipedia procedues, such as WP:RFC and WP:RFAr --Ghirla -трёп- 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks but with did an RFC on Scythians and the user still persits in ruining the entery. Also in scythia he broke the 3rr rule (actually 6 revisions within the past 24 hours). He is also making another false accusation of false suck-puppetery [51] (which is the 4th or 5th false accusation). I have reported him for the 3RR violation here: [52]. One of my other concerns is that his site is all POV and lacks scholarly caliber and yet he insists on cut & pasting materials from his site onto wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh 02:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No Block Reason[edit]

Looks like RadioKirk is out and about abusing his admin powers again. If you look on his talk page history and block log, you will see that after Raptor30V1 left him a labor day greeting, he deleted the greeting and blocked Raptor30V1. It seems unimagionable that an Admin would block a user (newbe mind you) just because he does not celebrate labor day, but that seems to be the cas with Kirk. Nanook the Husky 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • User was blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user, see [53] so the block is legitimate. exolon 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Notice this "signed" remark by User:Nanook the Husky actually comes from (talk · contribs); (talk · contribs) was blocked as a massive sock farm per WP:RFCU. Also note this edit during this time by User:TheFerickUser:Nookdog (another of this user's aliases) recently claimed to be User:Ferick resulting in an inadvertent block on my part. This user is a troublemaker of the worst sort, and this ip range needs to be checked for collteral and dealt with. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me begin by saying, "THE HORROR THE HORROR" this so called "RadioKirk" needs to be permabanned NOW, ASAP! His atrocities continue and long will we let this vicious cycle go on. Good 'ol' My Name 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL This user got caught, got checkuser'ed, got pissed, got a new IP and is now trying to "get even". It's time to get a life, Rappy. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust. :) Metamagician3000 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Massive vandalism at article[edit]

Last night, it came to my attention through RC patrolling that Challenge of the GoBots had been vandalized and moved by GoGoGobots (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). This vandalism extended to vandalizing the image used in the article, and having moved the page a total of six times and vandalizing the image in the article four times. GIen had blocked the user for 31 hours, and this user had come off of a 24 hour block a few days ago. I believe that this user's block should be extended to an indefinite block due to the nature of the vandalism and to the extent that page protection had to be performed. Ryūlóng 22:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The user should have been indefinite blocked from the start - indefinite blocked now. Cowman109Talk 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; now if there were only some way to fix the image's history. There's no need for a photo of a K-Mart in there, nor for the empty pages where Challenge of the GoBots was moved to, either.. Ryūlóng 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The empty pages were already deleted, and which image is this you're talking about? Cowman109Talk 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I mean {{deletedpage}} the pages moved to and the image in the infobox needs history fixing. So much vandalism to that one image. Ryūlóng 06:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits by user Taurus876[edit]

It appears that User:Taurus876 created dozens upon dozens of coin articles, most of which contain the same exact content.

A few hours ago, another user requested Taurus876 to add intro paragraphs to his coin articles or else they'd fall under CSD.

However, in the last 15 minutes, he has just bombarded Wikipedia with nearly 30 coin-related articles, all of which contain the same exact material.

It seems to me that he's just mass-spamming, and not providing proper info on each article.

--Nishkid64 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Omg coincruft. The first articles he created are legitimate, but the ones created today are indeed exact duplicates. I've blocked him to stop the behaviour, and will request that he make those articles legitimate. pschemp | talk 00:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It would also seem that he is copying his articles word for word from the US Mint site. Bobby 15:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on historically Black colleges[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has just blanked sections in five articles about historically Black colleges. The vandalism is run-of-the-mill, but the choice of articles to vandalize is not random. -- Donald Albury 01:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't vandalized since last warning. List empty. (Go to WP:AIV next time, even if the articles are not random.) Grandmasterka 02:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Health Sciences Antigua UHSA[edit]

I would like to point out that I am making available, valid information, on the UHSA page; but a certain poster continues to use "finger-thocracy" to decide what is and what is not "wiki-worthy". The links I have contributed are for the most part from State websites that hold legitimate information that is in the public domain, none of the links are "rabbit-outta-the-hat" types.

Thank you. Robo doc 03:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Robo doc has nothing meaningful to contribute. He is copying and pasting links and copyrighted material into my article from other websites only to publicize 3rd party websites filled with ads. I’m surprised to see he is asking for your help. Notice, he recently registered his ID for the sole purpose of posting his nasty remarks and links in the UHSA article.

Thank You again,


Responding on editor's talk page. Grandmasterka 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Public computer?[edit] (talk '· contribs · WHOIS) is apparently an IP registered to Office Depot. According to this topic, it appears that it is registered to all office depots, and can be accessed wirelessly from 1500 feet away. This IP has been used in the past by MascotGuy, and I do not know if this IP should be blocked for being essentially an open proxy/zombie computer/public IP or if it should be left alone. Ryūlóng 06:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What really set me off about this IP is the fact that at any AFDs, it uses really odd edit summaries. Ryūlóng 06:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Just like we don't ban the vast majority of other public IPs (schools, libraries, etc.) I don't see why this warrants a ban, unless it is an open proxy. Just keep a curious eye on it. :-) Others will probably know more about this than I do though. Grandmasterka 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Zayre's Killers a sock of MascotGuy?[edit]

(Note: Moved from AIAV)

  • Zayre's Killers (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - MascotGuy (talk · contribs) Sockpuppet --Ryūlóng 05:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    Can you provide more information here? Perhaps add a note onto the talk of an admin who's more familiar with the situation? As it stands, there's not enough information for me (or for another admin unfamiliar with this user/puppet) to do anything. --Nlu (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    No edit summaries; interest in Wal-Mart; interest in animation; interest in large retailers. More at the LTA page I've listed. Ryūlóng 05:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    MascotGuy is a doppelganger account. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy is where you want to look. Ryūlóng 05:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    I still don't feel comfortable enough blocking, as someone who's not familiar with MascotGuy. I won't complain if another admin does, but perhaps submit it to WP:RCU? --Nlu (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do at RFCU about this user because it's been done and he utilizes whatever computer he is next to. Ryūlóng 05:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    Yep, it's him. I'm not massively familiar with this particular sockpuppeteer, but comparing his edits, those of his most recent sockpuppets, and the characteristics listed on the LTA page, it's pretty obvious. Blocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    enjoy using the LTA page while you can, Doc Glasgow is proposing to delete them all. pschemp | talk 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeated blankings by an IP editor[edit]

List of countries by military expenditures is constantly blanked by a single IP editor. Although he appears to be improving the article, his repeated blankings do more harm than help. I don't think it's AIV or RFPP material. Ryūlóng 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked. It looks like an unfair block to me, as far as I can see he's been removing a couple of small sections from an article that he has been editing for weeks. I see no large scale blanking at all. I'm going to assume these has been some technical problem where he appears to be blanking but isn't and undo the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to urge my fellow admins to think before blocking, and everyone to think before accusing someone of vandalising. How likely is it that someone who has been adding info to an article for weeks would vandalise it? I hope we haven't scared away a good editor here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he is adding info to the article, but his latest additions are a duplication of one of the top sections and this one is placed beneath the refs and the see also and all of that. I know that he's contributing, but he's affecting the article adversely as well, and we have not been able to contact him through his talk page. Ryūlóng 20:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Circumvention of WP:CITE[edit]

Filed a mediation request at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-15_Immanuel_Kant. It was closed with the statement "it would appear that User:Spinoza1111 is trying to circumvent WP:OR and WP:CITE quite unilaterally" and was referred here if needed. User:Spinoza1111 has not yet tried to circumvent the policy at the article in question but he is now posting to the discussion at the mediation page, bashing me, Wiki policy, and the mediation process. He wants the mediation re-opened. If he takes up his old habits, I don't believe that discussion betweem he/she and I will be productive if he doesn't accept WP:CITE. Amerindianarts 08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Saw this on AIAV:

I have blocked the account and left an appropriate message on the Talk page. Might be worth keeping an eye on them in case anything productive can be salvaged. The Land 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to move "Benoît Chamoux" into production[edit]

I created a simple page on the life of French Climber who died in 1995. When I try to move it into production I am told that I am not logged in. Even after I log in the message is the same. This is my first contribution so I a bit confused by the procedure? Thanks, CCC -

Benoît Chamoux seems to be "in production". You seem to be signed in as User:Cclauss. Have you tried clearing your browser cache, by either holding down the Shift key as you press Reload, or closing and reopening your browser? AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Many reincarnations of User:Leyasu[edit]

I've been blocking reincarnations of the banned user Leyasu all day; some are listed on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Leyasu. His messages to me and on WP:AE indicated clearly that they came from him. He is claiming on my talk page and WP:AE that Deathrocker is constantly violating his revert parole, which was set in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. Could someone other than Leyasu please look at Deathrocker's contributions during the past several days to see if there are any revert parole violations? (Keep in mind that WP:3RR does not apply to reverts of banned users.)

Is it appropriate to indefinitely block all of the IPs that Leyasu uses? He seems to be on a dynamic IP, but the IPs he uses have no other contributions. Also, I'd really like some other admins to start watching him; I don't have enough time to do it all day. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He uses British Telecom, so indef blocking is out. You're probably stuck with 24 hours, and should probably only block anons and account creation. I'm also looking into the report at WP:AE but in an advisory capacity since I'm not an admin. Just because the report was posted by Leyasu doesn't mean Deathrocker is totally innocent--it does need checking and I'll do that later tonight. I have asked Deathrocker why he is using so many IPs lately. It's not a crime to edit while logged out but it looks odd for sure. Also, while 3RR does not apply to reverting edits of a banned user, I'm not sure that escape clause applies to 1RR parole when the reverter and revertee have a long history of conflict. I've asked for clarification at WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Someone claiming to be w:RadioKirk is currentally causing mass vandalism on Wikiversity. We need an admin there, and w:RadioKirk needs to be blocked or explain who this is. Mr. Professor 19:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that that guy's an impostor. I'd agree that Wikiversity user RadioKirk needs to be blocked, but I doubt that Wikipedian RadioKirk has anything to do with it, so you should probably ask a Wikiverstiy admin for help. -- Vary | Talk 19:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sir, you seem to disregard the sevarity of the vandalisimg preformed by this so called "RadioKirk." You need to have an admin end his massive cross wiki "trolling" project, once and for all. I highly suspect that he is the mastermind behind the Rappy, Nookdog, and MyName vandals, as they always seem to be picking on him. He needs to be checkusered against them, and as an admin it is his obligation to do so. OUT Mr. Professor 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree this is very likely an imposter. There has been, apparently, no attempt to take action on Wikiversity. I don't see why the proper avenues on Wikiversity were not pursued before throwing around allegations here against an editor in very good standing. The chances of this being an imposter trying to cause trouble for User:RadioKirk are high. I see no evidence to suspect RadioKirk is involved in those cases, and indeed am surprised that a Wikiveristy user with no record on Wikipedia has such an intimate knowledge of an old vandal case as you do. Gwernol 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The real RadioKirk has always been a very Wiki-dedicated and by-the-rules kind of guy - there's no way this could be him. wikipediatrix 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have requested that my fellow Wikiversity editors come to this page to aid in the investigation. They should be here shortly. Mr. Professor 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. You requested my imput: This RadioKirk is causing mayhem on Wikiversity. I'm not sure weather ot not he is the same as w:RadioKirk. However, w:RadioKirk's imput on this conversation would be appricated, and from there we can decide for or against a checkuser. The Great Teacher 20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoever registered as RobertKirk on Wikiversity has been blocked and his vandalism reverted. This was done within minutes of the actual vandalism occurring. It's policy at Wikiversity to delete user and talk pages of infinitely blocked users. sebmol 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This checkuser would like to ask that Mr. Professor/The Great Teacher/Uncle Eff pick one account and stick with it. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Mr. Professor has no significant edit history on Wikiversity prior to this incident. This appears more like a trap for RadioKirk than a genuine complaint to me. sebmol 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This thread is trolling. Ten to one the trolls here are the same as the vandal on Wikiversity. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember a similar incident on Wikinews when an imposter registered "RadioKirk". It did vandalism, was blocked, then the account was transferred to RadioKirk. —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Radio Kirk, what side are you on? You can say what you want, but only Checkuser can prove it. Mr. Professor 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked Mr. Professor indef here as an obvious harrasser of RadioKirk, and also seeing that he was also blocked indef in wikiversity. Jaranda wat's sup 20:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Accounts all created within minutes of each other (notice my impostor on Wikiversity was created two minutes [!] before Mr. Professor and 31 minutes before The Great Teacher were created here) on perhaps the only remaining Wiki I hadn't joined yet. Also check my talk page history; with no question whatsoever, this is Raptor30/Rappy30/Nanook/Nookdog/etc./etc./etc. (read up to "No block reason" on this page). I can think of nothing more sad than a determined vandal who gets pissed because I (and others) stopped him, and who is now wasting his life in an effort to "get revenge" (again, read my talk page history). Sad indeed... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it awesome when you're hated enough that submorons will go through all this trouble just to get you blocked? --Golbez 22:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It's almost flattering. Grandmasterka 23:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Emphasis on the "almost" ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

massive spam attack[edit]

please see recent contributions by these people

they look like spam proxies to me so please ban indefinitely if so Yuckfoo 19:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

also many more are popping up so it could be best to block the url domain too Yuckfoo 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
We can't range block. We could add the website to the spam blacklist but I can't recall how to do it. Watch and revert. I'll block the above 4 but I figure a temp block sufficient. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)+
ask mackensen or someone else to permanently block if they are proxies Yuckfoo 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Open proxies should be indef-banned. I have listed one of these at WP:OP. I'll check the others when I have a chance, but they should also be listed there and indef-blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Prove to me that they are open proxies and I'm happy to block them myself. In the meantime I've blocked them all for a month. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've listed them all at WP:OP. For proof, telnet into port 8080 or follow the convenient links at WP:OP. Maybe try [54]. My reply wasn't really directed at you - it was part edit-conflict. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Suspicions of libel[edit]

While the "other notorious elephant" page was listed as a hoax, I ran across something on the talk page that I suspect is libel. This is the diff where I removed it: 21:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To count as libel it actually has to be believable. Those comments are just dumb trolling. Dragons flight 21:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Concur. Nothing to see here. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Edit war. Warned numerous times. Made sandbox crash. Hope you dont think Im being too pushy since he's not messing with my pages--Concerned User 23:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Clyde Wey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was briefly blocked for being an impostor of Cyde, and then unblocked on AGF. A CheckUser I have just run shows that the account was very likely created by Syphonbyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), an editor with whom Cyde appears to have had a dispute, for harassment. The impostor account is now reblocked, but I leave it up to you to decide what to with the creator of the account. Dmcdevit·t 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Syphon for 48 hours. I would not object if another admin feels a need to lengthen this block. JoshuaZ 18:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
User has requested a review on their talk page, I reviewed it, declined to lift, and support this block. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
48 hours seems about right for a first offense of this nature. Hopefully he will realize he is now on a short leash and any more sockpuppets will escalate the ban. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you may want to check this out for more suspected sock activity. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For impersonation of an administrator and sockpuppetry (verified by RFCU ) combined with trolling this editor has been indefinitely blocked by User:Samir (The Scope):

  • Endorse: This is one community ban that should be enforced. (Netscott) 12:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Evasion: user syphonbyte evades the block by editing with his alternate account User:Gotem. He has only edited his talk page so far[55], but that edit was to remove the reference to his other username syphonbyte. Fram 19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Goodness, that's quite an assertion. I don't see problem with making productive edits or removing a reference to my friend's page, as he was banned now, (most unfortunately) so there's no point in having a link to his page. I'm his (blood) brother, I took him to the med center when he was injured at the statue. Gotem 01:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah right. The user page stated that syphonbyte used this as an alternative account, and it suddenly gets back active after syphonbyte is indef blocked. What a coincidence... By the way, this means that syphonbyte either lied when he said that Gotem was an alternative account of his, or that he did not lie then but is nlying now and evading his block. Either way, it does no good for his case... Fram 14:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Timacyde (talk · contribs)[edit]

Could someone take a look at Timacyde? It's very suspicious - he has a forged welcome note from Cyde on his talk page, and then he transcluded User:Syphonbyte/Holdem onto it. I'm thinking he may be a sockpuppet of Syphonbyte. He has more weird stuff in his contribs. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef for trolling -- Samir धर्म 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks as though Syphonbyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is evading his block here. This page created by Syphonbyte: User:Syphonbyte/Holdem relied upon this image Image:HoldemifJEWgotem.jpg uploaded by Timacyde. (Netscott) 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Timacyde is now abusing the {{Stop}} template to the point of freezing browsers on his talk page, so I would recommend that that be protected. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that image had an interesting history. (Netscott) 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Page protected by The Anome -- Samir धर्म 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Back (and blocked) as Edy_C._Syew (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) with the same image. (Netscott) 00:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If User:Clyde_Wey and that user name's corresponding talk page could be protected that'd be hepful too. (Netscott) 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Userpage has been protected. I'm not seeing any pressing issues with the respective talk page, however. El_C 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Tis a bit odd that Clyde Wey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is active at the same time as this latest batch of socks. I'm starting to think that Syphonbyte (talk · contribs) is heading for an indefinite blocking. (Netscott) 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
(Reindent): only a suspicion, but seeing his vehement defense that the latest bunch are not syphonbyte but some of his friends, he probably is right. He is always working together with User:The Raven, User:PhoenixPinion, and some other ones (User:The_Raven_is_God, User:Polfbroekstraat, User:Gotem, and to a lesser extent User:Charlesxavier). There is also some connection to User:578 alias User:EdYlC (yep, Clyde spelled backwards)... I have run into them a few times before, and they have exhausted at least my patience (which may be a lot faster than community patience, of course). Fram 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I also had an encounter with the guys Fram mentions. Most of them seem to be students at the same school. A lot of meat puppetry is going on here, I think - some of them are inactive for weeks and then re-appear out of the blue to support Syphonbute or the Raven. There is a little sockpuppetry going on too (eg I still wonder whether User: was not really one of the four guys behind the Belgian hoax articles). But no, there are real people behind most of these names (except for User:Gotem which User:Syphonbyte has acknowleged as an alias).--Pan Gerwazy 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A warm thank you for all editors / admins involved in stopping this! Fram 12:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
And a warm this is only be beginning for those of you who knowingly took part in this scheme. You can run one user off Wikipedia, but you can't erase the good that I did for the encyclopedia. I'm only going to do more good, the name I do it under is irrelevant. 20:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Political Cantankery[edit]

I have a slight hunch that a local politician may have attempted to use Wikipedia for his own political gain. I know this isn't exactly vandalism, but I am unfamiliar with the protocol in place for this situation. The user in question is Stampedem. The contributions in question have to do with the Eliot Shapleigh, and Dee Margo articles. These two men are both candidates for a seat in the Texas Senate, and as you can imagine, this sort of conduct has arrisen. I reverted some of the changes this user made too the Shapleigh article, and am currently researching the portions of his/her contributions I did not revert. I will document my findings on any other revert on the article's talk page. I also left a message on their talk page on the topic. Getting to the Margo article, what raises concern is that not all the contents of the article are exactly true. I have already tagged the article with {{Unreferenced}} and {{Not verified}}, and will be going through it over the next couple of days to check the facts. Also, although the author attacked the Shapleigh article with a sort of smear-campaign-style contribution, only a sentence of the Margo article deals with the upcoming election. In all honesty, Margo is somewhat of an unnotable person--although accomplished, his most notable quality is that he is running for a position as Texas senator. Hence, I also marked the article with {{Importance}}. I need to know how to attain the IP of a user, that way, I may run a trace to see if this user is indeed who I think they are. Please, if you have a moment, look into this situation. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Somnabot 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Only people with checkuser permission can do that... See Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser. Otherwise, it seems like you're doing the right thing by yourself. You can also warn them about WP:NPOV and possibly WP:AUTO. If the problem persists after that, come back here. Grandmasterka 01:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
If these folks are merely candidates, then both articles should be on AfD, IMO, where candidate pages are pretty routinely sent to the bit bucket. If they're both independently famous and important but charge and countercharge are in the news, you might also look at the Slashdotted article -- depending on how many spurious edits you think the articles are getting. After the Mark Taylor (politician) situation (and I mean the Wikipedia article) hit CNN, other politicians will no doubt have learned a "lesson" about politicizing us. I agree that we have to be extremely vigilant. Geogre 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I am continuing my efforts in regards to this matter. I have replaced all three tags after Stampedem removed them, and expained why on the discussion page. I'll keep you all up to date. Somnabot 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The user continues to fight my changes, and seems to be unfamiliar with civility. I continue to explain my perspective to him/her on the discussion page, yet he/she keep fighting me. Please help. Somnabot 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I gave her many, many chances to change her attitude and editing style before reporting it, but Thewolfstar is back, this time in the form of Whiskey Rebellion, making the same strange edits. See her talk page and contribution history for evidence. This one seems like a no-brainer, but I would like to have others take a look into it. --AaronS 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a complete no-brainer (assuming it's Maggie, she's gotten a lot smarter), but a Checkuser may be in order. There's a suspiciously advanced knowledge of Wikipedia markup, combined with a similarly tendentious (though toned-down compared to previously) editing style. Watching Maggie's initial meltdown (I didn't participate (much?), but watching was more than enough) was deeply unsettling; it wouldn't be pleasant to watch it happen again. However, we need to be absolutely sure before we do anything drastic. Captainktainer * Talk 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
To help with this, perhaps you should take a look at User:Lingeron's edit history. She was also a sock puppet of Maggie, and was also a bit more careful. The fact that she has toned down a bit is the reason why I waited so long to report anything to WP:AN/I. But I've been dealing with her for weeks, and it's pretty obvious to me, now, that she's a sock puppet (and my initial hunches tend to be correct regarding sock puppets, anyway). She's doing the same old thing, accusing people of being part of a communist conspiracy, calling them anti-American, claiming that there's an anti-American bias imposed by America-haters, and so forth. She's also highly sensitive, and lashes out quite a bit, per usual. Now she's accusing us of editing while drunk. --AaronS 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, AaronS, it was DTC who first made the observation that you and Blockader were editing Wikipedia while drunk. This is evident by your conversations on talk:Anarchism. You both sound drunk and have all but admitted that you edit while drinking. I'm sorry that you think I am this (these) users. I'm just not and it's frustrating that you've driven good users away with your constant accusations like Two-bitSprite. As far as knowing markup, I've already explained to Bunchofgrapes that I've been using computers for 11 years, (since I was 9 years old), and can do quite a few things concerning their use. Another thing that you mentioned, the anti-American thing, This user says she is anti-American on her page, and this user also claims to be 'un-American'. That is what started me wondering and saying such a thing! I never said there was a communist conspiracy. What a thing to say! I have also, btw, been accused of being possibly User:RJII and User:Hogeye here: User_talk:Bunchofgrapes. Whiskey Rebellion 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. As far as the facts are concerned, Two-Bit Sprite and I got along together quite well, actually, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. When you work a lot on an article and get to know all of the editors there, the bad with the good, it becomes easy to recognize who's whom. It's like reading the same few authors over and over again. After a while, you can be presented with a short paragraph from an unnamed book, and, without much effort, name the author and title. Regardless, I don't consider myself to be one of the partisan editors; it's just that I consider the actions of the partisans on one side to be a bit more offensive than the partisans on the other. Needless to say, I get along quite well with everybody from both sides of the spectrum, save a couple of editors who have been notoriously nasty to all who disagree with them. --AaronS 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I brought this issue to Bunchofgrapes' attention a week or two ago (now in the archive), but at the time they didn't seem it was clear enough to block yet. Also see User talk:Bishonen for another conversation (also in archives). Anyway, they have definitely toned their edits down as mentioned above, although it has gotten worse the last few days. I however am convinced this is thewolfstar. I also think DTC and That'sHot should be checked into as well (DTC is accused of being an RJII sock, and I also mentioned this on both Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes' talk pages), but am not as confident as with Whiskey Rebellion. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It could very likely be her. One way to find out is if she comes here to WP:AN/I and starts posting about my crappy edits, my slanderous statements about others, or simply about the fact that I don't know the name of Trunk Highway 100 which is located in Minnesota. (Or is it SPUI who's supposed to make that complaint? I forget.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me. The account name is straight out of Maggie's farm. (Read about the Whiskey Rebellion: it's her kind of topic.) The evidence is certainly clear enough for a check user. Since enough folks are questioning the identification here, we'll need to RFCU before blocking, I suppose. Geogre 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. I thought that was obvious enough though. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 01:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Me, too, but it's a good thing, generally, that we do the RFCU if there is any doubt, and that the question came up here, first. This way, we can tell the overworked, good humored folks at check user that we aren't bothering them frivolously. Geogre 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


This user is busy in with a elaborate campaign of POV violation, which lies beyond the scope of this noticeboard. His methods of complex vandalism do not: the user is extremely fond of Wikilawyering, using it mainly to strike sources opposing his views from articles, especially the old problem article of Anarchism. He has made a complex 3RR violation striking an excellent source (a violation so complex no admin made a judgement). He insists on removing a slew of sources, some impeccable, despite my repeated pleadings for him not to and explanations as to why not on the talk page. Later other editors gave fuller defenses of some of these sources here which the user has ignored in striking them from the article, unilaterally, first one excellent source, then a bucket of sources (as he had before). Having thus removed sources opposing his POV he frames his POV as the scholarly consensus. Due to his dishonesty (he claims, twice, to have read all the sources and not have found the claims in question) his aggressive misrepresentation of sources (as discussed in the talk page) and of Wikipedia policy (concerning what is an acceptable source) I believe it impossible to consider his acts as those done in good faith. I ask for administrator intervention explaining to the user the unsuitability of manipulating Wikipedia in this way, since he has been edit-warring for weeks and has brushed off all attempts at mediation (note how his list of "verified" sources is unchanged since a week ago, despite some of these sources being justified on the talk page in the mean time). I have not mentioned all the details here for conciseness - I can be contacted for a fuller explanation of the points on my talk page. Thank you in advance --GoodIntentionstalk 06:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Now for the real story. You're the one that put in those sources and I gave you ample time to come up with page numbers so they could be verified but you couldn't do it. Why couldn't you do it? Because you never accessed the sources. You took them out of another Wikipedia article, which you admitted. Apparently you don't know that information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. If you cite a whole book and claim that somewhere in there is the specific claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, how is anyone to verify that? I looked through some of those books and I didn't see the claim in them. And you didn't either. The burden is on you to show that you allege to be sources actually are. You need to give us a page number, and a quote as well would be better. When and if you do, I'm going to look it up in the book to verify it. If you assume bad faith, that's your problem. I haven't given you any reason to assume bad faith. I have even deleted sources that were claimed to say anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, because I went to verify it and it didn't say what it was alleged to say. But if you want to assume bad faith, go right ahead. Your assumption of bad faith is not going to stop me verifying the sources and deleting any that can't be verified. And yes, please send us some intervention, preferably from someone who cares about Wikipedia having reliable information. DTC 06:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not asking for intervention in a content dispute, but for someone do address the violations of WP policy (through manipulation of sources) that DTC has been guilty of. The content dispute is a different matter, and as old as the hills. It's made unmanagable by the edit-warring of this single-minded bad-faith editor. --GoodIntentionstalk 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[edit] began by adding speculation and unsourced statements at Lexington, Kentucky which was removed several times by myself and another user. The IPUser argued and began digging through my user contribution list, editing Louisville, Kentucky, Urban exploration, Big Dig, The Atlantic Paranormal Society, Waverly Hills Sanatorium, Parapsychology, and University of Kentucky. The IPUser was given clear instruction on proper procedure at Wikipedia regarding the original incident, but ignored all suggestions. He was then warned after vandalising numerous pages and the IPUser has gone as far as to remove the warning templates. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I also reported it earlier at the Mediation Cabal, to which the IPUser has already vandalised with irrelevant garbage. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing spreading over several article. Also engaged in taunting editors with uncivil play on their user name. --FloNight 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

User 999 thinks he owns wikipedia[edit]

I don't have to do anything, newcomer. I suggest you take it easy until you learn the ropes. I'll be happy to get you blocked if you need a lesson. Have a nice day. -999 (Talk) 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

really? Thank you for the threat, you will be reported to admins.--Shravak 22:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC --Shravak 22:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, 999 doesn't seem to be brimming with good cheer, but that was part of a three revert rule warning. Please try to work out your disagreement on the article's talk page, respond graciously to requests for citation, and avoid getting grumpy notes about edit warring on your talkpage by not edit warring. Jkelly 22:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Shravak, you are not the first person that 999 has been uncivil towards so I've asked him to be more polite in future. However, I must also point out that 999 has very strong evidence of sock puppetry against you. I must also warn you that sock puppetry is a much stronger offense than incivility. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that because the user is rather new, some lineancy is called for. I did block him for 3RR, though, as he was propperly warned. El_C 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on Nixer[edit]

As once stated on this noticeboard, I was unfortunately involved in an edit conflict at the article on Pluto with Nixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This resulted in one of two WP:3RR reports filed against me by Nixer, both of which were deemed pointless in blocking me for disruption of Wikipedia three hours after I had stopped, in which the first case, he editted the outcome twice to remove the "Not blocked" and again to "No consensus" not half an hour later.

When I found that Pluto had been reverted to one of Nixer's versions, again, I rewrote the intro, which led to the above mentioned second AN/3RR filing. This reversion made me suspcious and I filed an RFCU on Nixer, and it was proven that Verger (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of Nixer. Because of my own, and administrator's involvement in trying to discuss this with Nixer, and his subsequent 24 hour blocks for 3RR and disruption and sockpuppeteering, Nixer filed an RFCU on myself and, which we both proved to be useless and used for fishing (we both supplied our IPs from however we managed to retrieve them, and by my contacting Voice of All, he left a clerk note stating the fishing reason).

Nixer has been blocked on and off for the past year because of WP:3RR and other violations, totalling up to 918 hours and 15 minutes (over 38 days) (give or take, due to blocks and unblocks) and in the recent week has (to the best of my knowledge) just been trying to get me blocked to make a WP:POINT, by saying "It seems the rules completely obsolete in Wikipedia: some users allowed to do what they want and others arent allowed anything," or "( is obviously a friend of Ryūlóng."

I do not know if this user has exactly exhausted the community's patience, or not, but he has surely exhausted mine and's. With such an extensive history of 3RR, sockpuppeteering, and other such violations under Nixer's belt, I believe that the community should decide upon such an action (if need be, I will try to file an ArbCom, but input on anyone who was involved in the prior "Revert war in pluto" conversation to comment here). Ryūlóng 00:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • After reviewing the evidence it appears to me that the project would benefit from banning User:Nixer. Temporary blocks have obviously had no effect on him. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Nixer simply does not respect the rules of this community and should have no part of it. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. The user has been blocked over 20 times in one year (from yesterday), all for 3RR and edit warring. The lesson has not been learned, dispite intervention by other users. It is with heavy heart that anyone should be community banned, but this takes the cake. Teke (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nixer's RFCU request did have one shiver of light. The need for a checkuser to strongly reject/decline a request was seen. I created this new RFCU template after talking with Mackensen: Rejected --Kevin_b_er 04:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree This users attempts at calling to points in policy and ignoring the spirit of the same gets no sympathy from me, we allow too many breachers, pointers and provocateurs already. --Alf melmac 07:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh dear, it's an either or situation. Certainly, his block log is a complete train wreck of 3RR violations, and he shows absolutely no sign of being able to modify this disruptive behaviour. Something needs to be done however, and if it's not a community ban then his behaviour must be examined by arbcom. His recent behaviour before and after my recent block of him is completely unacceptable, including sockpuppet abuse and frivolous RFCU requests in spiteful retaliation. As a recently involved admin I offer no opinion on a community ban, leaving that to others. I will of course participate in any RfAr if submitted, or possibly even get round to it myself, time permitting. Ryūlóng seems to have provided all the necessary diffs, but if anybody needs further info re my involvement, drop me a note. 08:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest an RfC in the first instance, and a warning that there will be a one week block for the next violation of any kind. This does appear to be a serial violator of 3RR, but I see at least some sign that perhaps a productive editor might exist underneath it all, although edit-warring over what he appears to see as the appalling crime of calling Pluto a dwarf planet (which it is, according to the IAU) surely qualifies for WP:LAME. Just zis Guy you know? 11:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I posted a pointer to this discussion on Nixer's talk page. Hopefully he will take heed of comments here, respond appropriately and move on. Let's wait and see. 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Nixer can really be a pain to deal with due to his stubbornness, but he has a number of good contributions and in my opinion he in general was an asset rather than a liability. I am against indefinite community block on this stage but I would support some limiting of his edit warring (e.g. 1RR or 2RR instead of 3RR) as well as some sort of a formal mentoring ( I volunteer to be a mentor, but I would need an assistance from somebody in a Moscow timezone). If we need a formal Arbcom decision for this, I would support the Arbcom. abakharev 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If Alex and another are willing to mentor him then giving him one more chance might make sense. JoshuaZ 22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

BLP, odd cats, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and 3rr[edit]

User:Liftarn was reported for a 3rr vio at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; he was continuously removing category:Holocaust denial and Category:Anti-Semitic people, claiming that these removals were valid as per WP:BLP and therefore not subject to 3RR. Due to the fair number of sources in the article documenting Ahmadinejad's disdain for Israel and etc., I don't really buy it; however, i blocked him for only 6 hours, out of good faith and in the hopes that they could maybe chat about this on liftarn's talk page. Some people are unhappy with this. So i figured i'd bring it up here. Liftarn continues to claim that his reverts are not subject to 3rr, while other editors feel i didn't block for long enough.

But i'm not looking for a resolution to this content dispute; i have some specific questions:

  • what are the limits of WP:BLP, and what happens when someone believes they are using it legitimately and others disagree?
  • How can a category such as Anti-Semitic people possibly exist, containing living people, in a npov fashion, not impinging on BLP guidelines? how do we decide--even with sources--whether or not someone is an anti-semite in a situation such as this?

thoughts? --heah 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see how it's possible for Category:Anti-Semitic people to mesh with WP:BLP. Especially unnaceptable is its statement that "Wikipedia defines anti-semitism as X." That's original research, boys and girls, and the worst possible kind: it's for the purpose of labelling people with a highly-loaded term. It could be replaced, I suppose, by Category:People who are called Anti-Semitic or Category:Allegedly anti-semitic people—which would have the criterion that some notable source had called them Anti-Semitic. This criterion, unlike the current one, is at least self-consistent under NPOV. -- SCZenz 00:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This category has been nominated for deletion 4 times and each time resulting in no consensus to delete or rename. It sure as hell isn't going be ironed out on WP:ANI either. I can clearly see why Liftarn can easily justify to himself why 3RR wouldn't apply to him either. I think the proper thing to do here is keep it reverted (since the Category still exists) and together start a discussion/debate on WP:RFC so we can finally have a policy to work with in future, because I can see this definitely happening again and again in future. --  Netsnipe  ►  00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A very valid point. One thing I note is that it hasn't been nominated since before WP:BLP became a widely-known official policy, and it may no longer be consistent with our current mechanisms of handling biographies of living persons. I'll look at the category a bit more and possibly re-nominate it. But yes, this isn't the place to discuss it; if anyone wants to argue with what I wrote above, or discuss the general issues here (rather than the specific incident), please direct that to my talk page. -- SCZenz 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) should be unblocked here. His edits were quite certainly in good faith relative to WP:BLP. (Netscott) 01:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Whatever shred of "good faith" one can attest to his reversion of the anti-Semitic people cat, despite all the evidence on that, does not apply to his reversion of the "Holocaust denial" category. In that regard he was engaged in a one-man reversion war. He had zero support for that reversion on the talk page. For that alone his block should have been far more than the six hours imposed. That was no way a good-faith invocation of BLP, by any way shape or form. I think Heath errs is treating reversions for the anti-Semitic cat and the (relatively uncontroversial) Holocaust denial cat as being equivalent.--Mantanmoreland 01:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It's up in half an hour, and his continued removal of Category:Holocaust denial wasn't problematic under BLP. Which is why i still went ahead and imposed a short block. SCZenz pretty much echoes my views, but BLP wasn't applicable to everything going on with the reverts. --heah 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
In this rename discussion the majority of views were either for rename or delete on Category:Anti-Semitic people. I imagine in DRV that renaming might go through.... I'm not really sure why the renaming wasn't instituted. (Netscott) 01:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly. The admin who closed discussion noted that "there is consensus for the category to exist." Actually it was nominated again two weeks later, and more voted to keep unchanged than to rename. [56] --Mantanmoreland 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)