Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive137

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

Noticeboard archives


Davkal again[edit]

I blocked Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for a week on September 9 for outrageous personal attacks. Please see this brief ANI discussion, which fully endorsed my action. Now the block has expired, and Davkal, though he has not posted any more personal attacks, is making disruptive POV edits on the CSICOP page, which enjoyed a rare week of harmony and consensus while he was gone. Please see Talk:CSICOP for the patient mediator User:Mike Christie giving up on the job, as all the other editors declare that discussing with Davkal is just too frustrating. I have been asked by other editors to intervene again, but I don't feel I ought to become Davkal's personal nemesis, especially as the acute problem is of a different character this time (edit warring as against personal attacks). See User talk:Davkal for our interchanges, and please glance at the recent history for the warnings posted by other CSICOP editors. (I've told him myself that he's allowed to remove them; of course it remains rude to consistently do so without replying.) If somebody would like to review the complaints against Davkal and take some action (like warning him?) if you feel it appropriate, it would be appreciated. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

What am I supposed to have done now. Despite being warned to stay off my talk page, Askolnick has immediately posted a bogus warning threatening me with a block for edit-warring when all I did was perform a serious piece of editing on an article I have worked on far longer, and harder, than he has. The previous block was for abuse that was the result of the constant abuse I have had to suffer at askolnick's hands (i.e., having my sobriety questioned and being called a liar on numerous occassions, attacks which you, Bishonen, refused to acknowledge existed even though I provided links). I have served my ban and I take it I am now allowed to continue editing Wiki. If you look at my edits since the ban you will see that I have made several excellent contributions to a number of featured articles - if askolnick has not engaged in any more wikistalking they might even still be there now. I regard the constant posting of warnings on my talk page by askolnick, and the constant claims that I am merely being disruptive rather than (for the majority of time before snapping under the harrassment, stalking and abuse) genuinely trying to improve the articles on Wiki.
The fact is that Askolnick is abusing almost everyone who disgrees with him on almost every page he is editing, and you seem to be doing little more than simply backing him up.Davkal 20:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
So, would somebody like to click on the links and evaluate my claims and those of Davkal? The claim that Askolnick is "abusing almost everyone who disagrees with him on almost every page he is editing" ought to be easy, for instance--here are Askolnick's contributions. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC).
Davkal says, "Askolnick has immediately posted a bogus warning threatening me with a block for edit-warring when all I did was perform a serious piece of editing on CSICOP..." All Davkal did was to resume the edit war he was conducting before his week-long block. After he reverted the same material he disagrees with two or three times in the same day, I posted a warning on his talk page. That so-called "bogus" warning apparently worked: He stopped before making a fourth reversion and getting himself blocked again. Askolnick 14:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You should probably also note that the outcome of one of my outrageous, edit-warring, disruptive edits on the CSICOP page (I only made two changes) has been retained by Askolnick virtually intact. Perhaps Bishonen could also explain why she felt it was OK for Askolnick to say:

"Lincoln implied that the whisky Gen. Grant drank gave him a winning general. Perhaps it will also improve Davkal's arguments. I doubt it could make them much worse. How could any sober person read what I've written above and claim that…", and

“In this statement, Davkal crosses the bondary [sic] between mistatement and outright lie.”

The NPA rules stating clearly that comments should be on content rather than the editor. Perhaps if askolnick had been told to desist or tone down, or at least not encouraged to continue, making such comments then the whole business could have been averted.Davkal 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, please show where Bishonen said she "felt it was OK for Askolnick to say" that. I never saw such a statement from her. Are you making this up, or did I miss it? BTW, you keep quoting this out of context. That was my reply to your announcement that you were "off to the pub" for the evening. You brought your going drinking into the discussion. Even if my attempt at humor was over the line, you can hardly use it to justify your own frequent and egregious misconduct - such as calling editors and administrators "Fuckos, "pricks and prickesses," calling an administrator someone's "meatpuppet" and suggesting that she get herself sexually serviced for her meatpuppeting. Nor can you use it to justify your repeated edit wars. You have been blocked three times for violating 3RR. And if you hadn't heeded my "bogus warning" on your talk page, it would likely be four blocks now.Askolnick 14:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

She made it clear she thought it was OK by first claiming the warnings were bogus and unsubstantiated. When I provided the direct quotes (above) and others, she asked for context, and when context was provided she said "feel free to remove" the warnings. The simple fact is that you implied I was a drunk and stated clearly that no sober person could think what I thought (this is abuse) and you called me a liar on several occassions (that is also abuse). The fact that despite knowing all this, Bishonen simply said you could remove the warnings, in that respect she is clearly supporting what you said. That is what led me to claim that in some respects she is your administrative meatpuppet.Davkal 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal. I knew you couldn't show where Bishonen said she "felt it was OK for Askolnick to say" personal attacks. I knew you made up that accusation. Thanks for the confirmation. Askolnick 03:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I just have shown it clearly. The fact that you are inserting quotation marks and asking me to find just those words (the quotation marks are yours and yours alone!) is neither here nor there. It is a perfectly straightforward point that in saying "feel free to remove the warnings" Bishonen is saying that you are entitled to call me a drunk and a liar - she is wrong, you are not! Davkal 11:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal; new stuff[edit]

If anyone cares, I'd like to point out this vis a vis this warning. KarlBunker 19:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And this. KarlBunker 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
And this KarlBunker 22:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

New stuff to bottom doesnt mean continuations of current issues here, just entire new issues. If you want to continue the previous posting with new information you can tack this onto there. If the previous message isnt there anymore then this is the correct place. --NuclearUmpf 10:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've put it back here. I was wondering, since no one's commented on the entry. KarlBunker 14:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold up,[edit]

Anybody wanna explain to me how DieYuppieScum (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) isn't an inapropriate username? I'm missing the logic here. If I made my username Die-You-Iraqi-Bastards, and made good contributions, there'd be no problem? I'm sure if he was insulting an admin in his username and made good contribs, he would still be blocked.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 03:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the cultural reference "yuppie" is equivalent to a race, religion, nationality, gender, or other group that should be protected from discrimination? I think your comparison is an unfair distortion. Also, I find it hard to believe that there's a plot cooking here to do something nasty to yuppies - like rip off all the alligators from their sport shirts - let alone murder them. BTW, the verb "die" does not mean "kill." People who tell others to die may not be nice people, but they aren't making death threats. While I wouldn't care to defend this username against charges of bad taste, I don't think it is overly offensive or a threat. I know it may kill some people here to know that not every reference to killing or dying is meant to be taking literally. I'm deadly serious about this. I'm dying to know what other editors think. Askolnick 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's German for The Yuppie Scum. Seriously, it's not really that offensive, and he's been here for over a year. Ral315 (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's a death threat. And death threats are generally seen as inappropriate. Guettarda 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
A death threat against whom?

--Charlesknight 12:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a pop-culture referrence but I don't remember to what. I left a short note on his page asking him to consider changing it. JoshuaZ 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a pop-culture reference from the mid-1980s, referring to Young Urban Professionals (who were childless but had a lot of disposable income). "Die Yuppie Scum" was a backlash to the phenomenon. Eventually, the stock market went downhill and all the disposable income didn't matter all that much any more. See this link at for some more background. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Am I missing something? He's been blocked for over a year. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I was missing the fact that he's been editing for days. The block log doesn't show any unblocks - the two indefinite blocks must have conflicted. Yes, it's an obviously inappropriate username, and he should be blocked if he doesn't request a username change within 48 hours. "Yuppie" is a pejorative term for a significant section of the middle class. Would we allow "DieProleScum"? No. Pop-culture reference my foot. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
On further examination I was missing the fact that I misread the block log. Would use the 'need more caffeine' excuse but it's 8pm and I had a cup of tea only 2 hours ago :-D. My opinion on the username stands. This equivocation is even worse then when people tried to claim User:UpTheRa wasn't inappropriate ('Ra' stands for 'IRA' and the name is equivalent to 'HoorayForAlQaeda'). --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not inappropriate; it's just silly. That was a classic punk slogan in the 1980s. You can still order the T-shirt from Amazon. (I feel so dated now.) --John Nagle 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Punk slogan or not, it directly violates "Names that promote or imply hatred or violence", "Names that are recognised as slurs or insults" and "Names that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view" (Wikipedia:Username). That's an impressive hat-trick. Maybe it would be merely "silly" on a Counter-Strike forum, but this is an encyclopaedia, and we have - rightly - a more stringent username policy than most of the Induhnet. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It might be different in that no one who used the phrase "Die Yuppy Scum" ever meant it in an at all literal fashion. This is in contrast to a username which promotes a terrosist group. However, it would probably be best if the user changed their username. JoshuaZ 16:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This sort of discussion should be held at WP:RFC/NAME, not here. JYolkowski // talk 22:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Indef block and user page erasure of User:Tao Ching[edit]

Unblock-en-l received a complaint from the owner of Tao Ching (talk · contribs) regarding User:Kelly Martin having indef blocked his account and deleted his homepage with the reasoning that Wikipedia is not a Blog. The owner is complaining that they received no warning and intended no violation of Wikipedia rules, and that they lost a large quantity of notes for article work they intend to do in the future.

See: User:Tao Ching, User talk:Tao Ching, Tao Ching's block log See also Kelly's comment: Kelly Martin's talk page

As I am not an administrator, I have no ability to review the contents of the now-former user page to see if they were inappropriate. I would like to request independent administrator review of the former contents of the userpage, which I cannot see, and comments on whether an indef block without warning was appropriate response for this user.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 23:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I replied on the mailing list. As Kelly Martin indicated on Tao Ching's talk page, the user has been here for two years but his only edits are to his User page. In fact, he has made one edit to a User's Talk page, two vandalistic edits, and one addition of an external link to articles in those two years. But in the meantime, he's made over 500 edits to his User page. I think the block and blanking are appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The blanking may be appropriate, although the ban could be lifted if the user expresses an interest in contributing, and a warning certainly wouldn't have done any harm (I can't see the deleted material either so I have no idea whether one was given or not). However, as I understand it the deleted material is available to administrators, so perhaps it should be restored for a couple of days or otherwise made available to the user so that he has an opportunity to print it out or copy it before he loses a large quantity of work, whether for articles here or anything else. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I would be willing to email the contents of the latest revision of the page to the individual in question. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think an offer to do that posted on the user's talk page (or e-mailed to him if e-mail is enabled) would be appropriate. If the deleted material is at all reasonable (of course I haven't seen it), that might be coupled with an offer to lift the ban if the user committed to doing some work on the encyclopedia, which I agree 100% is what the project is about. I also suggest that if this situation arises in the future, a warning be given -- if only to give the user an opportunity to download or print out the material himself or herself, thus saving an admin the trouble of doing so. Newyorkbrad 00:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Kelly, if you don't have their email / aren't on unblock-en-l (I can't recall who's there and not), I can forward you the address. Georgewilliamherbert 00:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not on unblock-en-l. The content is not really problematic, but it is chock loaded with external links and content which borders on copyvio; in any case totally inappropriate for a user page. I am email-enabled within the wiki, and being blocked doesn't preclude using Special:Emailuser. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed this content and concur it has no encyclopedic value and was worthy of deletion. I might not necessarily have indef blocked myself but barring some assurance from the user they are going to actually contribute instead of use this as hosting space, I see no reason to lift, and thus support the block as well. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Having looked at the deleted material, it didn't strike me as remotely bloglike. Most of it seemed to be the common sort of stuff one finds on most user pages: quotes, opinions, links, a self-description, a list of articles to edit and/or read. The only possibly objectionable aspect is simply that there's so much of it, far more than would be found on most user pages. It's a bit of a toss-up whether this violates user page policy or not (as I said, it's essentially typical user page stuff, just in greater quantity), but in any case I don't think it warrants a block. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a freaking link farm. Link farms are unacceptable anyone on Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not the content of the user page in and of itself that's problematic, but the attention paid to it over two years (500 edits) compared to attention paid to the encyclopedia (five edits, one of them useful). That ratio needs to be reversed and the likelihood of that happening is low. The block was therefore appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Concur with both Kelly and Slim - the page was a link farm, a soapbox, a personal webpage; the user was not contributing to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm nor a blog host; strongly support this action. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the block, although in my opinion the user page should have been blanked and protected rather than deleted. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "outings" from the database history[edit]

The real Barbara Schwarz (talk · contribs) and AI (talk · contribs) are both banned users of Wikipedia. Both of them have attempted to reveal what they believe to be the private real life identities of pseudo-anonymous editors on Wikipedia. Now, during an ArbCom proceeding at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence, an editor, Arbustoo (talk · contribs), that has been in a disagreement with me for a while over other issues, is now putting out diffs to history where Schwarz and/or AI guessed at my real name and posted links to a defamation website, supposedly about me.

I would ask that the admins remove the history where people have guessed at my real name. I find it highly objectionable that an editor would bring out the specific accusations of my real name during a process in which he is trying to stifle my editing on Wikipedia. I believe his only motivation for doing so was to intimidate and harass me even further. I tried asking one admin, but was advised that his privileges did not extend far enough to handle this request.

In any case, the specific histories that should be removed are available here

As you can see the user was banned for creating an account that was meant to do nothing more than to harass me and to attempt to guess at my real name yet again as they have done in other forums. Can you please just remove all of [User:KJKruse|that users] contributions, talk page, user page, and protect them? It's pretty clear that the only reason they exist in the first place is to harass. Thanks for your time. Vivaldi (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Individual contributions are a lot of work, please cite individual diffs outside of their user and talk pages that you feel should be deleted (email me if you would rather keep them off this page). I have deleted the user and talk pages. Guy 11:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively (and possibly more appropriately), individual revisions which reveal personal information may be eligable for the oversight treatment. Please see that page and, when ready, visit WP:RFO to request it. Please do not post on WP:RFO. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Voting is evil[edit]

There is presently a dispute over this page (and a few related ones) between a group of people who think voting is inappropriate on Wikipedia and, well, evil, and a group who believe voting is an essential part of our community and a prime way of gauging consensus.

Being part of the former group, I believe we should make very clear that voting is not a good way to resolve (most) things (e.g. AFD/RFA is not vote). A good way to do that seems to be to mark WP:VIE as {{guideline}} or even {{policy}} and possibly making it less tongue-in-cheek; in my experience novice editors are not generally swayed by pages not perceived as "official" (which is another can of worms, but anyway).

The "other" party appears to be pushing for votes on a variety of proposed guidelines, and seems to be under the impression that AFD is in fact a vote - but I may be misunderstanding them, of course. I'm mentioning this here because this seems the best way of reaching a group of experienced users familiar with "the wiki way". I would appreciate reactions on Wikipedia talk:Voting is evil. >Radiant< 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

At least rename it... calling concepts you don't like (and by extension, the people who support them) evil as a policy is horrible. Though personally I think voting scales a lot better than the vague concept of whoever wins the discussion is right, since that often just comes down to who has more political leverage and friends in high places. --W.marsh 17:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with converting Wikipedia:Voting is evil into a guideline is that this essay doesn't actually reflect consensus -- it promotes the fairly uncommon view that votes are almost always a bad idea in nearly every situation, and that the number of editors endorsing various views should almost never be a consideration in determining the existence of consensus. Actually, we have enacted policies as a result of votes -- see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote and Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. Requests for adminship may not be votes in a formal sense; however, the RFA page does state that

The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are a significant factor in determining consensus (few RFAs succeed with less than 75% support)...

XFD discussions are almost always votes in practice -- very rarely are pages deleted against the wishes of a majority of established editors who recommend keeping them. Instead of adopting blanket pronouncements like "voting is evil" as guidelines or policy, we should rely on the more nuanced, more balanced description of consensus in Wikipedia:Consensus to define consensus. One important consideration that is missing from Wikipedia:Consensus, however, is that to the extent that supermajority opinion is used as a measure of consensus, we are only concerned with the opinions of established editors -- considering comments by new and unregistered users in determining a supermajority would create an unacceptable risk of sockpuppetry. John254 18:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on this is kind of hopeless though... one camp has decided that the other's position is "evil"! Compromise seems unlikely when you have convinced yourself the other option is pure evil. Which is the whole problem. --W.marsh 18:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the name would be too tongue-in-cheek. Renaming the page to something like "No voting" would be a good idea. By the way it should be noted that John254's opposition to this page stems from the erroneous belief that it was used to delete the counter-vandalism unit, of which he is a member link. >Radiant< 18:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Counter-Vandalism Unit was deleted on the basis of a WP:VIE argument -- the closing administrator in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination) stated "This is not a vote. Arguments do count." and proceeded to speedily delete the page on the basis of arguments offered by an indefinitely banned vandal -- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr_Chatterjee. The fact that the speedy closure of the discussion was based on a misapplication of WP:IAR does not negate the importance of WP:VIE in the closing administrator's reasoning. If the outcome of the MFD discussion had been determined by quantifying the votes of established users, there wouldn't have been a snowball's chance in heck of having the Counter-Vandalism Unit deleted. The fact that we allowed an indefinitely banned vandal to nominate the Counter-Vandalism Unit for deletion in a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia by weakening its defenses against vandalism [1], and actually deleted the Counter-Vandalism Unit briefly as a result of an indefinitely banned vandal's trolling, seems to illustrate a major failure of WP:VIE. John254 19:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    • I think you heavily overestimate the impact that that individual had. Read over the discussion ... there were lots of other, non-vandal, people who were for deletion, so it doesn't particularly matter that one of them was. And besides, giving that one person so much credit on 'almost destroying our ability to defend ourselves against vandalism by removing the CVU' is more glorification than anything else. --Cyde Weys 23:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • And if it had been a vote in favor of deleting the CVU page rather than evaluating the arguments for keeping it, you would undoubtedly now be clamoring against the use of straight votes. —Centrxtalk • 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if we'll be able to come to an agreement on whether decisions should be made, by voting, consensus, determining the best argument or any other method. The main problem with voting is that a position that is clearly wrong by those who are informed about the issue and/or wrong according to policy/guidelines can come out on top. Other problems are the use of sockpuppets, meatpuppets and vote stacking.

Consensus is no better, as we often do not come to consensus, so either nothing gets done or someone (or a couple of people) forces the issue without a consensus. Sometimes it does not matter much if anything gets decided, but sometimes it is an important issue that needs to be settled. I think the things that are the greatest causes of the failure to gain consensus are editors' perfectionism (they will not agree to a plan that is not perfect) and inability to compromise. Finally, there is the problem with determining a consensus, which in practice is usually voting with reasoning given, like AfD, RM, RfA and arbitrator elections. This gives consensus the same problems as voting. On talk pages, it is even worse. A few people have an argument, often not coming to a consensus despite claims to the contrary, and the policy, article or whatever gets changed on the basis of a few people who did not even agree on a course of action.

Determining the best argument is also problematic, as it is not always clear which one is the best and their are other factors that are important. A bigger problem is that the closer often has a bias, sometimes an extreme one. This is a big problem for all forms of decision making, but it is devastating when using the best argument method. Some admins have such strong feelings on how things should be, and inabilities to put them aside, that they should not be closing any discussions. Good admins go against consensus or act when there is no consensus when necessary, but these admins do it frequently. Also, they get into frequent, heated arguments on their talk page, the talk pages of other users, the Administrators Noticeboard and this page. Finally, you'll find uncivil remarks and sometimes even swearing in their comments and especially in their edit summaries. Unfortunately, some of the worst admins have been around for a long time, making the amount of damage they've done and the high-placed supporters they have greater. Perhaps RfA was less rigorous than in the last 18 months or so or they have gotten frustrated and/or crazy over the years, although some bad ones still slip through these days (many long-time admins are exemplary, too). Some new and old ones may have just behaved themselves until they became admins, as well.

My suggestion is to consider everything that you can. Use a poll with reasoning given for votes, check out the relevant policies and guidelines, read any discussions that have taken place, weigh the arguments on each side and do additional research if necessary. Then, put your own feelings aside and make the best decision that you can. -- Kjkolb 10:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil is evil[edit]

  • Support
  1. 'Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Gives us more things to argue about and create monotonous multi-page threads all over the place rather than waste our precious flame-warring time on improving this thing by clearing backlogs and writing articles.--Konstable 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Voting is evil
  1. Yes. Ral315 (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppetry
  1. Rawr u r sux kekeke Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Voting is evil is evil is evil[edit]

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.[edit]

  • Undoubtedly. -- nae'blis 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Another User:Pnatt sock[edit]

User is community-banned and creating socks to avoid the ban. The edit style, name choice, and so on are distinctual. Please indef this sock as well. Thanks. ju66l3r 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hockeystick is taken care of. New sock, same story:
blocked. Naconkantari 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's probably a good idea to go to WP:RFCU to get the underlying IP blocked. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Really strange contrib lists[edit]

Through my RC patrolling, I found these two user's contribs:

It appears that the primacy of their edits are to each other's user talk page. I can say that there are some problems in this. Clinevol98's last article edit was in August and BigT27 has only made one article space edit in September; and before that it was only in July. Ryūlóng 21:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that one can have only 1000 edits, nearly 600 of which are solely user talk space edits (Clinevol98), while the other has nearly 900 user talk edits out of 2500, all of which are to each other. Ryūlóng 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I also find it odd that the above IP claims to be Cute 1 4 u, as stated on what will once be the user talk page. Ryūlóng 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously creepy stuff. Makes me think of Markovian Parallax Denigrate and Numbers station. I can't believe the contents have anything to do with either wikipedia or their surface meaning. WAS 4.250 23:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like they found each other after an editor noticed a good article on a subject he's interested in and contacted the other editor to congratulate. Is there anything weird about that? Of course, the ultimate goal of talk pages is to facilitate the building of the encyclopedia, but social interaction is part of that. --GunnarRene 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But when the majority of each of their edits are merely social interractions? 571 user talk edits out of barely 1000 total edits is a bit out there. Ryūlóng 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's ban them. 01:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In the past I have temp blocked and deleted the talk pages of a group of users who were doing a similar thing, however they had zero good edits. What should be done here is that the talk pages shoukd be nuked, and stern warnings left. If activities recommence, block accordingly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm doing that right now. If there are serious objections, drop me a note. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Talk pages and the archives have been deleted for both users; warnings left, along with a policy explination. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Just looking for additional eyes here before I make a decision.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LactoseTI

The result of the RFCU was "Likely", but I want to get a few more eyes looking over the vidence before I decide one way or the other on blocking both accounts. Please reply here with your comments. Thanks! •••日本穣?Talk to Nihonjoe 23:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I note that there is only one time one of them has edited the other's talk page [2]. This might make it seem like sockpuppeting is going on and they neglected to realize that two independent editors who had this much similarity would talk to each other more often. On the other hand, that one dif shows that if they are socks they realized that at minimum in which case that would mean the user realized they would need to talk to each other but only did it with precisely one dif? This seems unlikely to me. Sorry I couldn't give anything more definite. JoshuaZ 03:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You may also want to inquire with the checkuser person how likely he means by likely. They will sometimes give some rough estimate. JoshuaZ 03:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

World Champion(ship) (North American sports term)[edit]

  • This article is continually recreated by a user who claims on his talk page that he'll keep recreating it because it deserves an article. My memory is fuzzy, but I seem to remember an article with this title being brought up on WP:AN/I before; something about this guy being a sockpuppet of a banned user. IMO, this should probably be dealt with swiftly. Danny Lilithborne 00:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted and salted. User is a sockpuppet of banned user Pnatt. Naconkantari 00:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Prohibiting all references to hate-sites[edit]

Stormfront is an article about a neo-nazi hate iste. We have an admin who is enforcing a absolute ban on referencing the site in question. It's not a question of reliability, the text and the reference aren't themselves being disputed by anyone. Instead, the references are being commented out, so that Wikipedia doesn't inadvertantly promote the hate-site or increase its Google pagerank.

This troubles me for a couple of reasons. For one, it seems like we're only doing this because we on Wikipedia don't like the content of the speech that is contained on the hate cite. For two, it seems like this is a tad beyond the powers of an admin-- even if commenting out controversial references SHOULD be policy, as of now, it ISN'T policy. The admin doesn't cite any precedent for this sort of "accept the validity of the reference, but insisting on commenting it out" policy. In contrast, it seems to contradict the section of Reliable Sources which explicitly allows citing hate groups in some cases, and Wikipedia is not censored also seems to imply we shouldn't comment out citations, so long as we don't have any reliability or other concerns about the citation.

The discussions on-going about this [3] [4] tend to be generally disapproving of this policy, but since most of the commentors aren't admins, perhaps our opinions carry less weight. What do people think? Is it currently / should it be Wikipedia policy to accept hate site citations but comment them out? --Alecmconroy 04:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. If the problem is pagerank inflation, why not just leave the URLs in the references as plain text? Opabinia regalis 04:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
An excellent question. But more than that-- since when do we care what effect our articles have on pageranks? Obviously, we should guard against the intentional manipulation of articles explicitly for the purpose of pagerank inflation, but we shouldn't prohibit references when they are valid. --Alecmconroy 05:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's keep this discussion in one place; [5] seems to be working fine. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Using my ISP address to do Vandalism[edit]

Hi, someone used my ISP address to do some vandalism to the "Forever 21" page -- which I had never visited until now to see why I was listed on there! What do I do???! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:12, 20 September 2006.

Sign up for an account. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just did! But how do I get those false comments off the "Forever 21" page?? (LD)

They're warnings for whoever uses your IP address. They're not on the page "Forever 21", they're on "User talk:" which is a talk page - for communicating with users. Now that you've registered an account, you can safely ignore those comments - they're not associated with you anymore. james(talk) 09:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi James (UTC), many thanks! (LD)

Is this vandalism or just bad judgement?[edit]

An anonIP, (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), has spent the last couple of hours writing plot summaries for various Bollywood films. This editor seems to speak English as a second language, and is oblivious of niceties such as punctuation and capitalization. He (or she) is replacing coherent grammatical synopses with misspelled garble. I've been trying to clean up after this editor, and leaving a series of increasingly desperate notes on his user page, which he doesn't seem to be reading. This is not obvious vandalism; it's clearly well-intentioned. What is to be done? Just keep following after him/her/it with a broom? Zora 09:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Unless they're copyright violations or bad machine translations, which are forbidden, I would say bad judgement. Keep cleaning and keep trying to talk to him. Make sure you are especially encouraging about their enthusiasm to contribute. They may be more open to criticism if you find more positive points about their contributions. - Mgm|(talk) 10:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Bible[edit]

This is not obvious vandalism (by Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs)), so it may be 3RR-violation (by me, Pjacobi (talk · contribs)). Can just please someone have some looks on the situation? I've put up content RfCs for the content issues. --Pjacobi 10:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo has been removing content from the article. The content that is contested could use a little work in a few areas, but it is not too biased or obviously nonsensical. The only significant problem I see is a lack of sources other than Bible verses. However, some things are just common sense or clear from the Bible passage and citing them would clog the article. For example, we do not need a source to tell us that California is part of the United States. However, only things that are universally believed, with the exception of crackpots, should be uncited. I think that people should stop reverting and take it to the talk page. Also, reliable sources should be found for the controversial stuff. -- Kjkolb 13:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
If the editors will not stop the revert war, you might ask for protection to freeze the page until the editors can resolve their differences on the Talk Page. --Richard 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Is User:Sound and Fury a sock of recently banned user User:Triumph's Hour?[edit]

I placed this on the 'Requests for Investigation' page, but it might be more appropriate here. Based on a common 'anon' account ( (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and a review of this user's editing style and range of articles (and the use of classic literary references for both names (Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' and 'Agamemnon'), I believe Sound and Fury (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a likely sock of the indef-banned user Triumph's Hour (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), who was indef banned for violations of WP:NPA in the midst of recent conflicts related to Encyclopedia Dramatica.

He/she has not responded to my direct question to that effect on his talk page since I notifiied him/her, and so I bring the issue here. Please see the contribs and the RfI entry for more info and feel free to move that information here if it is more appropriate. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My hunch-o-meter also strongly suggests that this this the same editor. Regardless, the IP edited Sound and Fury's userpage without being reverted[6] and gave Willy on Wheels a barnstar[7]. I strongly suspect that these editors are all one and the same. Checkuser?--MONGO 21:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd be glad to submit it for a CU, if it's not too peremptory of a step. I'm trying to err on the side of calm dispassion and avoid CLS (Chicken Little Syndrome) :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I took care it it. Both Sound and Fury and Triumph's Hour both seem to like the edit summary "talkin'" as well.--MONGO 21:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[8]--MONGO 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Glossyn (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Having just spent the better part of an hour cleaning up the mess made by this vandal claiming to be the original WOW, may I take this moment to renew the call that page moves become an admin-only action? This type of vandalism is incredibly time-consuming to revert, and page moves should rarely be done without a consensus anyway. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to make page moves an admin only thing. Whoa, what an over-reaction! --Balmayres 15:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not find this an overreaction in any way; nor would you if you've ever been through the process of cleaning up the mess... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Balmayres identified himself as a sock of User:MilkMan -- a user banned indef for WOW like editing. I think the vandal was just taunting us. Geedubber 18:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, should've seen that one... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to question why the vandal wasn't banned from the outset with edit summaries like "pagemove...". No need to over-react although putting article moves on permanent semiprotection might be an idea. – Chacor 15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a software limitation on the number of pagemoves allowed per minute by non-admins and non-bots would be useful. --Cyde Weys 18:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be a little worried about the effect on longstanding non-admins reverting page move vandalism. Semi-protection, however, IMHO, would be a great idea. Most new users have no idea that the move button even exists, let alone use for it. alphaChimp(talk) 18:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
page moves are already covered by semi protection. Requests for the softwear to have a page move rate throtel were made a long time ago. nothing came of them.Geni 18:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
If so, it's ineffective. Does that protection work on sleepers? If not, a minimum-edit restriction needs to be established. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Single-Purpose User Malmedy Massacre/Bill O'Reilly[edit]

Contributions all in August 2006, all on either Bill O'Reilly or Malmedy massacre. See (talk · contribs) Joe 16:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont really see anything wrong with some of the edits, though the insult in one edit was a BLP violation. Since the account was used in August and never again, I dont really see what the issue is. --NuclearUmpf 16:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) sneaking spam into articles[edit] (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) is inserting spam into all sort of articles, mostly media-related. [9] I'm in the middle of reverting, but the IP needs to be blocked. --Aaron 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Also using (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log). --Aaron 17:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Leading Authorities[edit]

Leading Authorities (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) places links to a leadingauthorities website on a number of peoples bios. It seems that it is a "adding of links to own website". I reverted one, but don't have the time to untue the whole contribution. In fact consensus here might be to leave it as it is. Or not ... up to you. Agathoclea 17:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[edit]

User: appears to be inserting random profanities into lots of different articles. arj 19:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted; also, please use WP:AIV for reports like this one, thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC) and[edit]

This Goldenlines anon (apparently geolocated somewhere in Israel) dropped by my user talk page apparently to repeat his claim at Wikipedia:Help desk that he has inserted the word "p***s" in (apparently ) Hebrew into a "technical term" in an (un-named) article on philosophy which he boasts has gone unreverted for months. At least that is how I interpret this, since he has pointedly refused to name the article in question and now he explicitly refuses to revert this silly vandalism, saying that he wants to see how long it takes the WP community to find it! Sorry I can't tell you more, just thought you all should know. I've asked this anon (vandal?) not to return to my user talk pages and would appreciate some help if he should ignore this request.---CH 19:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Careful examination of user contributions says you are a liar.
1. At no point did I claim that I had inserted the word 'penis' in any article, contrary to your assertions. And to say that I repeated this claim is a double lie.
2. By using the word 'boast' you imply that I am the vandal. That is a lie - I am not the vandal and I did not boast.
3. Since when refusal to edit an article is a crime? Does it go against any rules?
4. You have wrongly interpreted my refusal to name the article in question. The real reason is clear - you would immediately edit the article and spoil my watching it for a natural correction span.
So, to sum it up - your report is abusive (there is nothing to report), insultive (you actually called me a vandal by saying that I made claims of inserting an obscenity in unknown article) and hysterical (you call for help in defending your user page before anything bad was done to it. I respect your wish to ban me from your talk page. I hope you will excuse me for placing one last notice on it pointing to this answer. 04:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


MaCaCa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a sockpuppet of perma banned user Macaca (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Still doing the same junk trying to put "Macaca" in to George Allen's name. --StuffOfInterest 20:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kt66 repeated copyright violation on Talk:Michael Roach[edit]

Kt66 (talk · contribs) insists on repeatedly posting copyrighted material from the subject's website on the talk page of Michael Roach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He seems to think that lack of a copyright notice permits him to do this. I have attempted to explain that this is not the case, but he will not listen. Ekajati 20:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've provided Kt66 with links to the specific policy on copyrights, as well as a short summary. The user has answered back on my talk page that he/she will abide by policy. Please report again if this continues to be a problem. — ERcheck (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! He also seems to have a problem with understanding WP:LIVING and WP:3RR. I've been trying to remove poorly sourced negative info about living persons, but he keeps putting it back and has broken 3RR on three different articles. I have reported on WP:AN/3RR but am nervous about removing the negative information again. Could you take a look? He (or the other editors) have been sourcing personal Geocities sites, Google groups, and a partisan attack site as sources! Not good. Ekajati 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reiterated WP:Living, 3RR, and WP:Verify. It appears that the editor is will try to make a good faith effort to understand — though has mentioned taking a wikibreak. — ERcheck (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please block user[edit]

User has repeatedly posted non-sensical items to both Lou Costell and Bud Abbott over the past 2 days. Items posted include things like "I was here", "Jess Loves Dylan", "Rebecca was here", etc. There have been over 25+ accounts of vandalism by them in the past 48 hours. Please either block them or protect those 2 pages. Thanks! Donaldd23 22:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The user was already blocked, but for future cases of clear vandalism, please use WP:AIV. Cowman109Talk 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


His ban has ended, and I'm not sure where he stands in terms of probation, but activity like this, cleary needs to stop. --AaronS 01:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention he's trying to start an edit war. [10]. Why wasn't he indef blocked long ago anyways? He's incredibly disruptive, has made numerous personal attacks and has been caught using socks against policy more times than I can count. He give thewolfstar a run for their money when it comes to sock puppets. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The gaming of the system that is going on, combined with his viewing Wikipedia as a battleground, are indeed a bit disturbing. --AaronS 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
More edit warring is happening here, at Template:Anarchism sidebar. --AaronS 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
He's also counting his reverts, as if 3RR is a license. *sigh* I'm e-acquainted with him, so I'd rather not be the one to ban him, but I support a ban. The diff you linked was simply stupid. "Let's make a copy of Anarchism that gives Anarcho-capitalism undue weight, and doesn't even mention socialism!" Makes no sense. There are serious, serious POV issues, not to mention a simple and complete disrespect for wikipedia. --Golbez 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The Anarchism talk page is full of his POV nonsense. We were getting somewhere with the compromises until he and the range of Wolf-socks arrived and disrupted the whole thing again. Enough is enough. Donnacha 22:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He also seems to have removed his sock puppeteer tag with a misleading edit summary.[11] --AaronS 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And now he's doing it with more direct edit summaries: "stay off my page, asshole".[12] --AaronS 02:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He is also removing Aaron's attempt to discuss the situation from his talk page. [13] This user is incredibly bad faith, makes serious personal attacks, and is incredibly disruptive. I strongly, strongly, strongly urge an indefinite block, which is long overdue. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye warns of future "tit-for-tat edit warring" that he will provoke and engage in here. --AaronS 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is something going to happen? His constant POV-pushing is making any attempts to reach agreement impossible. Donnacha 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here Hogeye blanks his discussion page immediately after another editor asks him to stop removing warnings and attempts at discussion from it. He has also removed his sock puppeteer template, again. --AaronS 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Has anybody examined this issue, or does anybody want to? --AaronS 20:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page abuse[edit]

Serial sockpuppeteer Mallimak (talk · contribs) is using sockpuppet account User:Orkadian to spam multiple Talk pages. The {{talkheader}} template has been removed and the spam repeatedly re-added. I request admin intervention:

--Mais oui! 12:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Example diff: [14]. --Mais oui! 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Provide evidence that Orkadian is a sockpuppet of Mallimak, please. It seems to me that Orkadian has become rather upset by your persistent accusations that he/she is a sockpuppet, and I can't see any evidence for that. --ajn (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak. --Mais oui! 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That's hardly the most convincing checkuser result I have ever seen. It's equally likely that they happen to be editing from the same geographical area, and object to your stance on Orkney (oddly, quite different from your usual stance on regional and nationalist issues). --ajn (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Please also see: [15]. There is a multitude of evidence. But that is not the point: what are you going to do about the Talk page abuse? --Mais oui! 12:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion, why not protect the talk page to [edit=sysop move=sysop] to prevent him from adding spam?? --LiverpoolCommander 12:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This is part of a long standing conflict between the users and a more in depth look at the conduct of Mallimak, Orkadian and Mais oui! is in order.Inge 12:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Is a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mallimak a suitable thing to proceed with?? --LiverpoolCommander 12:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be fair I would suggest a simultaneous Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mais oui! or a combined one. The bits and pieces of the conflict I have seen lead me to believe that both these users could do with some helpfull hints. It seems IMHO that this is part of a complexe content dispute where one user is good at utilising wiki rules and the other is not. Inge 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A combined RFC seems like a good idea. Can anyone give me a brief overview of what the cause of the dispute is, what lead to it, and what the ongoing situation is - so that I have a clearer idea of it?? --LiverpoolCommander 12:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Wangi is very well-informed on this topic, although he has just had a Wikibreak, and so missed the last episode about a week ago. --Mais oui! 12:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
One user is trying to insert the notion that Orkney has a special identity separate from the Scottish one and has been adding information regarding that to relevant articles. The user has also created stubs, categories and a portal to deal with Orkney subjects. The other user is asserting that Orkney is not any more different from the rest of Scotland than any other part of Scotland and has been removing such information from relevant articles and requesting the stub-templates and so on to be deleted. I think that is the core of this problem. In the process both users may have stepped over the line. The hows, ifs and whens need to be determined, proper guidance need to be given to the users and a permanent solution to the core dispute needs to be found. The articles involved are so low profile that it seems to be very difficult for the few users involved to get there on their own. Inge 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that overview, Inge. I think that Orkney should be counted as Scotland, as it is technically Scottish and not a sovereign state. This content dispute should be taken to a WikiProject who could assist with this incident. --LiverpoolCommander|Commander' 13:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the Orcadian users are claiming that Orkney is not a part of Scotland, but that the people who live there share an identity as Orcadians and that that identity is more or less considered separate from being Scottish. I don't think I am quite able to convey that situation acurately, but I would like to inform that I have the personal opinion that Orkney (and Shetland) claims of being different does have some creedence. They are not just another area of Scotland (allthough they are very much politically and legally part of that country) and history, geneaology and (former) linguistics back that up. But that really isn't the issue right now :) Inge 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comming back to the immediate issue, rather than the underlying problem...

One thing that needs to stop is the constant reverting an readding of Orkadian's comment on various talk pages. While the comment is not about the articles themself it's not worth getting into an edit war about. However the comment needs to be kept out of the article and category namespace and Orkadian has not readded them since I pointed this out. I'll pass on commenting on the comment itself...

I'm disappointed that Orkadian/Maillimak are not making any constructive edits. After this is an encyclopedia - and writting it is our goal, if you're just here to dick around with turf wars then...

I'm not convinced Orkadian and Maillimak are a single person, but if it is two people they're acting in close cooperation. I'll keep an eye on things, but i'm as busy as ever and back travelling tomorrow... Thanks/wangi 13:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the user(s) were initially trying to make constructive edits, but were over-enthusiastic and were then frustrated by Mais Oui!'s uncharacteristic objection to petty regionalism. I spotted this dispute a while ago, when MO listed the Orkney portal for deletion. Orkney does have a quite different history to the rest of Scotland, and Mais Oui!'s "just a council area" stance really doesn't do that justice. --ajn (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I support that view. I believe if a couple of outside editors would like to involve themselves more in depth the articles affected could be very much improved and the users in conflict could be guided back on track to the future benefit of Wikipedia. If we let this issue go now we will just find it again on a later date and/or loose valuable contributions. I see these request for help pages as somewhat of a jungle so if someone knows a more appropriate place to take this issue, please do so and give a link here. Inge 12:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Mallimak is not blocked, I am at a looss to understand why he would use sockpuppets, but there is not much doubt in my mind that Orkadian and Gruelliebelkie are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. That said, Mais Oui! is unquestionably prone to strong opinions and there is not a great deal of evidence of these disputants making any real attempt to find common ground. Any RfC should be a joint one, and should be called something like "Orkneys islands" rather than singling out one side or the other, there being evident fault on both. On the practical level I don't see that there are so many articles on the Orkneys as to make a separate portal necessary or desirable, but if people want to have one and link it from the Scotland portal then I don't really see how that would violate policy, since Orkadians unquestionably do have a separate identity at some level. Not that we are here to Right Great Wrongs, but I don't see any neutrality issue in dealing with the Orkneys as thematic set of articles. This is, of course, a superficial view. Guy 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see that there are some people here who have recognised what is going on. At the beginning I had so much to offer Wikipedia, and I made a start on contributing Orkney-related articles, an area of knowledge I know a great deal about. But then I encountered Mais oui!

I think it all started with his objection to the use of the term “Orcadian”, and he started replacing it everywhere with “Scottish”. Now let’s get this straight once and for all, “Orcadian” is an accepted term used to describe somebody from Orkney, and it is widely used – and for good reason, it pin-points the origin and culture of the person so described much more precisely than the term “Scottish”. (Furthermore, there are many in Orkney (and indeed Shetland) who object to being described as “Scottish”.) I have never claimed that “Orcadian” is a nationality, but neither, note, is “Scottish” a nationality. If Wikipedia is going to be consistent, the correct nationality is “British”! (I’ve not looked into it, but there must be analogous situations like Frankish/Bavarian/German or Frisian/Dutch.) I have never claimed that Orkney is a “sovereign state”, but note, Scotland is also not a “sovereign state”.

Anyway, it seems that I had inadvertently strayed into a territory that Mais oui! claims for his own. For example, it was he that set up the Portal:Scotland – but would he allow me to set up a Portal:Orkney – oh no! Incidentally, there is a Portal:Cornwall, and nobody seems to object to that.

Everything on Orkney that I contributed to Wikipedia had to be part of Mais oui’s domain, and he edited my articles in such a way to make sure that they were. Talk about WP:OWN.

I have plenty of encyclopaedic Orkney-related articles to contribute to Wikipedia, but what’s the point when Mais oui twists them and uses them as fodder to feed his own POV agenda. Personally, I feel Mais oui! should be banned from Wikipedia – he is distorting the project and putting off other contributors. He violently attacks users who disagree with him – sockpuppet allegations seeming to be his favourite form of attack. (Yes, shortly after Orkadian came onto the scene I did get in touch with him, and yes I am now in regular contact with him - but he is not me.) Out of frustration I have tried to retaliate against Mais oui!, but as accurately observed by Inge “one user is good at utilising wiki rules and the other is not”, and I am the one who is not - and why should I be? I didn’t come here to have my time and effort wasted by this kind of nonsense.

I have given up in despair. Until Mais oui! is banned (or at least banned from editing any article I contribute), there is absolutely no point in my contributing any further articles to Wikipedia. If you want to read NPOV encyclopaedic articles about Orkney, written by people who live here or have a close association with the islands and therefore know what they are talking about, I suggest you look out for our independent site.

Writing is my goal, not (as wangi puts it) “to dick around with turf wars“ – that’s Mais oui!’s specialism.

Mallimak 21:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

World Innovation Foundation[edit]

It appears to me that there is something appears a bit odd about this article. According to the WIF website, it claims to have dozens of Nobel laureates as members, and is planning to build the "ORE Complex", a multi-billion dollar global centre for scientific research: "the World's Largest Open Research Establishment. Equipped and Operational for 20,000 leading-edge scientists, engineers, technologists and innovators", as well as 1000 local research centres around the world. [16]

It also claims to have been founded by Glenn Seaborg, with its current president being Jerome Karle: pretty impressive people. Indeed, many Nobel laureates are listed as "honorary consulting members" of the WIF on Wikipedia. [17]

By all accounts, the WIF appears to be an organization of global importance.

And yet:

  • I cannot find any mention of the WIF, or its claimed predecessor the Institute of National Economic Enrichment and Development, in any mainstream news sources
  • I cannot find any mention of the WIF or its predecessor "I.N.E.E.D." on Glenn Seaborg's biographical memorial site, or in his entry on the Nobel site [18]
  • the WIF appears to be run from a P.O. box in Huddersfield [19]
  • I cannot find any reports of it in mainstream media
  • and the "letters" section of its website appears mostly to be people writing back politely to letters inviting them to become honorary members
  • most of the mentions of these notable people being members of the WIF appear to have been entered into Wikipedia on the 16th and 17th of this month by User:Drdavidhill, who is listed as the WIF's contact on its own website -- this user has been blocked for adding their website to many articles all at once, and appears to have repeatedly E-mailed Zoe to be unblocked, and has now escalated to petitioning Jimbo [20]
  • and the remainder seem to be press releases by academics gladly accepting invitations to become honorary fellows of the WIF

And yet:

  • "INEED" appears to have used an Easynet E-mail account [21]
  • the WIF also appears to run a website at, and asks for cheques to be made payable to "The Institute of Sub-contractors", which is described as "the corporate trading company of the W.I.F." at "The W.I.F., P.O. Box A60, Huddersfield, HD1 1XJ, ENGLAND." -- which is the same address as given at
  • which is odd, because you might expect them to at least have a bank account in their own name, particularly since the article claims that their main organization is a Swiss charity.
  • and I can't find any mention of "The Institute of Sub-contractors" on Google, or on several sites containng lists of limited companies (Companies House search goes down overnight, so I can't yet give an authoritative answer to this), or on the Charity Commission's website

And yet:

  • the phone number (01484) 300 606 and fax number (01484) 300 606 given for the WIF are also the same as that displayed for "Geo-Design Associates" of Huddersfield [22]

Now, of course, I sure that there are perfectly good reasons for a global think-tank planning billion-dollar projects to share phone numbers and to have a mailing address in the same town as a business run from a shop. But it would be interesting to have a little bit more in the way of verifiable confirmation from mainstream sources about the WIF before we go any further. -- The Anome 01:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

-- The Anome 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is a hoax its probably the most wide spread one ever created and someone should write a news story. Hvae you tried a google search, its outrageous how many people state they are fellows and their positions. Tons of edu sites have listings of their professors as WIF fellows. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] --NuclearUmpf 02:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I just wonder, if you sent a letter out to a hundred academics asking them to become honorary fellows of an organization set up by Glenn Seaborg and featuring a host of Nobel laureates, what fraction of them might (a) write a nice letter back, accepting your kind offer and offering to help in any way they can, and (b) put out a release announcing their membership of this august group? -- The Anome 12:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've done a LexisNexis seach on this and what I've found is even more mysterious. While the article and the site claim Glenn Seaborg as the founder, an article I found in The Yorkshire Post from 2003 tells the story of Dr. David Hill, who after "his construction company went bust" created the Foundation, whose "boldest idea is the creation of Open Research Establishments, so-called People's Creative Thought Incubators, where individuals would have their ideas and inventions analysed and developed." When one of these incubators, described as a "£50-billion scientific super city" was proposed to be built in North Lincolnshire in 2005, the local media at first reacted with breathless excitement, but in a later story said "... since speaking to one of the organisation's founder members, Dr David Hill, the Telegraph has contacted a number of organisations which claim they know nothing about the project." After that date I can find no more articles about the Foundation. There is definitely something amiss here, and the fact that so many scholars have accepted membership, yet no major news source has explained what this group actually does, is bizarre. I really am at a loss as to how to proceed. —Nate Scheffey 08:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've now done a company search, and found a company, WORLD INNOVATION FOUNDATION (FOR ECONOMIC ENRICHMENT & DEVELOPMENT), company number 03539608. It's listed as a "non-trading company", and its most recent set of accounts are marked "dormant". There is no "World Innovation Foundation", or anything with a similar name, listed in the Charity Commissions register of charities.

I cannot find a Companies House listing for any company called "The Institute of Sub-Contractors", nor does there appear to be any charity of that, or a similar name.

Does anyone have access to the Swiss equivalent of the UK register of charities? -- The Anome 12:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Does a need to be registered in the UK as a charity? This can become quite a search if this "group" can be technically registered anywhere as a charity. Another problem is, it doesn't have to be a charity, meaning no-profit, it seems to be more of a think tank then anything else. Kind of like if Einstein and his buddies got together and made a group, are they required to make it a formal company/charity? I do not know enough about domain registration requirements, but I am almost sure a .org doesnt mean the group has to be registered as a charity. --NuclearUmpf 12:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it has to be, but a whois has the company listed as "UK Entity", based in Sheffield (instead of Huddersfield. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
There are no restrictions on registering .org or (I have domains in both groups). I suspect The Anome's explanation above is the correct one, I've known academics who will join almost any organisation with a couple of big names on board which offers to make them a Distinguished Research Fellow or something equally grand-sounding. The Moonies used to run similar organisations, if I remember correctly. --ajn (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand, I just wish there was a way to verify this, outside our own research which may be possibly flawed. As I said, if its a think tank I do not believe they are required to register anything at all. Is it possible to contact some of these professors and ask them if they have indeed even heard of anything from WIF since their joining? Or is this outside our scope? --NuclearUmpf 12:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed: anyone can get together, and call themselves anything. There's no requirement for a to be a charity, either: anyone can apply for a domain. However, so many of the details about this organization feel peculiar to me -- most notably the gap between their presentation of themselves as a huge organization of thousands of distinguished scientists, run by Swiss charitable foundation, and planning to build a science city for 20,000 researchers, and their being run out of a P.O. box in Huddersfield, apparently sharing their phone lines with a small business being run from a shop. It seems to me that extraordiary claims require extraordiary proof, and there's very little of that, other than that a number of scientists, when offered honorary fellowships, appear to have accepted.
Perhaps the WIF could help us validate its claims -- for example by providing details of:
  • The name, address, registration date and registration number of the Swiss charity that is claimed to be the umbrella organization for the WIF
  • A (verifiable) list of the members of its Board of Directors
  • Where and when its Nobel-prizewinning members, and its other 3000 members, have met to transact WIF business
-- The Anome
I think it was the WIF's top banana who was sending stuff to the unblocking list this morning, threatening to sue everyone in sight if "their" information wasn't removed from Wikipedia (one of the many who doesn't read or understand "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." before hitting the save page button). Looking at the WIF website, I recall the picture of the "Open Research Establishment" from a few years ago, and I thought it smelled funny then. The portrait of its recently-deceased deputy director seems to be taken in the beer garden of a pub. I'd suggest we speedy-delete everything related to the WIF until its notability can be properly established. --ajn (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've now put it up for AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Innovation Foundation. If the WIF's claims are real, and it is an organization of the size and importance it claims, it should easily be able to furnish proof of its assertions. -- The Anome 13:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, given the E-mails above, I think we would probably be justified in speedy deleting it as "deletion requested by article author", and marking it as ineligible for recreation. -- The Anome 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You're suggesting salting a G7? I thought salting was only done in cases of repeated recreations, and G7 is about the most inappropriate type of speedy I can think of for salting. --ais523 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It is probably best to let the AfD run its course. If the organization is everything it presents itself to be, then appropriate references are bound to turn up. If things are not as they appear then the existence of a proper AfD will provide a paper trail to help prevent the organization from coming back and recreating the article after people's attention has turned to other efforts. --Allen3 talk 14:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, shouldn't the Xanthos Menelaou article go to the same bag (AfD)? He is arguably famous because he's former WIF chief executive, and WIF is arguably famous because (among other things) Menelaou was its chief executive. Duja 14:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've stuck a speedy template on it. Deletions are really not something I'm familiar with (either requesting or performing), so if I've added an inappropriate tag please change it. --ajn (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm the newbie here..but geez, there seems to be a huge rush to get rid of an article when there really is no evidence that it ISN'T true. Seems to me that if the World Federation of Engineering Organizations has the president of the WIF speaking at their 2003 symposium (it's ref #60 above), there is evidence that this organization really does exist. There are ways to do research that don't directly involve the a telephone call to ask anyone of these august individuals if they could provide some documentary evidence of the organization and its accomplishments. And no, that is NOT original research, it is seeking supportive documentation. Risker 15:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite willing to believe that some or all of the WIF's claims might actually be true, if verifiable evidence can be presented from multiple reputable sources to back up these claims. However, in the absence of this, the circumstantial evidence does not look encouraging, and the burden of proof still lies with the WIF to prove their claims to the Wikipedia community, rather than vice versa.
Some examples of this might be: independent reports of WIF conferences, personal testimony from some of the listed Nobelists that they have attended WIF meetings, full details of the alleged Swiss charity... However, the Lexis-Nexis search reported by one of the commenters above does not encouraging.-- The Anome 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I've now unblocked User:Drdavidhill, and I've put a note on his userpage inviting him to comment on this AfD. I look forward to him providing independent evidence to support his claims. -- The Anome 16:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a link providing just one of those grounds you are asking for "independent reports of WIF conferences" unless we are now stating "World Federation of Engineering Organizations" is also part of the hoax. --NuclearUmpf 16:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No, the WFEO's activities appear to be completely real and verifiable. However, attending a WFEO conference is not the same thing as holding a WIF conference. -- The Anome 16:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The actual quote from the webpage states that Dr Karle was speaking on behalf of WIF and was guest of honour and keynote speaker. That is a bit more than just attending the conference. Risker 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it is; I am perfectly willing to believe that Dr Karle might have accepted an invitation to talk on that basis. Perhaps someone should check with him for some more details of the WIF; as President, he must surely have attended many of their board meetings, and know the main players in the WIF, unless, of course, the position is purely honorary. -- The Anome 16:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete - it seems to be a mix between a hoax and a scam. --Charlesknight 16:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I got mixed up in all this mess when I responded to the good Doctor on the unblock-l mailing list, explaining to him that several users had protested his spamming on Wikipedia, and that he had been blocked for repeatedly having continued to spam. He immediately went on attack mode (in private emails, no longer on the mailing list), saying that I was blocking his legitimate right to discuss his charity with over 3000 members. When I finally got tired of repeating that he had not addressed the spamming, I stopped responding. At that point, he said that he was going to petition Jimbo. I at that point explained that he might want to address the users who had actually contacted and blocked him, not me, since I hadn't been involved until he posted to the mailing list. At that point, he accused me of "dishonesty" for not having told him from the very beginning that *I* hadn't been the one to block him. I didn't know that he didn't know who had blocked him, since it's pretty obvious in the block message who had done the blocking. He is now claiming that he is going to sue Wikipedia and post on his website how evil Wikipedia is, and will contact all of the other people we have wronged to get them to add such information. Since he's threatening lawsuits, he should not be unblocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, was he actually blocked at the time of this exchange? Anome has stated above that he was unblocked specifically so he could participate in the discussion, and his block log shows that he was not, indeed blocked at 01:51 on 21 September; Anome reblocked him six hours later. Please note that I absolutely agree with blocking anyone making legal threats. Risker 12:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he was still blocked at the time of our exchange. He was only unblocked on the 20th. But The Anome has reblocked him, I assume due to the legal threats. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I did rather enjoy pruning the article down to its verifiable core, perhaps some others would like to have at it as well.... Guy 12:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks and spamming - and now violating 3RR[edit]

Despite being asked to stop on both the telepathy talk page and his own talk page, editor THB continues to spam personal attacks against two editors he is edit warring with. This is the message he has already posted five or times within the past hour:

"I do not believe that the tone of the above comments is appropriate and, in my opinion,this demonstrates Askolnik's unfitness to take part in this discussion.-THB 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)"

I've posted warnings asking him to stop both on the telepathy talk page[29] and THB's talk page[30]. Here are the diffs for the spam:

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

The last was posted after I had posted warnings on both the article talk page and his personal talk page. Askolnick 17:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnik is harrassing not only me, but also Davkal, and admin assistance would be appreciated. -THB 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
THB, if you would like administrator assistance, you need to provide them with evidence of this alleged "harrassment." No administrator is either going to just take your word for it or read though hundreds of edits to see if there is any substance to your complaint. Askolnick 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To whoever decided to look into this: please note that it appears that both of these users will need a talking to (again). --InShaneee 18:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To whoever decided to look into this: please note that InShaneee is not a neutral party, and has had several conflicts with Askolnick. KarlBunker 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
O.K. InShaneee, I got it. You don't like me. You say I'm sarcastic and that I'm not polite. However, if you have a legitimate complaint, why not make it public rather than posting swipes and innuendos? Askolnick 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I am a 'neutral party', thank you very much. People need to learn that diciplining a user for incivil conduct does not mean that you are now 'involved in a dispute' with them. --InShaneee 17:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the above disruptive conduct, THB has not violated WP:3RR, with five revisions to Natasha Demkina article in the past few hours. Askolnick 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Askolnik has violated the 3RR rule on that article, not me, and joins with KarlBunker in reverting that page to technically avoid the 3RR rule. This behavior should be adressed. Askolnik seems to think that every edit is a reversion. Please check the facts--Askolnik is going out of his way to push POV and to be disruptive of Wikipedia. Thanks. -THB 16:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnik also removed a copy vio tag from Skeptic's Dictionary which clearly uses wording from the site itself without quotes or attribution. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy and should be addressed. -THB 16:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The dif in question to the above is [36] I have to say though the link the copyright tag uses is not specific and I didnt notice a direct copyright violation in the article description to the websites "FAQ", "Introduction" or "What is" section. I believe the issue is specifically the stories being used, however we have to assertain who does own those stories. If they are ghost stories and wise tales from a time past then I do not believe they need to be attributed. If they are taken word for word but Sceptic Dictionary doesnt own it either, then the real owner needs to be found, or its copy right status obtained. --NuclearUmpf 17:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User:THB has recently engaged in Wikistalking against Askolnick, as evidenced by his suddenly involving himself in a variety of articles that Askolnick has contributed to. See here, here, here, here, here, and just for good measure, he did it once with me: here. KarlBunker 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, KarlBunker and Askolnick have taken it upon themselves to revert any changes I have made in articles in trying to remove POV. They have worked in tandem to avoid the 3RR rule, which KarlBunker has violated multiple times. See Natasha Demkina for an example, which KarlBunker deliberately fails to mention. I have tried not to complain about it because the behaviour they exhibit speaks for itself, especially on the talk page for Telepathy which has been blocked for several days because of their disruptive behaviour. -THB 19:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks THB, I did forget to mention Natasha Demkina; that's another article where Askolnick has been a long-time contributor, and you, as of today, decided to start making edits too. That makes a total of 7 incidents of Wikistalking. KarlBunker 19:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review my block in this matter[edit]

I'm not the ideal admin to look into this, as I'm on friendly terms with Askolnick, but I took a look anyway, as it's been sitting here without admin attention for pretty long. I ask other admins to please review my actions. I agree with Askolnick and Karl Bunker that User:THB has been unwarrantably stalking and goading a fellow editor. (But he hasn't violated 3RR, not even close.) I consider this a fairly heinous offence, and have blocked for 48 hours. Please see my block message here for rationale. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

I had been looking at this trying to sort it out. I think Bishonen's block is appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Two admins + two other editors[edit]

Hi, I believe that I've been the victim of a Wikibullying (for lack of a better word). To make a long story short: Somehow, within the span of 10 minutes after I had posted a comment on user:Konstable's talk page and deleted his comments from my talk page, three separate users singled out my talk page (out of a few hundred thousand talk pages and 1.3 million articles on WP, somehow all three users just happened to hone in on mine), reverted my edits, and aggresively threatened to assess various penalties against me, barely explaining themselves, if at all.

For the long story (necessary to understand what I'm talking about), featuring the names of those involved, relevant links -- my AMA request for assistance talks about it in detail.

I wanted to bring the case to the attention of other Wiki admins, get their feedback on the matter, their opinions, etc. Tell me if I'm wrong, if the other people are wrong, if both of us are wrong, etc. J.R. Hercules 08:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Side note - previously brought up here. – Chacor 08:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand why people come here complaining about talk page removal. The person obviously got your message if they deleted it, especially since they replied, so what is their to complain about? The issue was the Lenin article, which they acknowledged that post, deleted it, and responded on the Lenin article over. To keep adding tags when the person has already removed one seems like unnecessary escalation of the issue. Adding tags so they get removed so more tags can be added really serves no point. --NuclearUmpf 08:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
People come here to complain about it because it is routinely used to harass them. There is a line in Wikipedia:Vandalism which says that users are not allowed to remove "valid warnings" from their talk pages. It was added without consensus about nine months ago, has been removed repeatedly ever since, but just as frequently restored. It's a wonderful practice ostensibly intended to make it easier to see past warnings (because page histories are just too darned tricky) whose sole actual purpose seems to be to facilitate harassment of users. In the above case, Konstable placed a message (regular discussion) on Hercules's talk page and Hercules removed it. Konstable then restored the message with a new one warning him that people aren't supposed to remove things from their talk page - which was of course not true, it is sometimes seen as incivil but not prohibitted. Hercules removed it again, Chacor restored and added a warning against removing warnings (which was also invalid since Hercules had done nothing against policy in the first place), Hercules removed again, Glen S restored again with another stern warning, Hercules complained, Konstable added a new warning against being incivil in complaining about their actions, et cetera. Blatant harassment and I'm gonna block the lot of them if they don't cut it out. That 'no removing warnings' concept is bad enough when it is applied 'correctly', but when it is used as a pretext to enforce false warnings it is atrocious and nothing short of deliberate harassment. --CBD 12:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Correction - The first reversion was Hello32020 restoring comments made by Konstable - rather than Konstable doing so himself as I originally thought. Apologies for the mixup, but... same problem. --CBD 12:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This does not have to be deliberate harassment, could just be an overinterpretation of policy and a failure to assume good faith on all sides, including, suprisingly, you, CBD. The "don't remove warnings" makes perfect sense used against standard IP vandalism, but is stupid when used against good faith users where it only helps to inflame the situation. Kusma (討論) 12:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible that this is just 'overinterpretation of policy'... but in application that is still harassment. And it gets used this way far more often than 'against standard IP vandalism' in my experience. IP vandals rarely bother to remove warnings... and when they do it is easily visible in the page history. This is a practice which routinely serves to aggravate contributors and provides no benefit except saving the need to click on 'page history' to see if an IP vandal has been warned before. --CBD 12:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm hello. I have never removed any content from Herucle's talk page. I have put a note asking him to respond to them rather than just remove them, but that was not even a "warning", they were my own words asking him for collaboration. Neither have I ever collaborated with the other people who are also "harrassing" him. Enough accusations? Let's look at the page history before throwing words? I think I assumed enough good faith when I tried to talk to him after he called a bunch of editors "idiots" and tagged their article {{NPOV}} without much decent explanation other than asking them to "ban Lenin fan editors". Eventually he participated in discussion on the page in question, to some extent, which is what I was asking for all along! I am not "out to get him". I don't know why the other editors/admins were reverting him, ask them, don't accuse me.--Konstable 12:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
See correction/apology from earlier above. I attributed the action to the wrong person. --CBD 13:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note on what the last warning on his page was referring to - things like accusations of "us" targetting him, asking Chacor to "stop pretending to be an admin", accusing Hello32020 of VP abuse, more accusations of sock/meat puppetry and asking me not to edit "other peoples'" pages.--Konstable 13:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The first and third are completely civil and accurate complaints about mis-treatment he had received, the second and fifth contain minor incivility in asking people to leave him alone, and the fourth is politely worded but assumes bad faith in suggesting that the reason for the sudden innundation of users to his page were some kind of puppetry. You'd have a better case for an incivility warning with some of his earlier statements and actions, but the multiple false warnings/threats he received were every bit as bad. --CBD 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I support blocking the harassing parties for 24 hours, doubling each time they repeat their actions. There is a centralized discussion on this matter. People should use common sense when multiple guidelines overlap. I haven't looked at the actions of J.R.Hercules yet, those are separate and may still need reviewing. Kim Bruning 15:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider warning someone over WP:OWN (in relation to WP:USER, and not in the article sense) harassment; has that changed? – Chacor 15:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Several people were engaged in an edit war with J.R. Hercules on his own talk page. In edit wars in user space, the user does own his page, and always gets the benefit of the doubt. Other parties get blocked for 24 hours. Kim Bruning 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
At best the issue here is overenforcement of policy. I see no reason to presume that anyone was intending to harasse anyone else and in any event blocks should be preventative not punitive. And no there is in no way shape or form any policy that edit warring on someone's own talk page somehow gives them a benefit of the doubt and somehow requires us to block the involved users. This has neither a policy nor a common sense basis. Everyone should just go back to editing. JoshuaZ 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Policy is no excuse. No one has successfully used the "befehl ist befehl" defence in the last 60 years or so.
If the rules contradict proper human decency, then human decency wins.
Of course, in this case the editors in question also simply violated our no edit warring policy. This was never repealed, though an additional electric fence has been added at WP:3RR. I don't know if 3 reverts have been reached yet, but it should still be quite alright to block people earlier, especially now they're aware of the fact.
So there you go, block them for either or both, I don't mind. Perhaps 48 hours is more appropriate, because they used "policy" as an excuse? Kim Bruning 15:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Kim a) as to your referrence to befehl ist befehl are you trying to be uncivil or are deliberately invoking Godwin's law and/or the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy? To be blunt, if I weren't an involved user I'd be considering blocking you for that completely inappropriate comment. We don't block people for trying to enforce policy- it doesn't accomplish anything. If soemeone committs genocide and claims they are following Wiki policy maybe then you might have a point. b) A handful of edits don't constitute an edit war and again it has stopped and blocks are better preventative than punitive. c) So now you are advocating increasing block time for people since they thought they can plausibly say they were following policy? This is the most inverted application of WP:AGF I have ever seen. JoshuaZ 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Errr, the gentleman with the funny moustache never actually tried that defence. He committed suicide, remember? (leaving you holding the godwin reference.)
The nuremburg defence is a particular defence that was at first attempted by both sides in the trials following the 2nd world war, and is still important today. Judges have consistently ruled that it's not a valid defence.
People in countries like Germany and Holland still occaisionally quote those decisions to people who have become blinded by bureaucracy.
What I'm trying to say is "I was just following policy" is never a valid defence for any action. This is one of my core beliefs, and I base it on the history of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Even so, that may well be moot. These users were not following guidelines at all. They were edit warring, after all. I'm pretty sure there are no current guidelines that permit edit warring. If the edit war had been continuing at this time, I believe the users should have been blocked. Kim Bruning 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Godwin's law refers to references to Nazis in general and argumentum ad hitlerum is often used to have that more general meaning as well (Godwin's law is explicit in that regard, read the page). You are also confusing "I was just following orders" when that result has an immoral or radically harmful aftereffect with good faith editors causing a minor inconvenience. To even see them in the same category as all is simply ridiculous and offensive. JoshuaZ 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Goodness, I really seem to have offended you. Where I live it's a common saying "we've done away with befehl ist befehl you know", when someone is overapplying the rules. I really wasn't thinking in any overblown sense <blink>. I'd better leave you a note on your talk page too. Kim Bruning 12:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop fanning the flames here. Blcoking is preventative, not punitive. Kusma (討論) 15:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but we can block next time, right? Kim Bruning 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC) that, and shhh, you're ruining the whole good_cop/bad_cop thing here. ;-)
User talk ≠ user page. No one owns one's own user talk, and saying "please don't edit other peoples talk pages" and "do not edit my page again" should not be accepted. JoshuaZ hit the nail on the head. – Chacor 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreeing also with Chacor here and Kim if you think people do own their talk pages I strongly suggest you review the associated policy pages. JoshuaZ 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You own your user talk, it is a page in your own user space. You may even choose not to use it or to redirect it, though people might find you somewhat uncommunicative if you do.Kim Bruning 15:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You do not own your user or user talk page, it is still freely editable (this is a wiki) and policy can be enforced there if people abuse the page (for example by using copyrighted images there in violation of WP:FU). Kusma (討論) 15:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, if you look at it that way. But in general the pages are for use by the user. Kim Bruning 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"look at it that way" in this context seems to mean "if you care about commonsense and/or policy" Kim, making comments on ANI where you don't know or don't care about the accepted practice and/or the relevant policies really isn't helpful. The signal to noise ratio here is already poor. JoshuaZ 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is a wiki... but if I tried to redesign your user page or even your user talk page the way >I< wanted it and kept reverting your attempts to restore it I would get blocked for harassment. That is 'common sense' and/or policy. It has always been that way. --CBD 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you dsee a distinction at all between redesigning someone's user page and leaving a message on the talk page just maybe? And note that in fact we willfully redesign problematic user pages all the time that are attack pages or have fair use images on them or a few different things. JoshuaZ 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll call. :-) Could you reference the pages in question? I do know I was recently looking in on the centralized discussion where this is being discussed, and I don't think final conclusions have been drawn on this issue. You now know my own position, in any case. If you like, I invite you to participate in that discussion and convince people of your own position. Kim Bruning 16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The relevant section on not owning user pages is Wikipedia:Talk#User_talk_pages (although now that I look at it again, it doesn't look as unambiguous as I remembered it). JoshuaZ 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: J. R. Hercules expresses astonishment (and possibly suspicion and/or sarcasm) about three users who "singled out my talk page (out of a few hundred thousand talk pages and 1.3 million articles on WP, somehow all three users just happened to hone in on mine)" - This is actually quite usual and ordinary on Wikipedia. It is very likely the users in question had Konstable's talk page watchlisted. I have a couple hundred user talk pages watchlisted myself.
Puppy also concurs with JoshuaZ. This is a tempest in a teapot. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts) So long as it stops I don't think anyone needs to get blocked. But we have to do something to prevent this from happening over and over again. There is a different case of the same thing further up the page here. Any practice which encourages users to engage in harassment and edit-warring just can't be a good thing. Even when used 'right'. In this case... Chacor, look at what you restored [37]. A week old request that the user respond, which they had actually done by then, and an incorrect warning that they aren't allowed to remove discussion from their page. What need was there for that? How does forcing the user to keep that stuff on his talk page do anything except annoy him? --CBD 15:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Then clarify the policy that it only applies to vandalism warnigns maybe? JoshuaZ 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Limiting it to vandalism warnings, if you could get the people who keep inserting it into WP:VAND to agree, would vastly reduce the frequency that this gets used to antagonize people, but there are still going to be tons of cases where people mis-label NPOV issues and other content disputes as 'vandalism' and then enforce display of those false warnings. Better to just remove the practice of encouraging edit-warring entirely. It's just a really bad idea. --CBD 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Awww, we get to block them next time though, right? Kim Bruning 16:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh. :] --CBD 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks to all who've provided feedback here. I appreciate the time you've taken to review and discuss my request.

A couple things I'd like to clarify here. One, though I probably should have made my sarcasm more clear, I did not mean to imply that sockpuppets were actually being used. I did, however, intend to convey my impression that some "ganging-up" and singling-out against me was taking place. If I am wrong on that, I apologize. But it struck me as an odd coincidence that the reversions on my talk page happened one right-after-the other within the span of ten or so minutes...

Second, from my end, I've always thought that Wikipedia "warnings" were warning banners, and I'm confused (as I was during the time of the edit war) by Chacor's characterization of his and the other non-banner edits as "warnings". Konstable did eventually put an actual warning banner on my page (which I'd like to archive or delete, if permitted), but that was after the initial edit sparring.

Last, though I know that users don't really "own" their talk pages, I was under the impression there's an understanding among Wikipedians that editing user talk pages (excluding adding comments; I mean specifically moving things around, deleting things, etc.) was the province of the user in question, and not other editors (except in extreme cases). I had once edited an admin's talk page to separate from my comments those of an anon user who added comments right after mine; he added his comments in a way that made it appear that I had made those extra comments. The admin messaged me to say he didn't appreciate me editing his talk page, and that it was his place to edit his own talk page. Hence, the comments I placed on Chacor and Konstable's pages. (Incidentally, Chacor just happens to have a disclaimer on his own talk page stating his prerogative to delete unfriendly comments...)

Again, though, thanks for the feedback. Points taken and lesson learned from my end. J.R. Hercules 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Responding to some of J.R. Hercules's comments above:
"it struck me as an odd coincidence that the reversions on my talk page happened one right-after-the other within the span of ten or so minutes"
I'm not going to speculate too much, but one possibility may have been the users being on recent changes patrol. However, that's only a theory, and may be totally wrong...
"...actual warning ... (which I'd like to archive or delete, if permitted)"
I think archiving would be best in this situation, taking into account the above free-for-all. Instructions can be found by following that link.
"Last, though I know that users don't really "own" their talk pages ... [insert the example here, removed for reduction of quoted material] ... prerogative to delete unfriendly comments)"
Generally, only vandalism is removed from talk pages. There is another free-for-all raging over the removal of personal attacks and blatant incivility on talk pages, and currently it is accepted that it is the perogutive (sp?) of the user, within reason, to remove such comments. Hence the disclaimer on Chacor's page. Unless added in a totally incorrect situation (ie. the user has never actually edited the page which they "vandalised" - it happened to me once...), it is my interpretation that warnings don't fall under this "personal attack/civility removal thing. I may be wrong, and it is simply my interpretation. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop this discussion now[edit]

I will not participate in this discussion where two users have harrassed and threatened me over things I have never done! Forgive me if this font looks a bit over the top, but I have had enough of people not reading my comments and harrassing me with fabricated accusations of incivil behaviour, threats and edit wars on Hercules' page, and this is the only way I can think of to get everyone to actually look at what happened rather than read CPD's false accusations: I have NEVER reverted Hercules' page, not once, 0 revert rule; I have NEVER made any incivil comments against Hercules; I have NEVER told him he is not allowed to edit his talk page and remove content from it - I have informed him that it is "not courteous" (my exact words) to clear his talk page without responding, and asked him to participate in discussion rather than clear his talk page ("Please" is not the same as "you must or you will be blocked" nor is it the same as "this is against policy") and I never reverted him or even asked him to revert it. If someone disagrees with ANY of these, wants to throw accusations or threaten blocks: provide diffs, read and comment on them. Otherwise I consider these unfounded accusations to be harrassment. WP:AGF.--Konstable 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... you might consider the possibility that when people don't use your name... they maybe aren't talking about you. :] --CBD 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Asdf, yes, CBD is right. Sorry for that above post which is spurred by a 90% misunderstanding, I withdraw any comments regarding CBD harra