Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive160

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

Noticeboard archives


Offensive username[edit]

just for future reference - what's offensive about it? --Charlesknight 00:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It's probably unnecessarily inflammatory towards religious folk who really have nothing better to do than get offended by certain numbers. --Cyde Weys 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree... I'm not religious, but I just blocked a "jesus", "DevilsSin666" is little better. Blocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, Jesus is a common hispanic name. Trollderella 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"Baby jesus" isn't, Trollderella. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Cyde has the right explanation, but I'm not impressed by his personal attack: "... who really have nothing better to do than get offended ...". Wikipedia should have a NPOV, right? As of 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC), Devils' block log doesn't show that he's been blocked yet. Thank you. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
He has been, I fixed the block log. NPOV applies to articles, though WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA could be relevant. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. BTW, I was referring to the username as being not-WP:NPOV, not the user's behavior, which was under WP:NPA. And please, I'm getting a little sick of coming here, reporting a username which is POV, and having to answer 3 questions before it is finally blocked. Thanks for blocking it, anyway. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't think a little oversight and discussion is a good idea? We are talking about indefinitely blocking an account, after all. That shouldn't just be automatic; you should expect discussion. --Cyde Weys 03:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I wasn't personally attacking anyone (my comments certainly weren't addressed to anyone in this thread). I'm just pissed off at hyper-religious folk in general who go insane over a simple number. --Cyde Weys 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Personbally, I wouldn't have blocked that user name indefinitely. Unless it is flagrantly offensive (such as User:Fuckbeans or User:Jimbo eats poop out of dead men's bums), or an obvious sneaky impersenation of an existing user, WP:USERNAME suggests maybe trying to talk to the person first and suggesting the change their username. That is clearly not happening enough. There are too many admins blocking for usernames when they should try actually communicating. Proto:: 10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the tendancy to issue indefinate blocks as a first resort, even when policy advises against it, is disturbing. Trollderella 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I have kept these linked sections under separate headings to preserve direct links. --bainer (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

After Thebainer blocked Husnock for a month, Husnock unblocked himself six minutes later, and clained that Thebainer was abusing his admin powers. I don't know who's right or wrong here, since I'm not involved, but I definitely think this needs to be reviewed. Scobell302 05:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A month? For what? Regardless, Husnock should not have unblocked himself. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Thebainer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for those who are interested. I'm doing more investigation. --Cyde Weys 05:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see I've been a little slow in drafting my message - see the section immediately below this one. --bainer (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Husnock (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A short time ago I blocked User:Husnock for a period of one month for disruption. The block arises out of a comment made last week by Husnock, that was misinterpreted by User:Morwen as threatening. A lengthy discussion ensued on the Administrator's noticeboard. Several editors and administrators, including myself, made an effort to reach an amicable end to a situation which clearly began with a string of misunderstandings and had snowballed from there. Husnock was resistant to efforts to peacefully resolve the dispute, but ultimately a resolution was reached and the community moved on, regarding the dispute as closed.

Recently Husnock has been further pursuing the matter by posting an message on his userpage in which he continued to maintain that the situation was something else than a misunderstanding, which is what the community had recognised the incident as. Even allowing Husnock some latitude to post a reasonable message stating his reasons for taking a wikibreak, this edit signalled to me an intention to pursue the dispute and retreat from the peaceful conclusion reached several days ago. After warning Husnock several times that I and several other members of the community consider this pursuit of the issue to constitute disruption within the meaning of the blocking policy, Husnock once and then twice replaced the message. As a result, I blocked Husnock as outlined above.

Husnock has now unblocked himself. I seek the advice of the community on this matter. --bainer (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think an emergency desysopping is in order. Husnock has already left Wikipedia "under a cloud" (as they say), and I see no possible good, and great harm, if he is left with the bit. --Cyde Weys 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Hunsock apparently uploaded dozens, possibly hundreds, of copyvio images, giving them fake "public domain" tags. --Cyde Weys 05:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What are these images you speak of? -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The image list was made by User:Durin, I am one of the mediators trying to figure out what is going on. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot of military insignia from a number of different countries marked {{PD-USGov}} that need re-tagging, and a handful of imaginary {{NoRightsReserved}} claims that need cleanup. Jkelly 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah... I suppose it has something to do with User:Husnock/Durinconcerns (redirected from User:Husnock/Durinharass). -- tariqabjotu 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm not about to take Husnock's side on unblocking himself, I would like to ask a couple of questions to clarify.
  1. If User A claims that User B made a death threat against them when they didn't, and the only response User B gets is that he should apologize (for something he did not do), do admins see it disruptive that someone takes a vast amount of offense at this?
  2. The block on Husnock was for disruption. "Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia." Can someone tell me what exactly he did to make it difficult to contribute to Wikipedia with a message on his user page?
  3. If several people consider something to be disruptive, yet others do not, is the fact that someone finds it disruptive enough to block them for a month? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 05:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite get question #1. Could you please clarify? --210physicq (c) 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking what the parameter is for a death threat accusation. If someone accuses me of making a death threat when I didn't, I see that as disruptive. I see that as basically a very vicious form of attack and rules-gaming. If I get upset over this, and people are telling me I'm in the wrong for getting upset, I want to know if the act of being upset is disruptive, because this is what this is all about. Husnock didn't feel he had made a death threat and was vastly aggravated that no one appeared to care about his side of the story. His being upset lead to the message on his userpage that people appearantly feel is disruptive. --ElaragirlTalk|Count
I'm kinda new to this husnock stuff, only running into him after nearly deciding not to upload a number of military badge images, before I realized the copyrights on the images we had was questionable... he's uploaded huge numbers of images with vague PD tags and from reading the history he's responded with a mixture of evasion, hostility, and implausibility to every question about the origins of the images. The images I asked him about have been available from a collectors website since the mid 90s.. After reviewing the recent history, I'm shocked that he hasn't been permbanned over the copyright issues alone, much less the other problems with hostile behavior. Regardless, self unblocking except in the case of obvious error or testing should simply not be performed. --Gmaxwell 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
By all means, desysop him. Unblocking yourself in a dispute is basically slaying your own bit. I'm just wanting a clarification on WHY he was blocked in the first place, because the reasoning above basically reads "I blocked him because I didn't like the message on his userpage".--ElaragirlTalk|Count 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know if the block was warranted, but unblocking oneself is no good. He should have posted on the unblock mailing list or e-mail another admin if the block was not valid. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thats my thought.. the more incorrect a block the easier to get it undone. So there is simply no reason to self-unblock... as a result a self-unblock is disturbing evidence of a lack of self-control which we shouldn't accept from any admin. --Gmaxwell 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Great, but is anyone going to answer my questions on the block or this disruption? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I will - the 'disruption' was for a threat allegedly made by Husnock, which stated "I would be very careful telling a serving member of the military they cannot edit articles". Husnock didn't mean it, I believe, in the manner of "I have access to guns and could kill you if you stop me editing", he meant it along the line of "I am serving my country in real life and should get special dispensation". Neither sentiment is particularly admirable when expressed by an admin. Morwen took the first meaning to be the one Husnock meant. This was unfortunate, and Husnock was asked to clear this up and apologise for any percieved threat, which would have resolved the whole unfortunate mess.
Husnock, instead, threw a hissy fit on this board, trying to get Morwen censured for feeling intimidated (utterly unacceptable). Husnock then refused to apologise until he was asked to by about thirty different people - even if he truly meant it in the second way, an apology would have calmed things down. He then made one of the most evasive apologies I've seen outside of Japanese Prime Ministers, but Morwen accepted the apology, and all was right with the world. Until Husnock decided not just to let things lie, and decided to insist he was right all along ([1]). This was disruptive, and once again not good conduct. I think a month's block for this, however, was very excessive. But Husnock then decided to unblock himself, which is wheel-warring, and, unfortunately, I can only see this ending up at WP:RFAr. Proto:: 10:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with User:Proto for what it is worth. It's sad this whole situation got to this point over what was a simple misunderstanding that could have been diffused early on with a simple apology. It's even sadder that this is still being discussed when the last AN/I thread was left at a place where everyone could have just chalked it up to a misunderstanding and moved on. I will also say the Dan Rappaport message/Husnock login is a rather curious postscript to this whole thing and unfortunate because it didn't have to get to this point.--Isotope23 14:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Response from Husnock[edit]

Gang, what just happened on my user page is absolutely outrageous. Three to four days ago I left editing Wikipedia articles due to some serious issues with the site. I have stayed around only to answer talk page messages and participated in an AfD by invite. The issues which caused me to leave the site were a real world Wiki-staking incident where someone sent e-mails out into the real world trying to find out who I was and then sent a semi-threatening e-mal to my wife. The second incident involved a user stating I had threatened her and that she was in fear of her life. That was resolved but still disturbed me greatly. So, I departed editing Wikipedia articles and posting a statement as to the reasons. Bainer then arrives and removes these statements from my user page, in effect censoring what I ahd to say. I explained to him these were not personal attacks, but simply my stating why I had left. I also was confused why he removed the Wiki-stalking statement since that didn’t even reference an actual user, just an event that had taken place in the real world. I restore my user page, Bainer removes the material again and then proceeds to block me for an entire month. At this point, not only has he removed material from someone else’s user page but he has blocked another user which he was currently involved in a dispute with, clearly something no one should ever do. My user page is not making personal attacks, it is stating why I am leaving this site. For a user to remove this material and then block me when I had a problem with that is against everything we stand for here. And, P.S.- what is this business about uploading “fake” images? I’ve done no such thing and that is a baseless accusation. Someone who states such a thing without evidence should be doing an investigation as it won’t be impartial. P.s.- to Gaxwell, I answered your query as to where the images came from and gave you a name and phone number to verify this Whats the problem? -Husnock 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But why did you unblock yourself? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I know not under what circumstances, atrocious or no, you were blocked, but this I do know: you are not to unblock yourself under any circumstances. It's not that hard to grasp. --210physicq (c) 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is the link to the GMaxwell answer [2]. I have no idea why he would say such a mean thing, I answered his question with all civility. Yes, I probably shouldnt have unblocked myself but bainer should not have blocked me in the irst place as he was the other party in a dispute. The proper thing would have been to post here and let others deciede. I apolgize to the Wikipedia community for unblocking myself, I saw it as a self defense measure against someone who abused thier powers. -Husnock 05:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
With respect to the assertion that I was involved in a dispute with Husnock, people should be aware that I first encountered this matter on WP:AN and attempted, as a neutral intervening party, to achieve a peaceful resolution to the issue. Please see my extensive attempts to mediate the issue last week both directly with Husnock and on WP:AN. --bainer (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Forgive my rudeness, but if your noble (no sarcasm intended) attempts at mediation have failed, then we must bring this issue back to the community (aka this board) to discuss alternate solutions. --210physicq (c) 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Once thebainer engaged in revert warring on Husnock's user page, it was time to bring the issue to the community, because however noble his intent, he no longer had the veneer of a completely neutral third party. NoSeptember 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Largely irrelevant. If Husnock had reaosnable grounds to dispute the block, there are several ways of challenging it or requestign unblocking. Self-unblocking is not a good response. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I assume your comment here was mislocated. This part of the thread was about whether one should have support of the community or not before blocking. It was not about Husnock's reaction or his trend of bad behavior, which I think we all agree was improper. NoSeptember 12:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good grief ... blocks aside, looking through his uploads, there are a lot that are obviously tagged wrong or just out and out copyvios ... it's the "if it's on the internet, it must be free" thing. Image:Wesley.gif, Image:SavanFlag.gif, Image:GermanKnight.JPG --BigDT 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One of those examples is from 2005, before I even knew what I was doing and that is outside the issue we are discussing. if my image uploads are wrong, please fix them. Durin and I have alread buried the hatchet. -Husnock 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If administrators really weren't to unblock themselves under any circumstances whatsoever, the MediaWiki software would be configured to prevent them from doing so. A blocked administrator could unblock an IP address to remove an autoblock, but he/she would not be permitted to unblock his/her own username. That being said, it would seem that self-unblocking would be properly limited to truly extreme circumstances -- i.e. if one administrator uses a bot to frivolously block a large number of administrators, preventing unblocked administrators from responding to the situation, the blocked administrators may unblock themselves. Such a justification for self-unblocking does not seem to be present here. John254 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of good faith, let's not harp upon Husnock's unblocking of himself. He has already apologized. While I do not condone such a move, the unblocking is peripheral compared to other concerns. --210physicq (c) 06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the policy and, yes, everyone is right. I should not have unblocked myself. I formally apologize for this, I should have posted "unblock" to my page. If someone wants to reblock me, I will follow this course. However, in the policy it also syas that when you are in a dispute with someone you shouldnt block them to keep them quiet or to stablize your own version of a pge, etc. Prior to my reviewing the policy, I thought my self-unblock was justified as a response to an unfair block in the first place Apologies all around. Lets get back to the issue. Am I allowed to have my departure statement on the talk page? And, if not, why? -Husnock 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Not if it disrupts the community and the building of the encyclopaedia, fails to assume good faith, or doesn't meet any other Wikipedia policy. No comment whether that is the case in this instance... Daniel.Bryant T • C ] 06:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Self-unblock is a nice trap door to detect people who are for whatever reason insufficiently qualified to continue holding adminship. As far as the good-by message.. there is a reason it's called a "right to vanish" and not a "right to salt the earth". --Gmaxwell 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Husnock, Your hostility with respect to copyright wasn't towards me, but rather it was towards Durin who asked you questions about the same images and you treated him with large amounts of hostility. I've looked into your claims more, but I'm simply having a hard to believing you: you somehow managed to upload the images in the same order/groupings that is used today on the website which claims to hold the copyright, while the history of the site makes it clear that the images were added over time and that the grouping evolved. Your claim that even if they images are the work of Mr. Ploessl that he has no copyright in them is incorrect (he can hold the copyright on the sketch of the images even if the underlying artwork is the PD work of the US Government). Furthermore, the number you provided me with is simply a generic number to a HR department. They don't know anything about CDs of images of emblems, nor are they authorized to give me any useful contact information for the name you mentioned.
I hadn't responded to you any further because you'd told me your version of events, so I had nothing more to say to you... and after reading the history of your interactions with Durin, I must say that I was afraid to say anything else. I'd like to assume good faith but a view of your recent history and your decision to unblock yourself (even after 'leaving') is making that rather difficult. --Gmaxwell 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Durin and I have made peace (I think), and the core of my upsetness was that during that dispute there was some real, very scary, wiki-stalking going on where my wife was getting strange e-mails threatening her. Its been resolved, but it would upset anyone. As far as these images to which you refer, I've already said I got them from our image database at NPRC which has links to IOH and Randolph AFB among dozens of others. The CD I spoke of I got from Pat Ratzel. 314-801-0800 isn’t a Human resource number, its a customer service number. Did you call it and actually speak to someone? Depending on who it was, they should to at least have been able to tell you images of military medals and badges are free to use by anyone, and they should have been able to give you the number for either Randolph or the Air Force Liaison Office. If I was there, I could investigate what you were told and by who but am deployed. And, yes, I should just leave this site but this is all a bit unsettling. It seems the original problem with a block by another user in a dispute who censored my talk page has now mutated into discussions about being truthful about where these images came from. I can only state what I know. -Husnock 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that things are indeed more calm than recent history had caused me to believe. I don't want to think you are dishonest, and as you said.. you can only tell me what you know. It's also the case that most of the Federal Government does a terrible job with respect to keeping track of copyrights internally(recent conference on this subject). So it's not super helpful that when the guy at the website complained that you just reverted him :) [3]. It's possible that someone grabbed all those images off the fellows website and stuck them on a CD. I'll get to the bottom of it, and indeed I did call the number and confused them completely. I'll try again during the week and see if I have better luck. --Gmaxwell 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As Greg says, self-unblock is a nice trap door to snare admins who don't know better than to not unblock themselves. I'm sure a surprising number of admins would fall for it. It would have been better to bring the discussion about days old disruption here first, allowing Husnock and anyone else to discuss it before the block was made. Husnock has acted poorly for weeks, and thebainer did the community no favor by blocking first, talking later. NoSeptember 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
He did talk first, which has caused Husnock to claim that he shouldn't have blocked as a 'party to a dispute'. Which way should it be? --Gmaxwell 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As stated above, I mean talk it out with the community, there was no cause for bainer to take the community's burden upon himself when there was no immediate urgency. They already engaged each other in a revert war on Husnock's user page. It was time for bainer to pass it on to others to avoid the appearance of a one on one dispute. Blocking an admin for a month without any open community discussion should raise a red flag almost every time. NoSeptember 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You wouldn't want some insane person or admin-bot to block everyone, requiring developer intervention with madness in the meantime; automation means that the one becomes as strong as the many. You also do want a person who accidentally blocks himself to be able to undo it. —Centrxtalk • 06:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, if self-unblocking was really totally unacceptable, change Mediawiki to make it impossible. If it isn't, then don't start complaining about the principle, look into the circumstances. Personally I have tried several times to make an absolute declaration that WP:IAR does not apply to self-unblocking for blocks placed by other users, and it gets reverted. That means that the community believes it can be acceptable, in certain circumstances. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Pray enlighten me as to what was really special about this occasion? The community trusts few of the users as administrators for a reason; that is they are expected to exercise good discretion and show understanding of the policies and the process. There is a very good reason why the policies and the guidelines exist. Husnock has demonstrated in a very exemplery way how admin accounts can be abused. This warrants an immediate de-sysop; unfortunately many of the stewards are either offline or idle. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Dunno about this particular occasion. Just commenting on the principle of self unblocking. The password sharing is another issue and it's pretty much unique in my experience for an admin account to have a password released. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The thing that gets me about all those conversation is that Husnock is claiming his right to leave a message explaining why he departed - thing is - he never departed and it seems to be using that position as a bit of a shield for leaving his message up. --Charlesknight 10:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If you read his talk page, although he has 'left Wikipedia', he reserves the right to 'continue to answer questions on the talk page, vote in certain high profile AfDs, and revert vandalism against articles'. Proto:: 10:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Which was added after I challenged him about the message but his responses are still coached in "I left because" which frames the debate in an entirely different manner to "and that's why I'm just semi-active". --Charlesknight 10:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia[edit]

Dear Wikipedia-

My name is Dan Rappaport, I’m a Lieutenant Colonel attached to CENTCOM currently serving in the Middle East. In real life, I know who Husnock is and he is a pretty great guy. I’ve been on Wikipedia off and on over three years and I saw this conversation after hearing about it from Husnock. I had at first sent a strong worded letter to “Morwen” who started this thing by saying Husnock wanted to kill her. It was pretty sad that this was removed from your website as an “attack” when my point was to show to Morwen how ridiculous it was to state that a United States Naval officer, stationed in the Middle East, would want to kill her. Also, it was a slap against Husnock. The man is married and has a kid on the way. Why the fuck would he go to England to hurt some girl because she posted some crap about Star Trek? Right after all this, Husnock decides to leave this site but gets beat up even for that. His webpage is messed with, blocked from the site, and it seems the same people are showing up over and over again to run him down and say he’s wrong. Now, lets take a look at what’s happened in the last few weeks. My understanding is limited to what I can find, but here goes: 1) Husnock gets told by a guy named Durin that he’s been uploading bad images for months and he will be investigated and then he is asked to hand over addresses and phone numbers of everyone he’s talked too, including his dead grandmother or something like that. That same day, he learns that someone’s sending e-mails trying to find out who he is and then a week later his pregnant wife gets threatened when’s he overseas. Yeah, that would piss me off, too. 2) Okay, so the Durin affair ends and then he gets drawn into these articles about Star Trek. I took a look and it seems he came around about those. I don’t know your policies that well, but the whole point with that nonsense appeared to be references being called false and then, yeah, people got pretty mean with Husnock. I saw a couple of edits where he’s called names and one where he’s called crap. So, point 2, yeah that might piss me off too. 3)Now, here we are with this whole death threat bullshit. Husnock threatened no one. He told a punk kid in the UK that she had no right telling a United States armed forces member that he couldn’t edit this site. Good for him. The girl then posts for anyone to see that Husnock threatened her life and she now fears him. News flash since folks don’t know, that drew real world attention and Husnock was talked to by some authorities, including NCIS. After all, a citizen of the United Kingdom posted on a public website that a U.S. Naval Officer had threatened to kill her. Maybe you all don’t see how serious that is but I do and, you bet, that would ROYALLY piss me if it happened to me. 4) Last we come to Husnock leaving. He says he’s leaving, he tries, but again gets beat up since he came back to vote on one of your pages and then someone screws with his webpage. He tries to stop them, gets blocked, and then here we are all, beating him about it, going back to the death threat issue, and saying things about those stupid images, half of which I think Husnock deleted from your site. So, where do we stand? I think you guys have treated this fine man like total shit. But, hey this is a website, not real life, and I talked to Husnock at lunchtime he was cool with everything. He knows this is not real, do most of you? He is gone now, he really is not coming back. I just wanted to stop in and share my thoughts. I hope everyone is proud of themselves because you really have run him off for good. That’s my two cents. God Bless the USA. -Dan

P.S.: Husnock gave me his account password so I could post this letter since half the ip addresses in Dubai are blocked by this site. You guys should really do something about that. No one can log on or create a new account. -Dan

I haven't followed Husnock issue but something should be done re Dubai IPs. I don't know about Dubai ranges so if there are people who know about that, please take some action. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If the above is true, this is outrageous. Husnock, you and only you were given access to admin privileges, because it was believed that you could be trusted with the privileges. You were sysopped, your friends were not. You should know that as an admin, you should be very careful with giving others access to your account. Even if you believe they can be trusted, you are still giving them access to an admin account. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the above is true. The account isnt compromised since I can change the password and I am leaving anyway. Please consider this as part of the conversation on the issue. It isn't vandalism and it isnt trolling. Its just someone wanting to post; I was kind of shocked to see the letter reverted in less than a minute. Also, the Dubai ip thing really needs to be looked at. Noone can create an account from an American computer system right now as there are so many ip blocksthat it makes it impossible. Thank you everyone. -Husnock 11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you can change the password. You have given another person access to your sysop-privileged account. That is very serious. You are constantly doing something wrong and then covering up with some lamehearted excuse. You apologized for Morwen's feelings about your statement, but you only begrudgingly expressed something of an apology for the statement itself. You unblocked yourself, which is a grave abuse of admin privilege, and again gave something of an apology for what you shouldn't have done in the first place, and which you should have known not to do. Now this. What's next? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I complained about the intimidating tone of User:Husnock's statement, on Talk:Starfleet Security at 10:30. He complained about me feeling threatened by his intimidating statement to WP:AN at 10:45. NCIS must be really efficient, or perhaps you are distorting the order of events as well as leaving personal abuse against me?
By the way, yes, we have a serious issue here if an the password to a (supposedly) inactive admin account is known by another person. Morwen - Talk 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Giving away your password to a supposedly inactive admin account, which for an account that left a week ago, has made a heck of a lot of edits and blanking of the warnings on the account's talk page, is the final straw. This account needs to be desysopped immediately. Proto:: 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The account is compromised at the user level (leaving aside, the story as presented makes makes no sense at all. Why has Husnock given his friend Dan the password as he seems to be either sitting beside him or is in direct contact with him and could have posted the material himself) and should be desyopped straight away. We wouldn't want any "accidents". --Charlesknight 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm already asking on IRC. No active stewards though, it seems... – Chacor 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked him on the grounds that his account is compromised. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Still useless right now because he could easily do what he did to get in trouble the first time. – Chacor 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have left a note on WP:BN asking if a bureaucrat can step in. Proto:: 12:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the kind of way most Lt. Colonels I have met ever talked...something just seems a tad bit off here, folks.--MONGO 12:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All I have ever met is an Australian Naval Captain and an Australian Naval Commander, but I would have to agree with you. ViridaeTalk 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Husnock has requested unblocking. As I am involved, I won't handle the request, so could an uninvolved admin please do so? I think it is Very Bad Faith Indeed to insinuate any remote possibility that this Lt Col is an imaginary character Husnock has made up to say what he likes with yet another excuse - 'he' didn't say these things. Proto:: 12:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There's ample precedent for blocking a compromised sysop account (see, for example, HolyRomanEmperor). It is because there could be two people using the account that it has been blocked. Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
HRE was not a sysop. NoSeptember 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Gah, you're right. My point stands though--we've blocked compromised accounts before. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, quite. Also, it is interesting that User:Husnock said about this chap on December 13, that "I have never heard of this person but I do know there are CENTCOM offices in Dubai", and now they are good friends? Morwen - Talk 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There's an easy way to find this out: a check of the IP Husnock edits from. He claims to be editing from Dubai, so his IP should be consistent with that. If they resolve to e.g. New Zealand or Greece (to name two examples), something is fishy. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Except that a checkuser won't out his IP address. If the Arbitration Committee or a steward needs the information it can be supplied to them (of course, most arbs have checkuser themselves). Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we definitely did have some abuse left on my talk page by a .ae address, so I don't know what that is supposed to demonstrate. Morwen - Talk 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well this all looks bent to me. --Charlesknight 12:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You fear sockpuppetry? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if Sockpupperty is the right word but even with AGF hanging over my head - I find the constant changes in story ("never seen this IP before" to "we have no idea who that IP could be" to "actually it's my good friend Dan") , the swift changes between Husnock, "dan" and then back to Husnock and all the other bits of the story odd to say the least. Would it be straining AGF too much to say that I would not find it a surprising turn of events to find out that "Dan" does not and has ever existed? --Charlesknight 13:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The IP address that left the message on Morwen's talk page is a very active one, as most of the traffic from Americans in Dubai routes through that IP address (nb, I just undid my block a few days early), and so probably most Americans editing in Dubai would resolve to that address, as it is a shared IP address. That won't, unfortunately, prove anything. Proto:: 13:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been brought to us on the #wikimedia-stewards channel. We won't desysop anyone unless the admin permissions will be abused. I don't know the previous accidents with the user Husnock, and my personal feelings on this are that nothing bad happened, since his admin powers haven't been abused. Since Dubai is blocked, this was (not the only one, but it was) a way to overcome the ban. In any case - please move this request to your local Arbitration Committee. Once again - if Husnock or his friend will abuse their admin privilages, please contact us - we'll desysop him for precaution right away. Datrio 12:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we begin a formal ArbCom request now? That may be best. – Chacor 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't have to wait. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 12:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there have been a series of issues and lack of successful dispute resolution to justify a case starting whenever someone wants to start one. NoSeptember 12:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As usual, the procedures that the Stewards follow here are correct and appropriate. There is no immediate emergency that calls for bypassing ArbCom. ArbCom can act fast if they needed to (with an injunction if necessary). NoSeptember 12:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone even read my letter? Does this website have any kind of understanding? Yes, I am a real person and yes Husnock gave me his password so I could post my letter. If anyone wants my e-mail address Ill try and find some way of getting it you so you can see I'm flesh and blood. I was trying to help Husnock. He is now kicked off your webpage forever? What kind of a website is this. -D. Rappaport, CENTCOM — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Note that the above IP, which resolves to the UAE, was also used by General Tojo. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The above IP is used by just about every American in the UAE, so that proves nothing, I'm afriad. Proto:: 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it proves that they apparently have nothing better to do at CENTCOM ;) Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Guys, this is low Wikidrama and needs to be curtailed before it gets any more absurd. Husnock's made it pretty clear he doesn't want to be a sysop any more, so he should just make the usual statement on his Talk so we can get the sysop bit disabled, it's then up to him whether he leaves or stays around. It's be a shame ot lose him but clearly RL is too much right now so a Wikivacation looks like a great idea; he can reapply on return to normality (whatever that is). I don't feel we're doing Husnock or ourselves any favours right now. I don't think we should burn his boats for him, he's obviously been a good contributor in the past, let's just quetly walk away shall we? Guy (Help!) 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    I would agree, but where did Husnock say this? I haven't seen him volunteering to give up his sysop status. Also, he already went on a Wiki-vacation five days ago when you last suggested it. This is Husnock on his vacation. Proto:: 13:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There certainly seems to have been a lack of proportion/judgement from a number of those involved in these events, particularly given the self-identification of one as a senior company grade and one as a field grade officer. A holiday and/or a new start seems like a good idea to clear the air. David Underdown 13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Much of this reads like a comedy of errors, but there is also consistently a deeper issue. I can see Husnock being offended at the idea that he meant to harm someone... but consider his failure to understand how his threat (and it WAS a threat, of something) could be taken that way short-sighted. I can see Husnock's desire to 'clear his name'... but think that continuing to grouse about it on his user page, after everyone had agreed he didn't intend a death threat, was petty and vindictive. I can see Husnock feeling that edit warring on his user page and a one month block were inappropriate (indeed, I agree)... but can only see it as a failure of good sense to then unblock himself. I can imagine that Husnock claimed to 'not know' Dan Rappaport to avoid accusations of meat-puppetry... but giving out his password even to this 'close RL friend' was incomprehensibly unwise. I understand Husnock not knowing all the intricacies of copyright... but not his failure to drop everything and review/resolve any potential violations when the first were pointed out. I can come up with reasonable / non-malicious motivations for all these things... but a solid and trustworthy admin this is not. --CBD 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what is going on now? These is talk of taking it to WP:RFAr, and User:Husnock's unblock request has been declined on the basis the question will be answered there. Morwen - Talk 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if someone thinks Husnock needs to be desysopped, they will start an ArbCom case request. Otherwise, once any account compromise issues are resolved, Husnock will be unblocked and be free to proceed as normal. NoSeptember 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Giving out your admins password is really bad judgement, it does not matter if you trust the person, the community decides who is trusted with admin powers. Out of line. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The community decides who is trusted with admin powers, but the community (including admins) cannot desysop. That has to be done by stewards, who generally only act in an emergency or on instruction from a wikipedia's ArbCom. Sadly, it looks like this whole case will now have to go to ArbCom, even if Husnock voluntarily gives up his admin bit. There are several important issues here that I, for one, would like to see ArbCom rule on. Also, I think that Husnock, even if he doesn't seem to be listening to the concerns of the community, might react better if ArbCom ended up saying that he was wrong to do many of the things that he did. So the only question now is whether anyone is going to file an ArbCom case? Can uninvolved, third-party observers file an ArbCom case because they want the issues resolved at that level, or does it have to be the partioes involved that file the case? Carcharoth 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Generally it would be one of the people involved. I'm pondering raising it myself, although that I wasn't directly involved in any of this recent actual blocking/unblocking drama/wheel-warring drama. Should I do this or should I leave it to one of the users who tried to talk to him? It really is a shame it got to this stage. Morwen - Talk 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The best solution would probably be for Husnock to request de-sysoping, be unblocked, leave as he intended, and then come back when/if he wishes to. Failing that an ArbCom case seems the only option and thus I have been drafting one - even though I am a largely uninvolved party. --CBD 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you want to finish that off and then pass to me and we can submit it jointly, perhaps? I find your characterizations of the sitatuion above, and on Wednesday, close enough to the situation as I see it that this seems sensible. Morwen - Talk 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can file a case. If someone else doesn't do it, I probably will. (edit conflcit, CBD is working on one) The shear number of disruptive discussions he has been involved with recently, over image deletions, Star Trek articles and his attacks on Durin for "outing" his personal info (when Durin merely pointed out that his name tag was legible on his self-portrait) have convinced me he does not have the temperment to be an admin. Giving out his password (or sockpuppetry, whichever is the case) is just the last straw. Thatcher131 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
16:27, 18 December 2006 Jon Harald Søby (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Husnock@enwiki from sysop to (none)

Desysopping performed. — Werdna talk 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that Husnock has been de-sysoped I am going to unblock so that he may take part in the arbitration case... though that actually may not be needed unless he wishes to contest the de-sysoping. --CBD 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
He does not need to be unblocked to participate in arbitration. A blocked user may email statements, etc. to the arbitration committee's mailing list, to any arbitrator, or to any arbitration clerk, and they will be added to the case history. Unblocking him should be decided upon based on an estimation of his likelihood to cause further disruption, and not to defend any purported right he has to participate in arbitration (as he has none: nobody has a guaranteed right to participate in an arbitration case). Kelly Martin (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
A valid argument but... already did it. Further, I was not invoking some 'right' or rule in citing 'so he can participate in the ArbCom case', but rather noting my own motivation. The 'rule' for unblocking is simply the fact that the preventative purpose of the block no longer exists... Husnock's admin abilities are gone and therefor the danger of them being used by someone who has not been authorized to have them is now nil. He was earlier blocked for 'disruption', but that was IMO a questionable case and notably not restored by any admin even though Husnock had removed the block himself. As to hypothetical future disruption... I go with 'assume good faith' and deal with it IF it happens. --CBD 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether this Colonel is a real person or not, the entire issue boils down to the fact that an admin account's password has been compromised. That account must be indefinitely blocked and the admin bit removed immediately. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


CamelCommodore (talk · contribs)

Anyone like to look into the possibility that User:CamelCommodore is a sockpuppet of User:Husnock; see: [4] --Moby 13:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. Judging by that edit, that is. Perhaps a checkuser? Or is that really required now?. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be hard/impossible to prove conclusively just read the above discussions most of the US personnel in the region have access through a common IP address Gnangarra 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if he is a "retired US air force officer", then he won't be coming from .ae. this is a rather odd third edit, though. Morwen - Talk 15:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It does not seem to be the same type of personallity. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I offer this dif for consideration [5], the user does seem to be hinting at some improper covert purpose. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
True, but there are alot of people with hidden agenda's, different personalities from my perspective. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It could easily be someone who is trying to get someone else in trouble, mind. Morwen - Talk 17:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever this guy is, he just posted a talk page message on my talk page after I made my Arb Com statement. I dont know who this is and I told him to stay the hell out of this. -Husnock 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

hum he must have just been hanging around all day. I've excluded most of the points - most occur in a certain time period - guess when that is... --Charlesknight 20:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend CheckUser. Moreschi Deletion! 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have indef blocked CamelCommodore as a trolling-only account. After doing so, I saw this checkuser report from Dmcdevit. Thatcher131 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was going to indef block CC, but Thatcher131 beat me to it. This if taken as 'truthful' would make the account a disruptive sockpuppet of Husnock... and if taken as falsehood would make the account a disruptive impersonator of Husnock. This situation has gotten so bizarre that I won't even try to guess and just leave determination of which to any checkuser... but either way someone needing to be blocked. --CBD 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Repeatedly vandalizing Lesbian. Geoffrey Spear 18:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for vandalism issues next time. Cheers -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Roitr block enforcement requested[edit]

All sockpuppets of Roitr (talk · contribs) and all adding false information to articles related to Russian military ranks — see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. For proof, compare this edit by Cariso to this edit from an IP in the same range as Roitr's ISP. Demiurge 19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I say 99.5% chance of sockpuppetry, especially given comments like [6]. Patstuarttalk|edits 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

news from the front[edit]

A edit war with sockpuppets and anons over Weffriddles it's on AFD now, parties creating templates to insert information back (see also {{weffriddles}} history) and users trying to find new ways to sneak in. Sprotected for now, may want to look there once in a while. That's the incident I?m reporting. Coming back to you fred. -- Drini 19:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC) - Admin intervention against spam[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is pretty spamtacular, we're having trouble keeping up. Can we get a short block? 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would point you to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but as an anon editor, you can't report there. All the more reason to register...
Even though the editor wasn't properly warned, they're obviously only interested in adding links. 31 hour block. EVula // talk // // 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, everyone is able to leave a message at WP:AIV, not just registered users. So in the future, you can leave your message there for a faster response. Prodego talk 20:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sure enough; the protection is just on page moves. I saw the "unprotect" tab and jumped to a confusion. EVula // talk // // 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked a troll account[edit]

I recently indefinite blocked Aughein (talk · contribs) for being a single purpose account used only for trolling. Note his edit to MONGO's user talk page and the pointless comment in an AFD about Wikipedia not keeping 'good stuff' like Brian Peppers. There were a few edits in the past many months ago that made me hesitate, but I think it's clear that no good will come out of this account. Just thought I'd leave a note here, though. Cowman109Talk 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why his opinion about what the 'good stuff' is is relevant to this. Trollderella 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I rejected his unblock request and another admin also agreed on his userpage. Looks like a simple sleeper troll. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If you had any question if that user was really a troll...[7] I have protected that users page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bunch of vandals[edit]

Here are some repeat vandals. could someone please block them? thank you.

User talk:
User talk:
User talk:
User talk:

Ilikefood 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

None of those vandalized after being given a final warning. Please report to WP:AIV in the future (also, for reference, please sign your comments, so that it's easier to see when they last got a warning). -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You want WP:AIV. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I simply could not find somewhere to report vandalism to an arcticle. I am not a user myself so I am not sure exactly what to do.

The article "Genetic Fingerprinting"

One line reads "The excess DNA probe is then washed off your dick. An X-ray film placed next to your mother detects the radioactive pattern"

I am pretty sure that is wrong

cheers -L 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go fix that. In the future, you can remove incorrect information yourself, just by editing the page. -Amarkov blahedits 22:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Already got it :) Patstuarttalk|edits 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Nehpetskenawi[edit]

Nehpetskenawi (talk · contribs) has been vandalising numerous pages. - Parthi talk/contribs 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV in the future. -Patstuarttalk|edits 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart edit warring and User:Mael-Num[edit]

The Derek Smart article is in a sorry state of rampant edit warring which lead to the semiprotection of it and its talk page too.

Mael-Num (Mael-Num|talkMael-Num|contribs) has been pushing to have two cited incidents from reliable sources, namely the notable incident involving the alleged assault by Derek Smart of a coke machine, and a cite from ben kuchera of ars technica. User :Mael_Num has claimed a consensus for deletion of the cited information based on a discussion in the talk page that has lasted only a few hours, and with only three contributors out of many, which is not acceptable. He has warnings for civilty on his talk page. He can be possible SPA by his contributions Mael-Num|contribs.

I kindly request the admins to mediate and offer a acceptable solution to this long running (>13 months) edit war. I would also request for a checkuser to be performed on Mael-Num and Supreme_Cmdr and WarHawkSP to see if there is any violation of the blocks placed under WarhawkSP and SC.Kerr avon 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I mirror Kerr avon's stated concerns. Except the check user is much more complicated. Besides the 3 usernames, there are also anonymous IP addresses that have recently appeared editing the Derek Smart article and it's talk page. They all purport the same viewpoint, share writing styles (mostly) showing uncanny similarities to recently blocked WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr, and always agree with each other. The IP addresses are and, which are both Fort Lauderdale IP Addresses, where Smart lives and runs his business. Also, it should be noted that these violations may fall under WP:Auto policy because it is likely the person is Derek Smart himself. --Jeff 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I don't believe Mael-Num is a sockpuppet. Supreme_Cmdr/WarHawkSP and the IP Addresses are. Mael-num has a distinct writing style, but there are still issues that need some oversight over at the derek smart article.--Jeff 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned as well. I'm concerned that there is organized off-wiki attempt to push a POV on this article that removes cited sources. As mentioned above on this page, WarHawkSP and Supreme Cmdr have been single purpose accounts blocked from editing due to this. There have been numerous more single purpose accounts and now a rash of anon edits. Checkuser is inconclusive, but did not rule out the possibility that these are socks. I mentioned above, this edit war does not appear to show signs of slowing down soon, and I believe it will likely continue until everyone is 3RR blocked, or it goes to ArbCom. We absolutely need some administrator intervention. Users are misquoting policy, especially BLP to remove cited, reliable material. This is a major problem. SWATJester On Belay! 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is beyond tiresome. I believe this page needs full protection until all parties can form some sort of agreements. --InShaneee 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm working with Mael-Num to try to keep him civil and try to find a reasonable solution to this. I guess you could call it informal mediation. However, I do think this case would be good for a formal mediation attempt, which I have neither the time nor the interest for conducting myself (not to mention I'm not AMA). I agree with InShaneee. This page needs to be full protected, a mediation needs to be conducted, administrator oversight towards those who continue to be uncivil needs to be enforced with short blocks, and hopefully this can be fixed without the time and frustration of an ArbCom case. Unfortunately, I think that it will end up coming to that otherwise. For further reference, see the cross conversation on my talk and Mael-Num's talk. SWATJester On Belay! 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Screw it, I'll go ahead and do a full mediation on this. I posted on the talk page. Got nothing else going on anyway. Hopefully this will at the very least determine who is willing to help advance the article, and who is not. SWATJester On Belay! 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fully protected. It's getting hard to keep track of all the SPAs on that article. -- Steel 12:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting a moderate length block on WarHawkSP: after agreeing to mediation, and after the article was protected, WarHawkSP is now deleting comments off the user talk that disagree with his position. He cites WP:BLP as his validation, and calls it vandalism, but the comments he deleted were a) opinion and not subject to libel, b) nothing that would even be considered a personal attack if you were to subsitute a wikipedia editors name in, and c) directly related to the validity of inclusion of a link in the article, which is why the page is protected in the first place.

WarHawk is a single purpose account, that has been blocked for 3RR on this account. It's inconclusive as to whether he is a sockpuppet or not. I'm requesting a block length of 48 hours so that further talk page discussion can go on undisrupted by him. SWATJester On Belay! 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anything? Hello? SWATJester On Belay! 06:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swatjester, looking at the talk page there appears to be a reasonable enough discussion about WP:BLP, specifically concerning the removal of poorly sourced material from talk pages per policy. To be honest, I don't see anything to support a block... Addhoc 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, reverting someone's opinion on a talk page is considered bad taste, and to do so while WP:BITING them by declaring them to be vandals, and this is a continuation of his prior behavior on the page which is full of personal attacks and incivility (not that there hasn't been that on all sides). It's one thing to be incivil, it's another to be incivil, remove someone's valid talk point opinions, and then call them vandals over it. SWATJester On Belay! 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Arbitration has been filed on this topic. SWATJester On Belay! 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hello. I am posting this in order to solve the problem of overload of edits by uncooperative editors on the NLP article. I believe a helpful warning to stop editors making ridiculous amounts of edits in a day will help. And if it is deemed that meatpuppets or sockpuppets are an issue, then take the appropriate action. The NLP article [8] seems to have been under attack from either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of user Comaze. User Comaze runs a company ( in Australia promoting strategic ties with NLP companies as is in evidence on his userpage [9][][]. The activities involve pushing for the same POV (deletion of relevant views on the talkpage using the same language [10]). They have also been removing relevant scientific views from the article on a regular basis. This also involves removing criticisms from the opening thus creating an unrepresentative opening [11] [12][]. The strategy seems to be one of confusion and they have made a vast amount of undiscussed edits over the past few days. They also seem to be resisting efforts to calm down in a quite uncivil way [13]. Comaze seems to be using the anonymous editors: and as meatpuppets or sockpuppets which both seem to be Australian IPs according to an IP check, or are using the same editing pattern as Comaze [14]. They seem to be only editing on the NLP article and have arrived only recently to support Comazes promotional pov. The situation makes it impossible to edit constructively on the article and indeed the evidence shows Comaze and related suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets to be highly uncooperative. The incivility and uncooperative editing seems to have pushed an editor away already and I am pretty much sick of it also. A well placed warning may well prove to be a good solution but its all up to you. Thanks. AlanBarnet 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In reply, compare the article now with a version from few weeks ago I think you'll find the current one is of much higher standard. As AB states I have collaborated with the other editors including (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) over the last few weeks. I think the page is improving. I believe these editors arrived affter the AN/I, checkuser and request for page protection that I requested on AlanBarnet (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). In response to the allegation that I have sockpuppets. This is unfounded. While the IP locator shows those IPs are located in Australia. I have no idea who they are specifically. I was surprised how well we work together though. When we had disagreement we would find a comprimise and move on. We have worked together to check the current document. Fix all the references which were broken, provide links so we could check facts. AlanBarnet claims that I have a NLP promotion business. While I have been involved in a the NLP Research Project (Australia, 2006) and have trained in NLP. My business is primarily in freelance web design and programming. I am also a student studying cogntive science. I really do not enjoy the adversarial that AlanBarnet has taken. It makes wikipedia less enjoyable and scares off legitimate professionals and academics. --Comaze 07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
More information; Comaze is requesting collaboration with allegedly banned sockpuppet Vanilla Flavius: [15] who I suspect also comes from Australia. This in addition to the overdose of edits (that involve compromising the integrity of the article) over the past few days is going to make reasonable discussion or editing impossible. AlanBarnet 08:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I did nothing of the sort. I that editor to email me to to make suggestions on how to make the article more critical (as in objective/wikipedian). While this editor was banned for incivility (including for defamatory remarks directed on me and for personal attacking the mentors). He did make some well-research critical contributions to the article in the past. I really don't think the collaboration of the article over the last few weeks has "involve[d] compromising the integrity of the article". As I said it has improved and has sparked additional research. I'm trying to extend good faith here. --Comaze 09:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I am user 58 and 210, an independent editor to Comaze. There is no checkuser evidence nor edit-style evidence to assert otherwise. I've been editing at wikipedia since early 2005. I had a user account but got sick of wikistalking. User:AlanBarnet (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) came straight to the NLP article when he joined wikipedia and began pasting edits from banned users back into the article; edits that were originally both beligerant and known to be fraudulent [16] [17] [18]. He claims he just coincidentally grabs these from the history tab and often cites his opinion as fact (and hence "neutral"), and when he gets angry his edits are phrased in the superlative degree, as can be witnessed above. His edits are remarkably similar to the banned editor User:HeadleyDown (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and related sockpuppets in that he removes tags without discussion [19] [20] and engineers politics on talk pages in the same way as HeadleyDown [21] [22]]. Recently, other banned editors ( (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)) have turned up at the article [23]. It is quite plausible to surmise that AlanBarnet is somehow connected with them. HeadleyDown and his 20 user sockuppet farm has been known to orchestrate complex sockpuppet scenarios. I feel it is worth investigating users involved in this incident so we can get to the bottom of the growing problem. 09:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
58 and all. I arrived using the IP [24]. I promptly got myself an account so that I could cooperate with other editors on verifying the sources on the NLP article. I found no cooperation at all. Just resistance to direct quotes and Comaze and other IP numbers adding lots of argument to promote NLP or to negate science views. AlanBarnet 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear AB. Please read WP:TIGER and WP:CABAL#There_is_only_a_cabal_if_you_want_there_to_be_one. 04:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello this is Fainites, the only editor currently on the blighted NLP page not yet accused of sockpuppetry although probably now about to be accused of smugness. 1)There is problem with substantial undiscussed edits being put in over a short space of time because it upsets other editors. However, this partly arises because half the editors are on the other side of the world to the other half so everybody is on different timescales. However, Comaze has always been amenable to discussion, consensus and changes to edits as far as I can see and alot of the edits on that occasion filled in stubs giving everybody something to work on. 2) There is a problem with bad temper and assumptions of bad faith leading to ill thought out reversions to much older versions resulting in alot of hard work on sources and verification being removed. One recent example of both these problems together was the removal by Comaze of the second half of the Research Reviews section at 12.09 on 13.12.06 to the NLP Science article and the subsequent reversion to a much older form by AlanBarnet losing agreed edits and leaving the whole section a mess of half sentances, non sequiteurs and duplications. However, on a positive note, AlanBarnet agreed to put back the more recent edited version and when I sorted out the duplications and whatnots, the removal of the research has not been repeated. So there is hope. 3)Everybody appears to agree that sources need to to be verified. This involves alot of work as there are still past inaccuracies in references and POV statements hanging around in the article. However, the bad temper and accusations and large undiscussed edits not only slow work down but have just frightened off a valuable new editor who was a science researcher and very adept at hunting down and verifying scientific sources and quotes. 4)I think in the context of this article it is unwise for AlanBarnet to put in old negative views from old disputed versions from banned editors, with references, stating it has all been checked and verified but not providing evidence of what the source states at the time. It was inevitable that this would lead to accusations of sockpuppetry, whether they are justified or not. It would be better to assess the source afresh and agree an addition based on that with other editors. 5) alot of good collaborative work has gone on recently. Lets try and keep it that way. Fainites 14:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Having compared the version from December 1 with the current version, it seems to me very much as if Comaze and a few others are promoting rather than documenting the concept. The article becomes more promotional with each batch of edits, and the fundamental fact that NLP is essentially a cult with no scientific validity is more and more obscured. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that something has no scientific validity does not make it a cult. That's a seperate question. If you have any verifiable evidence that NLP is a cult, please come and put it in, in the section that already contains reputable views to the same effect. As for promo, the section marked 'views of supporters in various disciplines' is empty and has been for a while, whilst the sections marked 'research', 'views of critics' and 'mental health' are full of nothing but criticism and views to the effect that there is no scientific basis to NLP. The article needs watching to ensure it is not taken over by either camp. Fainites 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things. Firstly, NLP is fundamentally a seminar and consulting based personal development field (and it is definitely unclear whether it is also a cult, a psychocult, a good idea, a bad idea, a pseudoscience, a protoscience, a dangerous practice, therapeutic magic, or anything else). Secondly, there is no cabal of editors in either camp. Please treat editors as individuals. Have fun. 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Guy. Thanks for your input. I've been editing on various articles I know something about or have access to sources such as journalism articles and various historical and geographical areas. I've been removing any argumentative phrasing (usually very little) from those articles and found no resistance at all. I spent a lot of time having to remove a massive amount of argumentative and overblown phrasing from the NLP article during the end of Nov and early Dec. I met nothing but resistance from Comaze and other numbers who scream bloody murder over the simple NPOV correction. They're still making a massive amount of edits per day. I don't see how anyone can conduct proper cooperative or rigorous verifications in such a way. I'm pretty much done with it. I have WPjournalism articles to edit with editors who are willing to collaborate and I know I'll get cooperation. I really hope things can be resolved on the NLP article. AlanBarnet 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I din't mean to imply that there were existing camps now on the site but there clearly have been in the past and may well be again. It sems to be a subject about which feelings run high.Fainites 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy pointed me to the conflict of interest policy. I have read it and agree with it in principle. It does suggest that editors should dislose their interests where there may be a conflict. My interests are written on my talk page. And aim to base my edits on reliable, verifiable literature. The current editors all know that I am a student of NLP. I am also a student of cognitive science and computer science with an interest in psychology. That does not stop me from editing on the cognitive science or computer science articles. Nonetheless, I will hold myself to a higher standard for verifiability, and reliability of evidence. While being an student in the field is not required, it can help. I intend help write a balanced article by collaborating with the other editors who have different views to arrive at a balanced article. Keep in mind that I have gone through mediation, arbitration and mentorship and have learnt alot about wikipedia policy. I have read the conflict of interest article and will be more critical in my writing on those articles especially where there may be a conflict. --Comaze 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Racist username?[edit]

Hi, could someone please have a look at User:Nignogz? Not only are his edits racist, but I believe his name is as well, please see this for further clarification on the name. IronDuke 03:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur, will the first admin to see this please block immediately. Generally these reports go to WP:AIV but this one shouldn't wait. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Handled. Deizio talk 03:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy work, Deizio. IronDuke 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris vandals[edit]

In the last two days, I've seen a number of vandals, mostly IP addresses, working on a Chuck Norris theme, e.g. Chuck Norris and the Kennedy assassination. Here are a few I logged -- (talk · contribs) -- (talk · contribs) -- (talk · contribs) -- Theamigo (talk · contribs) - the IP's don't seem to fit a pattern, so maybe it's just co-incidence and not a new trend. I slightly wondered if Stephen Colbert was up to something --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 08:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whois on the ips says they're all from Idaho, so they do fit a pattern. It's probably some random kid who's a year and a half late on the Chuck Norris facts fad. I blocked the username as a vandal only account, not really much else to do here. - Bobet 12:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:ALM scientist[edit]

User:ALM scientist keeps vandalizing the Holiest sites in Islam article. This user deletes sourced material without any good reason time AND TIME AGAIN! Please help!!!!

16 Dec: [25] 18 Dec: [26] 18 Dec: [27] Chesdovi 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the user about it yet? I see no such attempt on either of your talk pages or the article talk pages, please look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. A sufi poet Moinuddin Chishti as holiest site [28]
  2. That castle in Germany Neuschwanstein Castle as Islam holiest spot [29]
  3. Many funny like comments "Jewish soldiers at the Buraq Wall, the third holiest Islamic site in Jerusalem, itself the third holiest city in Islam, being on the third planet in the solar system"[30]
  4. Another edit says "Less than 100 meters from the holiest site in Islam, opposite the Grand Mosque in Mecca, is a surprising culinary offering: a Kentucky Fried Chicken fast-food restaurant" [31]
  5. Another edit says "Hindi couplets"/poetry as holiest site in Islam [32]. It also say a poet Amir Khusro as holiest site in Islam.
  6. Pseudoperipteral as Islam holiest site [33]
All of the above were your additions and i left you the last warning on your talkpage and now you are here trolling and lying? -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all the sites listed above, except one, are legitimate. I added this material and ALM just deletes what he doesn't like. He also led the campaign for the pages deletion, totally unacceptable! I will take HighInBC's advice, and if he offends another time I will ask that he be blocked. Chesdovi 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please follow HighInBC's advice and stop this edit warring. Also, please refrain from adding nonsense next time as you are an established editor. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It was my response the ALM's "trolling". At least Thestick found it humorous. Chesdovi 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ummm! Do you understand what we mean by WP:TROLL? ALM was reverting your above trolling in fact. So please stop that and be carefull of what you are editing next time. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
He's got a 48 hour break now. I would gladly have made it longer but it's a first offense. DurovaCharge! 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Durova. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Need answers[edit]

OK. I just clicked random page, up came Dogfights. At the top of the article was a large, practically full screen picture of a guy from the waist down, lying in a bath naked, doing something very unpleasant to look at. I refreshed, checked the code, the history but there has never been an image on the page. Clicking on the image showed a long list of pages the file apparently links to (including Tianamen Square, Ada and Archaeology) but none of them showed the picture. I went back to Dogfights, refreshed and it was gone. The Dogfights page hasn't been edited since the 17th, the day it was created, and isn't showing any deleted edits. I'm trying to track down the filename of the pic, it was a string of about 8 random characters. But seriously, WTF? It was there but it never existed. Deizio talk 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha. I read the above topic but it made no specific reference to what the problem was before I posted. Yikes. Deizio talk 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The image was deleted while you were trying to track it down; hence, the magic trick. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Silly me - I just realized this means that image was on every page, for seven minutes, that uses the Harvard citation template, which should be quite a few articles. Truly over the top. Sandy (Talk) 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap. Deizio talk 02:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The only templates on Dogfights are {{for|close-range aerial combat|Dogfight}} and {{US-tv-prog-stub}}. Deizio talk 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I think it was {{For}}. Sandy (Talk) 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, diff [34]. Google [35] Deizio talk 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see 3QTFUN-5, I saw 3QTFUN-4 , which was a double whammy. Sandy (Talk) 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When protecting high-risk templates, such as {{Harvard citation}}, don't forget to protect redirects that are commonly used (like {{harv}} for that one). -- Renesis (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to revert this vandalism. --NE2 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:RobotF and User:RobotQ[edit]

These two users recently launched quite a big move campaign without any discussions or any provided reasons, please see contributions of RobotF (talk contribs) and RobotQ (talk contribs). Please closely examine, these users names are not very differ from each other, second the newest "contributions" of 19d. of both users are targeting specific area, even more - these moves were made by rotation – when RobotF stopped his moving campaign at 11:34, RobotQ started his at 11:40. Please advice, do we need to proceed with check user procedures, because it is likely that these accounts are managed by one particular person. Really needing an advice from experienced contributors. Thanks. M.K. 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't they be immediately blocked under WP:USERNAME? -Amarkov blahedits 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Multiple undiscussed page moves and misleading usernames, very fishy behaviour indeed. Both blocked. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for quick response. But maybe we should also try to identify is it the same person. Because now he/she or they can create new account and misconduct again. So is it worth to place a query for check user? M.K. 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No. Checkuser can't be used for stuff like this. The accounts are blocked now. If more pop up, we can block them. We don't need Checkuser. --Deskbanana 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Pretty obvious M.K. Similar usernames or robotnames (laughing). Similar articles being moved (Russia/Lithuania). What else? -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And similar timing too M.K. 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Autoblock will take care of the person's IP, and that is all checkuser would do for us. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand it was only block to an account. You suggesting that IP was blocked as well? M.K. 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Admins have the option Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from when blocking an account. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I like bolded text. M.K. 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


See Special:Contributions/Sandcat. They have about 50+ images (of about 150 total edits), all which appear not to be used anywhere on Wikipedia, or possible to use on Wikipedia. They have 5 edits to article namespace (I'm not counting sandboxes). Worse, these images appear to be used as part of a website, as there is a 404 image and a "news" image and other such items. Lastly, this seems to clearly be a child/teenager so handling this with kid gloves should be mandatory. I don't really want to clog up IFD listing all these, nor spend the time listing 50 images, which is why I'm here. I'd like someone to leave a note saying this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. They could also suggest taking a graphic design or computer graphics class. I say that not because of the poor quality, but because she (guessing) appears to have an interesting in computer art and it would be encouraging. I'm worried I cannot write a polite or neutral enough message. Lastly, I would want all of the images deleted per WP:NOT a free file host. If I do need to list all these I will. Thank you. --MECUtalk 14:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm on it. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, done. Anyone who's feeling warm and fluffy can go along and have a quiet chat with the user. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, be happy[edit]

Can someone please check this song's page? I went in to add a movie reference in that section, thought I was fixing something, but further look showed me that someone at did some massive changes that are all incorrect this morning. I moved it back to the december 7 version and then added the reference, but if someone else could check it for any other errors that would probably be good.


Please take a look at this IP's edit history. He is constantly putting in unsourced POV wherever he sees fit and even removes large portions of text. The IP talk page has several warnings. Can we get this guy blocked from further edits? --Unreal128

I also noticed while going through the edits he is spamming it with commercial links or childish remarks. Look at his edit on the Ayutthaya Kingdom. --Unreal128

Indefblock on User:Tasc[edit]

User has been indef-blocked, it seems, by User:J Di, for death threats (see contribs). Just bringing it to attention here. While I support the indef block for the threats, I cannot support how J Di dealt with the situation initially with a one-week block. That seems extraordinarily long for general incivility. Even given the user's past block log, last civility-related block was in May. Cannot see how a new bout of incivility warrants one week. Still, fully support indef block. – Chacor 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not leave J Di a message on their talk page and discuss it with them? A Train take the 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's general practice for most admins to note indefblocks here for other admins to review. I happened to come across this one. No idea why J Di did not do so. – Chacor 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of the practice and understand your concern completely, but I still don't see why a public callout here is preferable to bringing the matter directly to Tasc, J Di. A Train take the 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, he didn't block for death threats, only "threats". Tasc was extremely uncivil and deserves a two week break, maybe even a month, but I don't support an indef for telling someone to "fuck off". The indef should be shortened. pschemp | talk 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, "I'll fucking kill you" is a death threat to me... – Chacor 16:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh I see. It was in the edit summary, not the diff where I was looking. Hmm. Well I think the initial bock was a bit harsh and might have precipitated this behaviour. If tasc apologizes, his indef should be removed though. pschemp | talk 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
agreed with pschemp. The original one week block was a bit excessive, even if a block was warranted. However, I could definitely see a 3-4 week block, perhaps even with a talk page lock to prevent that kind of nonsense. Patstuarttalk|edits 16:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree w/ pschemp and Pat (i.e. a month). HOwever, he should apologize and understand that comments like this got no place here. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth would we invite this person to keep editing here? Jkelly 17:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Well unless he apologizes, I don't think we should. But if he does, a second chance is warranted. pschemp | talk 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've seen this guy revert war on several templates, and I've seen him be uncivil to another user about one. He had the block coming; he's been warned enough about his incivility on other pages by other users. He chose to continue. Because of that, I felt a one week block was justified. I'm not going to blame anything on the first block because how a person behaves is up to them. I'm not going to try and stop anybody from unblocking him if there's some sort of agreement to do so, but I'm also not going to support it. J Di talk 17:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about unblocking him, rather shortening the block if he apologizes. If not, then it should be left. pschemp | talk 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
How long, exactly? J Di talk 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think one month is enough to make him rethink his conduct and apologise. If behavioural problems persist, the block should be extended to indefinite. Let's see what others think. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really that happy with shortening the block at all, but if that's what everybody wants, then I want an apology first. Somebody's going to have to unprotect his user talk page if that's what's happening. J Di talk 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The user posted "I'll fucking kill you"[36], an indef block is warrented, easily, without hesitation. In my opinion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion may be flawed. I interacted with Tasc when he edited Russian wikipedia and saw no incivility from him there. I did not follow his edits in English wikipedia closely, but saw him repeatedly removing vandalism from Russia and other pages. I suppose, if he apologises for his angry outburst, he should be given a chance to reform. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This certainly warrants an indef block.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Piotrus on that one; telling an admin to fuck off, and that if he communicates again with an another "fuck you" with death threats, I do not think he should be here any longer on WP. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Piotrus and Zscout on this one. Death threats bad. The block should be indefinite. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

While agreeing that death threats are bad, I don't see why the fact that it was an admin is relevant. Trollderella 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse block. Good call J Di. I'd unprotect the talk page though, and agree with J Di shortening the block if an apology is granted. -- Samir धर्म 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tasc already had three civility warnings on his talk page (I did not count inside the archives) when he began the exchange at Template talk:LGBT that earned him his fourth. This is also not counting the civility warning by J Di at 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) on the template talk page. So the civility warning that Tasc flamed in response to was the second one regarding this particular situation. The whole incident began out of Tasc's decision to revert war instead of seek consensus, behavior for which Tasc had been blocked at least five times previously (plus one earlier civility block). In light of the earlier civility block and two directly related civility warnings, after demonstrated disregard for consensus, I do not think that the week-long block was excessive. Upon viewing the block log and noting that so many previous shorter blocks had failed to get the point across, a week sounds like a very reasonable next step. I also don't think that apology for a death threat should reduce the block. If indefinite blocks are given for anything, what is more serious than a death threat? — coelacan talk — 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot that I need to point out that I am the one who Tasc origninally began incivility toward on the template talk page, in case this constitutes a conflict of interest. — coelacan talk — 19:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
So many previous shorter blocks? I have no personal interest in this case, I don't know Tasc and had never heard the name before reading this thread. But I think it worth pointing out that before the incident described here, Tasc's bloc log consisted in tutti, since March 2006, of three 3RR blocks plus one 24-hour block for edit warring, plus one--count 'em--one 48-hour block for "incivility, removing tags". This, which was also his latest previous block, was logged in May 2006. Tasc has been blocked for incivility once since joining Wikipedia. His block log has been clean from May to December. Bishonen | talk 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC).


Wait a second, I don't like to see this. Tasc is being very rude and angry, yes, I don't like that, OK, but please focus on the timestamps here:
18:10, JDil: Remain civil. You won't be warned again.
18:14, Tasc: Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page.
18:15, JDil: You've been blocked for a week.
18:17, Tasc: Go fuck yourself, idiot.
18:19, JDil: Your block has been extended to two weeks.
18:22 Tasc: What part of "Fuck off" don't you understand? (This is the one with the edit sum "one more signature on my talk page and I'll fucking kill you")
18:23, JDil: You have been indefinitely blocked for making threats.

  • Etcetera. From civility warning to indefinite block in 13 minutes. I have to feel sorry for the guy without the power in this exchange. That's not to accuse JDil of deliberate baiting--I'm sure he was simply angry himself, too--but those admin responses are just much too quick. I would ask any admin issuing warnings to not do it with a machine gun, but give the user a real chance to cool down between bursts--to make pauses. This escalates much too fast.
  • Secondly, no, I don't agree that "I'll fucking kill you" is a death threat. OK, "I'll kill you" is a death threat, but with "fucking" in there, it's not, it's just an expression of anger. It's a technicaldeath threat, but hands up, anybody who's actually scared by it. Heck, I scare real easy, and even I'm not frightened.
  • Thirdly, I don't like to see an indefinitely blocked user with a fully protected talkpage. That means a full gag. Tasc has not specified a valid e-mail address, and now that he's blocked, it's too late, he has no way of doing it; in other words he has no means of e-mailing JDil or anybody else to argue, or to apologize. The page has remained protected for a day and a half; if the user is ever going to cool down, he probably has; I appeal to JDil to unprotect and invite himto apologize for his angry outbursts. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
Bish, since you asked me to comment, here goes: I disagree with you about there being an appreciable difference between saying "I'll kill you" and "I'll fuckin kill you." It's possible this explanation may be applicable here, but it nonetheless sounds equally threatening to me. El_C 10:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I want point out that the 18:10 civility warning was not the first one in this incident, it was the first one on tasc's talk page. See my comments above "Objections" for the details. And consider that "I'll kill you, motherfucker" is also a common expression of anger, but the intent of the statement still rings clear. Whether the expletive is inserted at the end or in the middle of the sentence is merely a linguistic curiosity. — coelacan talk — 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this escalated very quickly, and the block for a week because Tasc said "Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page," was perhaps provocative. I would support a short block but not an indefinite one, unless Tasc has been a general nuisance and was heading toward an indefblock for other reasons. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Arguably, Tasc has been "a general nuisance and was heading toward an indefblock for other reasons." RfAr/Israel-Lebanon reads:

3.1) Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans. Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (bold is my emphasis)

El_C 10:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The Israel-Lebanon conflict is a different matter, I daresay. While death threats are bad and certainly merit an indef block, I believe that blocking one's opponent for a week for "Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page" was a sort of baiting and did not conform to our blocking policy. When you are young and feel powerless in a dispute, you tend to use very strong language. I advise to leave the indef block in force but to unprotect the talk page. Then we'll be able to see whether Tasc regrets his unacceptable behaviour. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't block tasc for that comment alone, and I wouldn't block anybody over something so trivial unless they'd already been uncivil towards other people. The comment he left was uncivil, and he had already been warned for his incivility on other pages. Do we not block for incivility anymore? J Di talk 17:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes we do, but we also give people a chance to apologize and we don't jump to indef so quickly either. I'm unprotecting the page for the moment. We'll see what he does. pschemp | talk 18:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page unprotected[edit]

Tasc's response, from User talk:Tasc:

I can communicate in civil manner, when I'm addressed politely. But I refuse to communicate normally in response to:
  • unjustified warnings
  • vandalising of my talk page
  • repetitive use of terrible, highly unpleasant colours on my talk page after being told not to do so.
I assume that quietly and indefinitely banning an active editor with almost 8 thousands edits for threats could do only inexperienced admin and failure to report my case only supports opinion that user wasn't sure about his actions. I reckon that for the majority of editors it can be clear (well, may be after reviewing all diffs of our discussion) that it wasn't a threat, but rather a figure of speech. --Tasc 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I copied that verbatim. — coelacan talk — 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So, he believes that he shouldn't have been warned for incivility, someone was vandalizing his talk page (when?), and he finds J Di's signature to be aesthetically unsound, therefore he was justified to "refuse to communicate normally in response". — coelacan talk — 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It is his talk page. If he wants to blank it or format it, he is allowed. pschemp | talk 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I've suggested anything to the contrary. — coelacan talk — 19:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've asked User: to join the discussion here. — coelacan talk — 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is that IP and why do we care? If its Tasc I hope you aren't suggesting he evade his block with an IP sock. pschemp | talk 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is Tasc and that he has already evaded his block. — coelacan talk — 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well then I suggest you go visit RFCU rather than make disingenuous suggestions you know are against policy. pschemp | talk 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather suggested to read WP:SOCK carefully. below nutshell. I can confirm that User:tasc is using this ip. -- 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Or should you be the one doing so? WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy. While I'm pleased that your talk page was unprotected, I do not condone your use of the IP to circumvent the block and can no longer support a full unblock. – Chacor 12:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Still, fully support indef block. just few lines above. was that supposed to mean that you did support unblock? very confusing.
Let me also add more citation: considered uncool unless you have a good reason – can assure you that I do have a very good reason. multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort so? this ip is troublemaking? If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. Didn't I do so? If someone wants to block an ip - go ahead. just check contribution and point out what this anonymous editor did wrong. -- 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well something has ensued and Tasc has claimed he wasn't making a death threat. I recommend the community evaluate his responses. pschemp | talk 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If he makes a formal apology to the person he attacked, I'd suggest giving him a one week block. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposing a formal community ban on Tasc[edit]

Given this user's unrepentance, and repeated block evasion with that IP address used above, I cannot imagine this user is really here to work in the wiki spirit co-operatively to introduce good content. As Tasc still refuses to apologise, and in fact seems to be continuing to be incivil, I hereby ask for comments about a possible formal community ban on this user. – Chacor 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I am formally oppose to the proposed indefinite ban. We need more than a single incivility fit to permablock a productive editor with the 8K edits. Give him 2 weeks block doubled if avoiding Alex Bakharev 08:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with a community ban, but, considering his behaviour, I think he should be given at least a month long block.--Aldux 17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My two cents, if I'm welcome to give them: 1-2 months. He said, "I'm gonna fucking kill you" like 8 times, and is not the slightest bit repentant. -Patstuarttalk|edits 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

AJAX issues[edit]

The donation header source code (siteNoticeValue = ...) seems to be breaking XML parsing of MediaWiki pages. All Javascript scripts using XMLHttpRequest fail. Is this affecting anyone else? Quarl (talk) 2006-12-16 11:44Z


Canuckster (talk · contribs · logs) seems to be harassing Sarah Ewart. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for the latest in a long line of incidents. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman will give yo