Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive206

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

Noticeboard archives

Can Someone stamp out this Sockpuppetry Nonsense.[edit]

Someone needs to do something as I am being accused of sockpuppetry, again. I am not a sockpuppeteer of Bowsy and I don't think some users (ie. RobJ1981 and Geoff B.) realise this. Also, because of this sockpuppetry case, people are treating Bowsy and I like one person, rather than the two people we have been proven to be. Henchman 2000 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't sockpuppetry but, rather meatpuppetry. You and Bowsy are editing discussions support each other's points. Something you were severely warned about in the sockpuppet investigation. Metros232 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual. (from the Sockpuppet page. Referring to you as one person is correct. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is no excuse, we have the same opinions and we should both be allowed to express it. Henchman 2000 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Recruiting editors to the wiki to back your poistion is definately wrong, and definately against policy. See WP:MEAT. kthxbye. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It's meat puppetry in my opinion. Bowsy and Henchman have voted in the same AFDs, same RFC on a talk page, and so on. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames: Bowsy stated: I would like to point out that wikipedia operates on a "one person, one vote" and not a "one computer, one vote" basis. I think that's incorrect when it comes to meat puppetry. If that was the case: someone could make lots of names, and just make slightly different comments at an AFD and get away with it. Something needs to be done about this. They were clearly warned not to do this type of thing at the sock puppet case. RobJ1981 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not recruiting Bowsy to support my veiws, I let him do what he wants, and if he wants to support my veiws, let him. This has nothing to do with pupperty. Henchman 2000 09:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I stated elsewhere: how can we know that for sure? This is the internet. RobJ1981 09:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because this is the internet doesn't mean that you can't believe what someone says. If you read the conclusion on my sock case, you will know we are two people. We know the sockpuppet policy and we do not engage in it because we know we will be indef. bolcked if we do. And anyway, how can I know for sure that you really feel that mini games are listcruft, you could be being paid to say these things. This is basically what you're saying, "You cannot believe a word someone else says on the internet." It is very easy to believe someone else, so why do you always have to question things like this. I am telling you again that I am not manipulating Bowsy, please believe me this time as I don't manipulate him. Henchman 2000 11:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets: A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. You and Bowsy are two accounts, doing this exact same thing. Granted: it's not all the time, it's still a fair amount (edit histories are proof of that). Why should people ignore this fact? It's proven you two share a computer, so meatpuppetry is a likely possibility (even if you dispute it). RobJ1981 12:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because we share a computer, we are not meatpuppets and our accounts were not made to support an area of discussion or vote, in fact, when we created our accounts, this nonsense with the minigames had not yet started. The reason we created our accounts were so that we could edit wikipedia, as our school computers are blocked for 6 months, even though they are shared by (literally) thousands of people, and we did not want to both use our IP as we are two separate people, as you know (or at least, you should). If you check our contributions, you will find that the majority of our contributions are in no way related. Henchman 2000 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a meatpuppet of JoanneB....[edit]

...and I admit it outright. Yes, Joanne has asked me to vote in some contentious AFD's.... but there you go!

And there's nothing wrong with meatpuppetry, Joanne's been doing it for ages here on Wikipedia, but you didn't know that, until now.

Heh, she's unmasked now.... well, until I find any more new evidence. --Yossben 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Copied from AIV: This doesn't make any sense. According to the account creation log this account just registered today. How in the world could this account have voted if it was not even registered yet? If such an act was comitted the account with the AfD votes needs to step forward.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should take Yossben's mere allegations seriously. If there's evidence, I'll reconsider. But so far it seems like baseless allegations with an intent to smear JoanneB. For the time being, I have blocked him with the explanation "apparant single-purpose account to smear JoanneB... blocking until we straighten this out". Feel free to review the block but this may be more appropriate for AN/I at this point. --W.marsh 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the content of this person's User page which basically reiterates what they were claiming here. Corvus cornix 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sole-purpose attack account, correctly indefinitely blocked.--Jersey Devil 07:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry, eh? I've been too busy with other stuff to even think about editing Wikipedia, let alone instruct my meatpuppets :) But seriously, thanks for blocking! --JoanneB 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daigacon and User:Silentsam84[edit]

Silentsam84 (talk · contribs) has, for the third time since its AFD, recreated the article Daigacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He is apparently someone who is connected with the convention in question and has promised to keep recreating the page if it's deleted again. Also all of his edits have only been in relation to this convention. So I would like for someone to have a word with him about the situation. --Farix (Talk) 23:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

During the time I took to type this report, he decided to blank the whole page.[1] --Farix (Talk) 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I would support protecting this article. But I would also put it through AfD once more just in case. x42bn6 Talk 01:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Why should go through AFD again if the article has not substantially changed from the one that was previously deleted in the first AFD? --Farix (Talk) 01:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, didn't see the threat at first. In that case, if he creates it again, then head off to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection with the complaint that it is constantly being recreated. x42bn6 Talk 20:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
No need to make the request, I went ahead and added it to WP:PT due to being recreated far too many times.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Block review requested[edit]

12.214.61.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) stated intention to begin legal action against Wikipedia[2], and I have indef hard-blocked, and posted on the IP talk page. I do not know if is the best course of action, actually I think not, since it is an IP, and the IP only has a few edits, but cannot think of a better way to handle this (its 1 AM where I am right now and I have a cold) so I bring it here for less sleep-deprived and stuffy-headed people to figure out. Meanwhile, s/he's been informed of WP:LEGAL and blocked. The IP is registered to Mediacom Communications Corp MEDIACOMCC-12-214-56-0-ROBERTSDALE-AL . KillerChihuahua?!? 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I reduced to 6 months. Indefinate is a very long time and there is every likelyhood that somone else will be on that IP address in the future. We only indefblock open proxies and usernames for this reason. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. I knew it should be less, but not how much less. I figured being indef blocked for the amount of time it would take to get someone else to look at it wouldn't hurt, if you follow. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

They're currently requesting unblocking, and say they've withdrawn their legal threat and will try to follow the normal dispute resolution process. Anybody object to unblocking? – Luna Santin (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I may be a little late here, but I have no objection. It is what I said to the user when I blocked: withdraw, and be unblocked. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous death threat[edit]

I have blocked 81.145.240.183 (talk · contribs) indefinitely due to this death threat. This is an IP address and so would not normally receive an indefinite block. I am posting here for review. Any administrator should feel free to replace the block with one of a specific duration, or lift the block entirely if they believe the user has withdrawn the death threat. --Yamla 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block on IP address is not done unless it's an open proxy. In such cases, a long block (six months or one year) is usually done instead. --cesarb 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked a couple of these recently (... 81.145.240.103 (talk · contribs), 81.145.240.146 (talk · contribs), 81.145.241.183 (talk · contribs) ... ) - it's a dynamic address belonging to BT/AOL and appears to change at least about every day or two. This is at least the second one today. Long blocks are likely to be ineffective - it seems an abuse report is needed. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Reblocked for 48 hours. Not sure how BT/AOL works but its definitely dynamic. Thatcher131 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Not as dynamic as the 207 range; it might be more on par with the 172 range, where you can change IPs but don't necessarily have to. Seems to change a few times a day, so probably intentional, no? Also, this was briefly discussed above, at #IP-hopping vandalism. I've been sprotecting related pages, but that has its unfortunate side effects. The range does appear to be shared, which makes me hesitate to lay down a heavy block, but it should be clear by now that blocking an individual IP won't have much effect. This person is persistent and has no place on Wikipedia. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
When I see an anon death threat, I e-mail the time, IP, content and the link to the diff to the ISPs abuse department. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Which usually has the same practical result as shouting at a fish, but at least it goes on record. Raymond Arritt 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Abuse report filed with AOL UK. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
81 prefixed BT IP addresses are dynamic, I have one. They seem to change at irregular intervals, I know rebooting my modem always assigns me a new one. One Night In Hackney 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson and BLP[edit]

Could an admin please have a look at the dispute going on at Talk:Michael Jackson. Please see the three reverts that I have made to User:HarveyCarter's posts [3], [4], [5]. I am quite sure that I would be justified in making a fourth revert, per WP:BLP, but unfortunately, some admins do not seem to apply that rule when looking at 3RR reports, and I'd feel safer stopping now and just asking for help. Please see also here. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for incivility and personal attacks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, after the 31h block the user persisted in his personal attacks (i.e. No, we all know most of Wacko's fans are pedophiles just like their hero.). Action → Indef block. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Shortly after HarveyCarter was blocked, a new account was created. See Special:Contributions/ElvisIsTheOnlyKing. It's almost certainly HarveyCarter himself. Compare these two posts. ElinorD (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Same fate. Blocked. Revert anytime. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry to keep bothering you, but . . . Special:Contributions/BingRules4Ever. ElinorD (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked indef by our Persian Poet Gal -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible meatpuppet of User:TTN[edit]

204.17.179.2 continues to revert the pages of Tullece, Bojack, and Janemba back to TTN's version without discussing things. I've already explained in my edit summaries for each character about what needs to be done before redirecting them nonchalantly. I've warned the IP user and the person removed the warning, and told the person to see WP:DBZ and the person refused. Can someone (perhaps an administrator) explain to the shared IP user about meatpuppetry and of discussing things first before acting upon them. He/she claims: TTN's reasons are sound, which led me to the suspicion that (s)he is a meatpuppet. Thank you. Please see the user's contributions for evidence. Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

HELLO?! Can someone help out here? Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked 48 hours, but let me point out that 1) you posted your second message above less than an hour after your first and 2) WP:AIV might have been a better and faster outlet for this. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in looking at it, it's a content dispute, not a vandalism thing. Further discussion is needed about merging and the current tone of participants needs to be taken down a notch or two as the consensus is rather lost in the bickering in what discussions have gone on. REDVEЯS 20:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The point of Power level is that the IP (i personally believe it is a shared one) may be a meatpuppet of TTN (i personally believe it is a sockpuppet instead). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is vandalism. I told the IP user to see WP:DBZ but the person refused and continued the reverts. However, I do not believe that it is a sockpuppet at this time, but it is clearly a meatpuppet. So, thanks and sorry if I was a little impatient. Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that doesn't disguise the fundamental content-based side to the dispute. I've carefully gone back to the last known good versions of each of the dispute articles. I have not protected them. I have, however, inserted {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates in each of the six articles. I'd like to see some calm discussion - and less edit warring and PANICY SHOUTING - so that a consensus can be reached. I speak both as someone with no knowledge of/interest in the subject in question (so no point to push) and as someone who is going on holiday tomorrow morning and will come back in a week to find a reasoned, well-argued, friendly discussion on each talk page on which to base a judgment. Well, that's the plan, anyway. REDVEЯS 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So I've noticed. Thanks for everything! Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User Roazir's PA[edit]

Please see this comment here: [6] This user is calling all the Iranian editors, Persian or not, rasists, using terms like Persianism and Persianization of Azerbaijan related articles. Such an attack is unacceptable and I was shocked when I saw it!Azerbaijani 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Left a note at their talkpage. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 20:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The number of Roma in Romania[edit]

It appeared recently a revert war at Roma people regarding the Romani population in Romania between these options: [7] and [8]. The debate is at Talk:Roma_people#Population_Stats. One point of view presents the last official census and the World Bank estimation, while the other presents the official census, the data of the Roma's Party and the UNDP estimation. The problem appears because, like in other countries, the data of the censuses are contested regarding the figures for Roma, because many Roma for fear of discrimination hide the real identity or do not have ID cards to be counted in censuses. I presented the case at talk page, the reasons for hiding the identity, the oscilation of the censuses' data and other sources. They other side says that citation of the president of Roma's Party, Nicolae Păun is not trustworthy. I cosider that it is their problem to find out if it is true or not. In Wikipedia there are accepted sources not available on-line, not rapidly verifiable, like books, newspapers, but which can be verified. Also they present as independent source World Bank (with 1 million - 2 million), repeatedly deleting the UNDP source with 1,800,000 - 2,500,000. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil redux: proposing a one-month block[edit]

A long thread just a few days ago discussed the behavior of BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and nearly every comment contained the word "disruptive". I hesitate whether or not to unarchive it here, but I hate to add a whole big thing to this already groaning page. I urge you to please take a look at the archived thread before commenting here, though. It's quite recent! Several admins stated in that discussion that they were on the verge of blocking BabyD simply for disrupting the discussion itself. S/He has been blocked three times in the past couple of weeks (discounting one 3RR block made in error), but it's really more pertinent to note that s/he seems to spend all the rest of their time skilfully balancing on the very verge of being blocked for edit warring, for personal attacks, for disruption. The archived ANI discussion didn't slow the user down any, nor do the wimpy reproaches I resort to on his/her page and mine (because I don't want to be the one to always block the same user). These recent edits which Smee just brought to my attention show BabyD's characteristic talkpage manner [9] and disruptive WP:POINT article editing [10] [11] [12] (truly ridiculous, those last). If s/he does any useful editing, it eludes me; perhaps s/he does. But I'm very sure that the sum total of his/her impact on wikipedia is negative: that the poisoning of the atmosphere of talkpages, and the disturbance, annoyance, and sheer waste of time of other editors amply outweigh any good edits that may be hiding in some corner where I haven't looked. I don't think this is yet a community ban matter—though it's not hard to see one approaching—but I do think a long block is due and overdue. Hopefully it'll get the user to rethink their approach. I propose a one-month block. What say you? Bishonen | talk 04:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

By the way, can someone explain the difference between a longer block, versus a "community ban" ?? I have heard this term used as a warning in relation to this user by various Administrators, and I am curious as to its definition, and traditional usage? Smee 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

    • So Bishonen, you want to block him for one month because he displays an attitude when he is attacked and hounded? And because he put sourced trivia in two relevant articles to make a point? Sourced trivia. Relevant articles. He is already on a block and for those self-same trivia edits, why not see if he gets the message this time. Another editor making the same edits was blocked for one hour but somehow BD was supposed to know that and that his repeating the edits would land him 24-hours. Sheesh. Or a month. A month???!!! --Justanother 04:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Just a few minutes ago, I blocked BabyDweezil for 24 hours for violating WP:POINT and causing disruption on L. Ron Hubbard and Dwight D. Eisenhower. After that, Smee called my attention to this thread. BabyDweezil has had several 24 hour blocks before, but at least one of these was cancelled early. I do support a longer block. I would support anything up to and including one month. I think a ban is too harsh at this time. Johntex\talk 07:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Over-reaction by an admin/editor involved with BabyDweezil in a content dispute at Barbara Schwarz. Johntex, I think that you should have posted this to an admin board and let someone else handle it as this looks a lot like "conflict of interest". I make no claim to be a mind reader and make no claim as to what motivated you in this block, I am telling you what it has the appearance of, to me. It would have been better to avoid that appearance. And if you are going to say that BD can appeal the block, I think that you know as well as I do that there is a big difference between another admin undoing your block vs. another admin not making the block for you in the first place. The former, undoing, is a much higher hurdle. The funny thing is that wikipedia is full of silly trivia and the Schwarz claims are interesting trivia for both Hubbard and Eisenhower and, certainly Eisenhower as he has a trivia section. It is trivia that he plays a part in the suits brought by the "queen of FOIA". So was it WP:POINT? Perhaps, but it was also a valid edit in Ike and needed only minor editing, to identify it as trivia, to be a valid edit in LRH. Personally, I see this block as piling-on on BabyDweezil. I think that a simple warning for the WP:POINT would have served, especially as the edits made were not egregious in the least. I do not think that BD wants more blocks and I think that he would have responded to a warning. Please remove the block and post it to an admin board and let a non-involved admin make the call. Thanks. --Justanother 13:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Calling it a "conflict of interest" for an admin who witnesses a user committing violations of several policies (yes, even if the user is alleging that he was 'forced' into those violations by The Cabal's failure to bow to the absurd demands he is making in a supposed "content dispute") to block that user for those violations is absurd. It would be as if a cop caught a drug dealer selling marijuana to twelve-year-olds, and the drug dealer claimed that he was just proselytizing for Rastafarianism, and when the cop arrested the drug dealer, some bystander forced his way to the front of the crowd and accused the cop of having a "conflict of interest" because he had previously had a "dispute" with the dealer over the issue of cannabis. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry, can't respond. --Justanother 04:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In and of itself in this particular instance, the violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, and of WP:POINT are aggregious enough. But coupled with the User's past history on talk pages and elsewhere and disruptive nature, we can begin to see why multiple Admins have raised the idea of a longer block. Smee 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
  • I ask again, as I did on the previous thread: Has this editor contributed anything of substance to this encyclopedia? No one has provided a single diff which made a positive change when I asked before. If BabyDweezil exists solely to disrupt and be a general PITA, why are we even discussing this? Support month long block, support six month block, support indef block, support anything short of walking the plank - we've asted more than enough time on this. No point whatsoever in continuing the pain. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, s/he made some good edits at Eileen Barker, but also removed there more than was appropriate. Andries 22:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Copy of reply to JustanotherHi Justanother, thanks for your message. Yes, I considered that there my action may appear to be a conflict of interest and I still decided that to take action was the best course. There were several factors to my decision. One of them is that BD's behavior is consistently bad. This was not an isolated incident. Another is that I had previously blocked a different editor for the exact same thing. BD came along and made the same edits. It was a clear violation. Another factor is that BD has received many warnigs and even previous 24 hour blocks. Yet another is that the project favors action, and that any decision can be undone.

In short, I was confident enough in my actions that I didn't feel it was beneficial to the project to delay while waiting for another admin or set of admins to review the case. I stand by my action. I also note that no admin has yet found issue with the block. Johntex\talk 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Responding only your second justification: "Another is that I had previously blocked a different editor for the exact same thing. BD came along and made the same edits. It was a clear violation." For the exact same edits in Ike and LRH, I guess? Well, I did not know that you had blocked someone; how was BD to know? And if he did not know then why would you increase the penalty on that account? --Justanother 16:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not really happy about the 24-hour block—the timing isn't ideal. When I posted this proposal for a long block, I invited BabyD to come to ANI and comment—I didn't foresee that he was about to get a 24-hour block. I hope you don't mind, Johntex, but I've offered to unblock him for the purpose of taking part here, on condition that he edits nowhere else. Bishonen | talk 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Support - After reading the evidence in the last thread, including the user's confrontational reply, I think a break is called for. This user does not appear to be helping the project. -Will Beback · · 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose one-month block - As someone that has stood where BD now stands, I have a bit to say and maybe some of what I say will be news to some. I really do not know BD's edit history or how much he has contributed. I "ran into him" on cult apologist, I think. But the fact is that there is a group, and a somewhat cohesive group at that, of "anti-cultists" editing here that, IMO, disrupts wikipedia and poisons the atmosphere here far more than BD could. If you want proof of that take a look at this by an editor, User:Wikipediatrix, that pretended to be one of them for a whole year:

    To pro-Scientology editors: I don't know what to tell you, because, frankly, it's a lost cause. If you make meek moves, you get nowhere. If you make bold moves, you get instantly reverted. If you try to discuss it on the talk page, you get ignored. . .

    To anti-Scientology editors: . . . You are hurting your own case by making all the articles look like total lurid attack pieces, and hurting Wikipedia's credibility as well. One editor actually said to me words to the effect of "we don't have to treat Scientology as fairly as we treat other religions". That was a real wake-up call to me. (emphasis added)

    Some of these people (actually, often the more moderate ones though still over-agressive "defenders") maintain highly biased websites off wikipedia dedicated to fighting what they, in my best AGF, consider destructive cults. Some of these "cults" are recognized NRMs that most of the members enjoy being part of and reap benefits from. Some of these "anti-cultists" are admins here and it is to their credit that they usually do not abuse that privilege. There was a recent such abuse involving none other than BabyDweezil, since reversed and apologized (I think). However, the "problem" is not the "anti-cult" admins; it is the "like-minded" editors that have created and maintain such highly POV articles as cult apologist. These editors have made the atmosphere in these articles very hazardous indeed for anyone that opposes their views. When I arrived here I was greeted by insults (still am, today I am a troll), 3RR-baiting, NPA-baiting, and just about every other dirty trick to put me in the same position that BD now finds himself. And this is not about Scientology either. I certainly do not think that BD is a Scientologist; he has never said one thing that would lead me to believe that he is. Personally, I think Smee has an abusive editing style when it comes to editors that he does not agree with. He may not see it that way but that is what he is doing. In conclusion, I really think that many admins here do not know what editors that oppose this group of "anti-cultists" are up against and, I think, that some extra leeway is in order for BabyDweezil. I think that editors and admins here should make a better effort to see that all are treated fairly here. And, to be honest, I think that some blame should go to the "anti-cult" admins because they NEVER step in to help or support anyone but "their side" and they are the ones that probably see the disparity as clearly as I do. That said, BD still needs to follow the rules and should also contribute, contribute, contribute. Something I have already discussed with him and that I think has improved. --Justanother 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support a one-month block, though I'd also support a community ban. The user makes no or very few useful edits, violates NPA/CIV constantly, and soaks up a lot of admin time. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support a one-month block, somewhat reluctantly a one-week block followed by probation, per CC's suggestion below. KillerChihuahua asks whether BD has made any worthwhile contributions. If you look at BD's edit history it's pretty obvious that he's focused entirely on deleting content that he doesn't like from articles on Scientology and cult-related topics, and arguing about that in talk pages. The frustrating thing is that he's right about there being a lot of problems with cult-related articles on Wikipedia - unfortunately he seems to be blind to, or simply doesn't care about, the abrasive way that he deals with other users. He's had multiple blocks, hasn't learned from them and seems to be incapable of working with others effectively. -- ChrisO 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Chris, don't you think that you should recluse yourself from this one as you are one of the "anti-Scientology" admins here? Wouldn't avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest be more important than getting a vote in? Not to mention that you have been an active "opponent" to BabyD in the Schwarz article that led to all this. I mean, I don't know how this works here, but I imagine that involved editors like me or Smee would be kinda suspect and that the opinions of non-involved or neutral admins would count for more. But you are not exactly any of that, are you? --Justanother 04:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd not even heard of BD before last week, and I've only encountered him on the Barbara Schwarz article. But it's clear from his contributions that he's been active on a range of articles, that he's made many contentious edits and that he's wound up a lot of people with his lack of civility. If he can get it into his head that Wikipedia is a community where you need to get along with other people, he could be quite an effective contributor. Right now, though, he doesn't seem to understand that. It has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-Scientology, it's a basic issue of being able to work effectively with others. -- ChrisO 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, guys, I'm slightly sleepy. You advocate a spurious ban for all sorts of POV-reasons. Fair enough, that's how Wikipedia works: Hail to the zealots (aka POV pushers). Oppose JFTR. Fossa?! 03:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - per Admin SlimVirgin's excellent points above. Smee 04:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Support a block, but I'm uncertain as to whether 1 month is necessary or helpful. A week, with several months of probation following that sounds like a better idea. If he does anything disruptive during that period, he gets a longer block (though not without discussion here or on some other noticeboard). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd go along with a week-long block followed by probation. I've changed my vote accordingly. -- ChrisO 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • CC, I appreciate your vote of moderation. However, I think that the specific issues raised by Bishonen as justification for this action are insufficient. Please see my comment directly related to them near the top. The issues cited are displaying some attitude under stress and making edits of sourced trivia to relevant articles to make a point, one of the edits in the actual "Trivia" section. I see Bishonen's putting this up as a "rush to judgement", and a rush to sanction; behavior sometimes termed "railroading". --Justanother 13:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Some of that might be going on, but BabyDweezil does show a bit of a tendency towards disruption when under stress, and could use a short cool down. It really looks like the Eisenhower edit was put in repeatedly to make a point. Yes, it's sourced. It is, however, a crazy fringe conspiracy theory. Schwarz is only "noted" because of her bizzare FOIA requests, something which BabyDweezil has criticized about her article (Talk:Barbara_Schwarz#What.27s_the_point_of_this_ridiculous.2C_gratuitous_article.3F). Hence the WP:POINTyness of adding this mention of her, especially worded in the way it was. It was intentional. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, it was absolutely intentional and it was absolutely WP:POINT. The thing is that it was by no means egregious, and another editor got one hour for it. So where does one month come from? He got 24 hrs. He "served" it. Now why not let's see how he does and hold this in abeyance for the moment. Does that sound fair? --Justanother 15:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • A month is definitely might be uncalled for. Because of his history though, I think a few months probation are in order to make sure that he's actually going to cut it out in the future. I'm flexible on my week block suggestion, it was mostly the probationary period that I thought was important. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Understood. Thanks. I will have to bone up a bit on what exactly "probation" means in this context. I certainly think that asking him to demonstrate clearly that he "got it" regarding CIVIL, 3RR, and POINT is appropriate. I just do not think the "probation" period should be so long or the terms so strict that he is almost guaranteed to fail. If that is how it works then I say ban him indef now and be done with it. --Justanother 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
              • The terms: "no disruption". It's his fault if he can't cool down, not ours. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
                • All due respect but cannot respond. --Justanother 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support whatever block (one week or one month) - BabyDweezil has declined to work constructively, he prefers to use "bad boy" methods, i.e. "delete first, talk later". Am example is cult apologist, where he deleted an entire segment, although the core dispute was about one single word. Even after several blocks, he hasn't improved his modus operandi. This would also send a signal to other editors, who have begun to imitate his methods. --Tilman 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps also related to my having questioning whether you might have a conflict of interest by being so heavily involved in editing and defending a relatively insignificant article laden with WP:BLP problems? BabyDweezil 16:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support one-month block, and I'd also support a community ban for the same reasons Tilman and SlimVirgin have stated above. Orsini 04:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps related to the only actual contact you have had with me, where I quite civilly asked you to clarify false statements you made about me? (still waiting for you to correct them). BabyDweezil 16:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I claimed you had an affinity for the scientology organization. Your statement "By the way, to anybody listening...On the Wiki-abuse of Barbara Schwarz I thought were defending Scientology by identifying a group of anti-Scientologists" indicates an affinity for scientology to me, and so I stand by my interpretation of your statement, and another editor interpreted your statement in the same way. In accordance with the guideline WP:DFTT, I have nothing further to say to you on Talk:Barbara Schwarz on the matter. The method you used to raise your question is clearly uncivil and disruptive, and borders on a personal attack. You have also made false statements regarding the Barbara Schwarz article on the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard, including "a sizable amount of this biography is currently sourced to usenet postings" which is entirely false, amongst your other misleading statements there. You have also made ill-considered accusations of impropriety with regards to myself and Tilman, in the latter instance by suggesting a conflict of interest exists, which is false and an ill-considered accusation of impropriety. It is well known on the Usenet that Barbara Schwarz involves herself in many "nasty and abusive flame war[s]" on the Usenet with any person who refuses to accept her delusions as facts, as she smears and libels everyone on the Usenet with whom she does not agree. As such the situation is not unique to Tilman which you attempted to imply on the BLPN. You have colluded and are colluding with another editor, where I see a clear conflict of interest exists in that editor's editing of scientology related articles. A review I made of your edit history shows your uncivil behavior, and your attempts to disrupt discussions, make personal attacks and ill-considered accusations of impropriety, and remove well sourced material is not unique to the Barbara Schwarz article. Orsini 20:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This is offensive, off-topic, and especially inappropriate as BD can no longer respond to defend himself. Isn't there something about "kicking them when they are down"? I will not do it personally as it is a "conflict of interest" but I would appreciate if Bishonen or another editor or admin would remove this. Thanks. --Justanother 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that citing BabyDweezil's behavior here is inappropriate or off-topic, and BabyDweezil was blocked by Bishonen by reason of the edits made right here. However, what I personally find offensive are the repeated ill-considered accusations of impropriety made by BabyDweezil and you about myself and other editors not supporting the ideals of scientology (a subject in which you have a clear conflict of interest per WP:COI), and the disruptive behaviour in which you both engage. Bishonen, if my comments re BabyDweezil's behavior are inappropriate or off-topic, please remove them and tell me, so I do not repeat the mistake. Orsini 21:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ho hum, this is starting to really sound like a Scientology Series talk page. Just a little bit though, it still has a long way to go. Come on guys, let's give them a real show! We don't often get a new audience. --Justanother 21:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Off topic? Here? I have no intention of removing Orsini's post, which was, note, in response to BabyD's, and in self-defense against his accusations. I see nothing inappropriate. Besides, the thread should preferably contain full information and many angles, as it will surely be linked to when (no, no, crossing through because frantically AGF-ing) if BabyD is again made a subject on this board. Justanother, you need to stop trolliing before people start removing your posts. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

<left> Sounds like you are trying to get that muzzle back on me, Bishonen. Why is that? As a Scientologist, this whole "affinity for scientology" as being some sort of a crime is extremely offensive to me. As far as being off-topic, Orsini's "colluding with another editor" bit is off-topic to the degree that it is an accusation against me (I am the "another editor" as he makes clear in the links to my talk page) and he clearly goes out of his way to make an off-topic accusation that I have some sort of conflict-of-interest editing in Scientology as if a Christian should not edit in the Christian articles or a black in the Black History articles. Ludicrous and to call it what it is; it is bigotry - plain and simple and obvious and offensive. The collusion bit is a silly and obvious lie and and another editor that inadvertantly piled-on has already apologized to me. As far as being inappropriate, well barring every thing else I already mentioned that makes it inappropriate, this action is over, BD is blocked and I thought there was something about not kicking them when they are down. Bishonen, I am really disappointed that you have climbed on board with this "Justanother is a troll" idea that Orsini is pushing for his own motives and I put that down to the fact that you don't know me and I don't know you. But I made the necessary stretch to assume good faith on your part and I continue to do so. I would appreciate it if you would return the courtesy. And if you can't make that stretch, at least take a breath. This action as regards BD is over. What it now seems to be about on the part of a couple of editors is trying for a twofer; get Justanother at the same time. That ain't gonna happen. --Justanother 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support blocking. As others have pointed out, he isn't just exhibiting the worst behavior himself, he seems to be encouraging it in others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Antaeus Feldspar, could you specify which "others" and precisely how I am "encouraging" them? BabyDweezil 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Now just a cotton pickin' minute[edit]

Awrite, I've refrained til now from responding here, not being much of a fan of inquizatorial imbroglios and all, and hey, what can one really say in response to a couple'a folks, including generally combative and aggressive and often nasty edit warriors wearing newly-minted angelic halos pointing out what a useless, nogood, disruptive evil sack of poop i am? But my friend Tilman's comment above tickled me--so please, kind sir, please could you cite the names of those unfortunate editors who have succumbed to evil BabyDweezil's demonic charms and have "have begun to imitate his methods"? Names, please names...we must nip this in the bud, good sir!! BabyDweezil 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Section break, and noticeboard disruption[edit]

Justanother, you're getting close to disrupting ANI, in my opinion. You've posted 8 times in this thread, written 47% of all the words, and keep leaving reason further and further behind. I suppose you're not simply trying to make the thread so long and boring and chronologically confusing that nobody'll read it to the end? For an example of unreasonableness, dip in anywhere... here's one: you claim that I'm "railroading" the user by proposing a one-month block, because "the specific issues raised by Bishonen as justification for this action" are merely that BabyD has an attitude, and that he "put sourced trivia" into two articles. Qué? If you didn't notice, or have forgotten, what my "specific issues" were (emphasized and exclamation-marked at the beginning of this thread), here they are again: there's a link, which I beg people to click on, to a just-archived previous thread detailing, proving, and diffing BabyD's long-time past and ongoing disruptiveness and admins' frustration with it; plus, BabyD has been blocked three times (now four) in the past couple of weeks; plus, he's spent the rest of his time balancing on the verge of being blocked for edit warring, for personal attacks, for disruption[13] These issues, that I laid out explicitly, you summarize as me wanting to block BabyD for a month "because he displays an attitude when he is attacked and hounded" and "he put sourced trivia in two relevant articles to make a point." Must you stuff this thread with so much nonsense? Bishonen | talk 02:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

46.87% to be precise. Good work. Now I am impressed. OK, back to saving up my percentage in case I need it later. --Justanother 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow --Justanother 03:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, whatever were you thinking. That this noticeboard was a place for you to express your opinions, or some dang foolish such nonsense? BabyDweezil 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
mmmpphhh --Justanother 04:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week[edit]

Oh dear! The unfortunate Justanother has been muzzled! Bishonen is choking the life out of him, do something! Meanwhile, I see a lot of community support for a one-month block above, but also a couple of respectable users suggesting one week. Accordingly, I've blocked BabyDweezil for one week. I would tend to assume that if his edit warring, content removal, and PAs continue unabated when he returns, the next thing will be that somebody (not me) places a one-month or indefinite block. But let's by all means hope for an epiphany. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Mmmmpphhh pffft. Glad that is out. Ok, now. Last I checked I was at 39.6% so I figure I got a bit of room here to stretch. Not much to say, though. Bishonen, you do not have a LOT of community support, IMO, if you discount all the POV-pushers that chimed in. But you do have some small amount of non-POV support and, more importantly, no-one chose to oppose you except obviously interested parties like myself. I hope that BabyDweezil has a nice break and I hope that he steers clear of the site during the break. BD, nothing much will likely change while you are gone but we can hope that the unfriendly atmosphere in articles like the Scientology Series is abating somewhat and the NPOV editors are beginning to feel more comfortable editing there. I really do think that is the case. I ask Bishonen and all the other admins here to do their parts to clear out the poison in those articles and, Bishonen, if you sincerely think that blocking BD is a move in that direction then I will not argue that with you though I may feel otherwise. So be it. Later, my friends. God bless you all. --Justanother 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, you regularly remove entire sections from article talk pages with the summary "rm offensive soapboxing". I might ask -- just what exactly is it that you think you're doing here? Calling those people who agree with you "the NPOV editors" and labelling everyone who disagrees with you "all the POV-pushers" -- are you providing anyone with any reason to think you are in the right, or are you just employing WP:AN/I as a 'bully pulpit' from which to harangue everyone with your opinion about how in the right you are? It's hard to believe that the editor who left this message on my talk page acknowledging that he had violated his own standards and engaged in less-than-civil discourse could be here before us now, utterly discounting the idea that anyone except "POV-pushers" could be recommending a block for someone who egregiously violated Wikipedia policy because he egregiously violated Wikipedia policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Carry on, Antaeus. Back to business-as-usual, I see. --Justanother 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Sklocke, Invader Soap, and Invader Poonchy[edit]

Sklocke (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Invader Soap (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Invader Poonchy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

I had observed User:Sklocke for some time back in January, as that editor was performing a series of oddball page moves and other disruptive edits. I had to warn Sklocke on numerous occasions, before the editor disappeared in late January. Invader Soap and Invader Poonchy appear to have similar patterns, and similar language, to Sklocke, so I'm wondering if they are one and the same. When I previously reported Sklocke, BiancaOfHell (now BillDeanCarter) indicated a willingness to support the action due to related incidents. --Ckatzchatspy 08:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why am I getting a message regarding a change to this site? This is the first time I'm accessing this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.176.27 (talkcontribs) Unrelated issue. Blocked for vandalism and trolling -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been getting many sockpuppets allegations lately on this board. Many users have been blocked w/o performing a CheckUser under the pretext of that suspected socks got similar patterns. As per WP:RCU only obvious, disruptive sockpuppets, Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits are to be blocked immediately and that no checkuser is necessary.
In the case above, i boldly suggest that we first refer to WP:RCU before posting here. This is not to defend anyone but to reduce the amount of time wasted here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have off-project reasons to beleive that these, and a couple more IDs, are indeed the same user. Basically all indications are that this is the same user that has recently been quite disruptive on the VirtualGlobetrotting website, at which I also moderate. To the point where he has become the only person to date to receive a total ban from the site, including being systematically IP blocked, which can only be done by the site's owner, not the moderators. I'm really not certain if it's appropriate to give out any more details than that, but, suffice it to say that I've not been too pleased the last few days to find myself having to interact with him here as well. - TexasAndroid 15:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This is why wikipedia got rules and policies. I just dislike random and informal actions when dealing w/ such issues. As i am not familiar w/ this or those user, i personally can't see it but i'd prefer seeing signs that show they are the same user. I tried to compare their contribs but in vain. Could you please help me? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Fayssal, if you can't see similarities in the edit patterns, then I think you might have clicked on the wrong contribs page. All of the above-mentioned usernames, plus Dab235 (talk · contribs) are engaged in similar unproductive activities like page-moving, juvenile chatting, and suggesting unhelpful name changes. Even without a checkuser, it's fairly obvious that we're dealing with a little kid here. Mentorship should be our first response. If someone can make a productive editor out of this user, so much the better for the encyclopedia. A Train take the 16:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to be very careful here, because I know it's a big issue of using off-wiki information in admin descisions. A few of the factoids I know:
"sklocke" and "Invader_ZIM" are two of the many user names that he has used on VGT (VirtualGlobeTrotting).
WP user Invader ZIM 3 (talk · contribs) made an edit to Invader Soap's user page labeling him a bot of Zim, giving a link between the two name, besides the whole "Invader" pattern.
Most of the edits to Invader Soap's user page are from Invader Poonchy, giving the firm link there.
My first interaction with Soap here on the project was him asking me to investigate why he could not access VGT. A quick investigation showed the above links, and thus gave me the answer that Soap was almost certainly Sklocke, and thus his problems were his having been IP banned from VGT. I let him know this fact, and declined to assist him in regaining access to VGT. The very fact that Soap was reporting to me symptoms of his having been IP blocked on VGT was additional evidence that he was the same person.
I'm going to point User:Thisisbossi to this discussion, as he's also been interacting with Zim/Soap/Sklocke, and has left several querries on some of their user pages asking if they were the same person. It would be interesting to hear from him why he came to that observation. - TexasAndroid 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that establishing that all of these accounts are the same user is of secondary importance right now; we need someone to reach out to the user and see if we can redirect his/her edits in a constructive direction. I'll leave a note on the talkpage of Invader Soap, but I don't have the time to mentor myself. Ryanpostlethwaite was willing to take a problem user under his wing before, I'll see if he'd be willing to do it now. A Train take the 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


I am more than happy to take the user under my wing, but which one should I go for? It does seam clear that they are socks, but scanning through their contribs I believe that they are trying to make an active effort on wikipedia (even if they are possibly confusing it with MySpace). The sock issue is only going to be a problem if we can't clear this up with a bit of mentorship first. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Now, after having smoked my cig and going thru logs and contribs, i found out the following:
Action taken → All the above accounts are socks of User:Sklocke. I've blocked indef all the ninjas. I may have missed some other ninja so please let me know. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Guess my help isn't required then! But any chance you could temporarilly unblock User:Invader Soap? Would really like a chance to work with him (Yeah I know they're socks of each other) because it doesn't seam like anyones attempted to work things through with them. I've asked invader soap on his talk page if he is willing to let me help him. Regards RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the one to be unblocked would be the main sockpupeteer who is sklocke. I blocked Dab235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as well. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but the reason why I've suggested Invader Soap is because that user seams to be last one to edit, the other usernames might be redundant now RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We'll wait and see what would be their reaction. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I may be a bit late at joining in on this discussion, but I first became curious about the possible suckpuppetry after seeing the aforementioned "oddball" page moves to articles such as Roundabout. After examining the contributions of the users performing the moves, I made comments on the user talk pages I had initially observed as bearing a correlation: [14] [15] [16]. I did not pursue with it any further because, frankly, trying to get all the info put together for sockpuppetry is too much work and hassle; and I knew that by posting comments in the suspect's usertalkspace, there would likely be others to pickup where I left off... I guess it worked! :) For what it's worth, the user responded on my own Talk page through the use of a sockpuppet :P [17] Sláinte! --Thisisbossi 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt and DRV[edit]

There's a discussion in progress at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_23#Daniel_Brandt regarding the Daniel Brandt article. Considering the high public profile of past Brandt related items, I feel a heads up here is appropriate for interested parties who not have DRV watchlisted. While I have an opinion on the subject, this is not an endorsement either way regarding the outcome, just a notification that a discussion is in progress. Regards, CHAIRBOY () 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been snowed and endorsed. Nothing more to see. --Docg 16:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I object to both the deletion of that article and the oh-so-quick closing of it's deletion review. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it went delete, undelete, delete, undelete, delete in less than four hours, with the original deleter also being the final. log That is worth other administrators thinking about, so I'm mentioning it here. Let's not wheel war. GRBerry 16:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Am already preparing an RFAR writeup I fear. – Chacor 16:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we all please not use WP:SNOW for discussions that are obviously going to be controversial anymore? Please? It is not helping anyone, it is not improving the encyclopedia, it is against process, it only makes the issue worse, and it always comes off as "We're right, now STFU." --Conti| 16:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Now a revert war over the speedy endorse of the DRV... – Chacor 16:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I nearly reverted that closure myself, because I think it's wrong (especially for the reasons given). But then again, revert-wars never solved anything. --Conti| 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Conti, and I'm concerned with the quick close; there were 17 endorses and 7 overturns when it was closed, that doesn't seem like a WP:SNOW to me. The sudden and abrupt deletion seems odd as well, and I'd suggest it needs to be discussed more than what was allowed. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the "squewed logic that is based upon sophmoric revenge". Just hope that an admin won't look at my edits as "squewed" and start deleting them completely out of process. Casey Abell 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, stop trying to snowball close the deletion review. 10 out of 11 AFDs were speedy closed. Trying to snowball close this is just plain dumb, it is obviously objected to. GRBerry 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Expanding somewhat, deletion review is meant to be the final stop for reviewing deletions. We should be more reluctant to snowball close discussions there than we are elsewhere, because there isn't really anyplace else to turn short of ArbComm. We've already had one speedy deletion review close this week that generated more drama and wasted time than letting the discussion run would have, we don't need two. I'm very tempted to undo that deletion review close myself, as a regular closer of deletion reviews, but I have hopes that the admin that closed it will wise up and reverse themselves. GRBerry 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like WP:IAR to me, 4 hours is hardly enought time for SNOW. Which is all fine with me to a point but let's not just make things up...this is not even close to SNOW country. RxS 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A note, I don't agree with the WP:SNOW closure either, I feel that the folks objecting weren't given a chance to express their views on the matter. I also don't think this was a valid SNOWstorm either, as while the opinion may have qualified (at the time) under Wiki consensus definitions, something closer to unanimity should be needed for SNOWflakes and other snow related punnery. - CHAIRBOY () 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(12th_nomination). – Chacor 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for doing that. Let's make sure this is in-process, super-duper-double-strong-with-a-pinky-twist deleted. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What the? I would love to see trash like this taken out, along with the 10,000 articles on bands that nobody has ever heard of other than the 5 high school kids that visit some guy's myspace page, but good grief, there's a wheel war over it? --BigDT 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted Wikipedia Watch as a redirect to a redirect (and short-cutting it as a redirect to Google Watch made no sense). Should Talk:Wikipedia Watch be deleted as well? | Mr. Darcy talk 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaarrrrgh' Now another close of the DRV because it is at AFD. That would be reasonable if the article existed. Can we restore the last version of the article for the duration of the AFD, and fix the history if the AFD comes out as keep, or delete that one version if it comes out as delete? (I don't want to do all versions now because sorting through the history to find the revisions with personal information would take too long.) I think we need at least one revision visible to hold a reasonable AFD, given some of the comments already there. GRBerry 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a stickler for procedure, but please don't do that. GFDL compliance requires the history be available for crediting reasons. I have no problem with restoring the whole thing, or just telling people to look at the linked Google Cache, but please don't restore one static version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In any case, the contents can easily be seen off-site (I think someone's already put up a link to the cached version on the AFD); I don't see any good reason to undelete any of them at this point, all things considered. Kirill Lokshin 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. --Conti| 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Now the AFD's been closed because it's still on DRV. *head asplode* Tony Fox (arf!) 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Could someone decide where to have this debate? Trebor 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is silly. – Steel 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
See where process gets you? :-P Cyde Weys 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who thinks Daniel Brandt should be deleted should read Talk:Seth Finkelstein/Archive 1. Seth is a hell of a nice guy, not more noteable than Brandt, and very much does not want a wikipedia article on him for a variety of reasons listed in the archive I linked. Must someone become a pain in the ass for us to respect their wishes if they are mostly non-noteable? WAS 4.250 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, if undeleting the article, don't undelete all the revisions; if you look at the deletion log for the article, you'll see some revisions with personal information were deleted on purpose, and should not be restored. --cesarb 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it to remove info, but it got oversighted so it doesn't matter. Majorly (o rly?) 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV is about judging the propriety of the deletion process, not the validity of the article. All "endorse" votes that are based solely on the validity of the article are made in bad faith and thus should be thrown out. jgpTC 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's where I'm confused, and the out of process deletion makes it far more confusing. What are we commenting on - the process (which is the standard topic for a DRV) or the article itself? If the former, then it's a clear overturn - it was inarguably not a valid CSD. If the latter, then some people are commenting on a different issue, and the discussion becomes that much harder to judge. So in this case, ignoring rules has left a confused mess with discussions being begun, moved and closed in an unreasonably short time frame. Which is, perhaps, why we bother with process. Trebor 18:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear! --Conti| 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no confusion. You write what you want to have happen with the article where the discussion is taking place. If you believe the encyclopedia is better without the article, you endorse the deletion. If you believe the encyclopedia is better with the article, you oppose the deletion. I know it's hard to distance onself from proccess wankery, but just do so. Say what you believe is the right action, and why that is the right action. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Except I go along to WP:DRV and read "This page is about process, not about content" and "the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." By that, I can't see how anyone could say it shouldn't be overturned - how do you interpret WP:CSD and conclude it was justified? This isn't "process wankery" or whichever other disparaging term you use to describe it; I am genuinely uncertain what I should be commenting on. Trebor 19:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To expand on the first quote "This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." We review content as needed to see if the process was correct. I think, when all is boiled down, this speedy deletion was done under the belief that doing so improved the encyclopedia. [WP:IAR]] is the policy authorizing such actions. So, if we should have an article then speedy deleting it didn't improve the encyclopedia, and if we shouldn't have an article then speedy deleting it did improve the encyclopedia... and both arguments are about whether the WP:IAR policy was correctly used. There is a legitimate issue about whether WP:IAR deletion was more efficient than another AFD would have been, but there are arguments that could be made (and I haven't seen yet) given the prior AFD history. GRBerry 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I can see what you mean, but I just think that now the discussion has splintered into two separate debates, which is going to be a nightmare to have to close. As I said on the DRV: if this is going to be about content, it's worth saying that on the page itself. Trebor 19:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do somewhat pity the poor schmuck that will probably have to close this mess (unless somebody tells them they are too biased in this case), but at least they knew that things could get messy when they volunteered, so they knew what they were in for. GRBerry 20:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Jgp, could you clarify your text above? You have asserted that many of the comments were made in bad faith, that's a pretty sharp accusation. Can you provide some specific examples? - CHAIRBOY () 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The following comments, all of which were parts of Endorse or Keep Deleted votes (most, if not all of which were made by established editors): "Daniel Brandt's significance isn't all that great, and respect for his privacy should take precedence, at least as long as he is still alive", "You're right, that isn't a speedy deletion criteria", "If he's notable at all, he's just notable for being notable", "He's not really notable, no real reason to have this article", "I have yet to see anybody explain why Brandt is notable in the first place", "Firstly, with this gone this odious individual might actually shut up. Secondly, I just don't think he's notable", "Keep Deleted yes process was abused", "But we're now faced with the question of whether we should have an article on Daniel Brandt or not. In my opinion, we shouldn't", "Borderline notability, not worth the trouble", "Advertising, subject not notable, does nothing to further the encyclopedia." jgpTC 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Those edits were made in bad faith? That's the claim you made, and that's the item I'd like clarification on. It's a serious charge. - CHAIRBOY () 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And that's not all of them. People are using this DRV to push Brandt's POV, not to judge the propriety of the deletion, and they have all been around long enough to know what DRV is for. DRV is not "Should this article be deleted?". That's what AfD is for. DRV is "Was the act of deletion proper?". They know this, but they don't care. jgpTC 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, your view that "was this deletion proper" can be evaluated independently of "should this article be deleted" is antithetical to the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If their argument to endorse states that Brandt was marginally notable and that the article did not substantiate notability, then they're endorsing that the speedy deletion was righteous. If they're saying that the action was correct because he requested the article's deletion as it was causing him distress, then this is something that should have been handled by an office action and the speedy deletion by an admin was again righteous. Malber (talk contribs game) 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

About-freaking-time. Can we now discuss overturning Brandt's ludicrous community ban? Malber (talk contribs game) 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Never - WP:MASTODONS. If you make a site soley designed to stalk and harass wikipedia editors, you are probably gone forever. You're certainly gone untill such time that the site vanishes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Were you aware that I'm on the "Hive-mind" list too? None of the information on that list isn't information that wasn't already provided, primarily, on Wikipedia, or secondarily on teh internets. So you can hardly call it stalking. Don't you think he's suffered enough with his article that he couldn't edit but everyone else could? Malber (talk contribs game) 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not actually true. I'm not sure it rises to the stalking level but at least some of it is not easily available, fwiw. RxS 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Someone suggested Brandt might be behind all this at the review. Are we certain that isnt the case cos he is banned right now, SqueakBox 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

An obscene final warning[edit]

Is this an official final warning? Or trolling? [18]. Dick means penis in this case. Are we now at the point where admins warn people by calling them penises? Can an admin please take a look at this personal atytack disguised as an officiail waarning, SqueakBox 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference to Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. He either forgot to link to the page which explains the expression, or thought you already knew about it. --cesarb 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. And the legal threat? I dont believe that creating a Daniel Brandt/temp is a violation of wikipedia copyright and I feel threatened (the dick comment not helping) as I am within my rights to publish wikipedia material wherever I wish, SqueakBox 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it got sumfin to do w/ WP:DICK. However, i never encourage such warnings especially to established editors. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 19:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I deleted it and have iognored it. If I were to get a reasonable warning that would be fine but as far as I am concerned that was too low to be a warning, SqueakBox 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, not quite a right "to publish wikipedia material wherever [you] wish". You need to read the text of the GNU Free Documentation License - the history of an article is very important. There was no legal threat there, BTW, within the meaning of our policies. REDVEЯS 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Legal threat? I don't see a legal threat in that warning. It is against the GFDL to not include the revision history if you are recreating the work. Leebo86 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well the delete notice states very clearly that we can edit the article but the page is locked. So how do we edit it. Can I start a new article at Daniel Brandt/temp? I am glad you dont think Hipocrite was threatening me legally as I wasnt sure, SqueakBox 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Also a note for you... Hipocrite is not, nor ever has been, an admin. --Maelwys 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you should've told him not to be a fucking douchebag in response. --Cyde Weys 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know he isnt an admin, though non admins can issue warnings they shouldnt do so in such a way (dick etc), SqueakBox 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You've drifted from your original point somewhat. Nevertheless, it probably wasn't helpful to recreate an article that is the subject of much dispute elsewhere at this time, even if you had done it without breaking the licence. So please don't do it again. And the matter can now probably close. REDVEЯS 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The warning is done. I created the temp in good faith on the advice (in a different case) of respected admin Tony Sidaway [19] and would like clarification of why I cant and what to do about the misleading deletion notice at Daniel Brandt, SqueakBox 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Subpages are not permitted in the mainspace: Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses. x42bn6 Talk 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's traditional to do a temporary article as a subpage (though it's usually a subpage of the talk page; it would be quite simple to fix such a small mistake via a simple move and delete of the leftover redirect). --cesarb 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes well I put it in my sandbox initially but have removed that too though I have a copy in my office now. What I wanted was a place where those who want to edit the article while it is under review can do so. if I could do this at Talk:Daniel Brandt/temp I would do so but need advice first given the reactions to my creating on at Daniel Brandt// SqueakBox 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Now a friendly warning with a link to that article would have avoided all this in the first place. And as for a final warning for a good faith edit, what is wrong here for that to be happening? SqueakBox 20:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the intent was to impress upon you the seriousness of trying to fork or recreate the article against the decision at DRV, which is basically what you were trying to do by editing it when the current consensus is to endorse deletion article is still under review. Leebo86 20:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem - you cannot create copy-paste recreations of deleted content, because the history of the content must be visible to all users. You can create copy-past recreations of existing content because the history of that content continues to exist. My request that you stop being a WP:DICK was because your actions were transparently gaming the system. You've been an editor here for more than 4 years. You should know by now that recreating deleted content that is under active dispute is an agressive action - and that doing so while pretending to listen to an article template as a reason to go around a protected page, violate the GFDL and recreate content that has scores of users up in arms? Perhaps I went to far in assuming the effects of what you were doing. For that, I apologize. In the future, if you wish to restore content that is on a locked, blanked page, given your lack of experience with the GFDL and page protection policies, I suggest you come to me and I will tell you why you can or cannot take any given action - this will prevent eggregious violations of the GFDL, and actions that will anger wide swaths of the community. With that, I believe this problem has been solved.Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So what about deleted content being moved to other sites that don't support a history mechanism? Is a link to DRV and an instruction to request a content review for history purposes sufficient? What about pages that link to wikipedia for it when the content isn't deleted, and then it later gets deleted? What about edits made too long ago to be in the history tool (these revisions exist, you can walk through them, but presumably they're not visible to the export tool either). earliest revision available of "A" Earliest version in "A"'s history listing --Random832 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Those other sites are required to follow Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

From a legal point of view this alleged edit indicates the unreliability of wikipedia histories as I can easily prove I didnt make that edit on the day in question, SqueakBox 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

One bug in the database does not a problem make. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

From a legal point of view it shows unreliability and no jury could convict in such a case, SqueakBox 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO this whole situation has been created by admin abuse and that the only fix will happen at the arbcom, SqueakBox 21:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been an editor here since Oct 04 (the 03 edit is false and a bug). I have serious issues with the way this is being done, and ma not alone. I absolutely claim my edit was in good faith (and I havent restored it), SqueakBox 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Convictions happen in criminal court. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion candidate is a vandal magnet[edit]

Number XIV Kraixn is up for speedy deletion, and there has been a lot of vandalism hitting it for the last few hours. Can someone remove this mess from the encyclopedia? Or, if it really is notable, protect it? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted now. Sandstein 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOJO assistance required[edit]

I'd appreciate rapid assistance from someone knowledgeable with the persistent vandal WP:TOJO and with rangeblocks. He's producing a number of socks tracking and reverting my edits, the latest is VG6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and earlier VGoldoni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) up through VGoldoni5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Anyone has an effective countermeasure? Thanks, Sandstein 22:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's really Tojo (I'm not %100 convinced this is, although there are certain similarities), you'll need a checkuser case set up. Tojo uses various proxies and proxy-esque IPs. Checkusers'll have to go and figure this one out. For now, simply block the attack accounts would be my suggestion. Logical2uTalk 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tennis Xspert[edit]

This account has just been created, probably as a sock puppet for the disruptive edits that User:Lman1987 and his many anonymous IP accounts have been attempting to make. The immediate problem is that Tennis Xspert has copied everything on my talk page and pasted it onto his talk page. This apparently is an attempt to confuse everyone and make it seem like Tennis Xspert and I are the same person. We are not! I would appreciate administrator intervention about this. Thank you! Tennis expert 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit war turns into real-life harassment and threats of litigation[edit]

On February 19, User:Jance got into an edit war with me on my talk page when she deleted a list I was keeping of uncivil comments she had made to me.[20] As a result, we were both blocked for 31 hours.

During the block, my work e-mail started receiving a variety of messages indicating that I had been signed up for a number of mailing lists: pornography, commercial marketing, etc. Someone had also used my personal information to sign me up for a mortgage loan application. Three of the e-mails--one from HornyMatches.com, one from Amigos.com, and one from BigChurch.com--indicated that someone had impersonated me and created an account in my real name and work e-mail address falsely claiming that I was a bisexual male who wanted to receive emails from couples for discreet sexual encounters. Those e-mails revealed the IP address of the person who had committed the impersonation: it was <IP number redacted>. <diff redacted> That IP address belongs to Jance. I will be happy to forward these emails to anyone who wishes to see them. At a minimum, these accounts were created to embarass and harass me; at worst, they were created in a fruitless attempt to offend my employer and get me fired. (Fortunately, my employer is used to its employees facing harassment, and I don't have it anywhere near as bad as my co-worker, feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.)

I have several different issues:

1) Do I have any recourse for this here? Is this sort of real-life harassment in retaliation for a Wikipedia edit war acceptable behavior on Wikipedia?

2) For full disclosure, Jance's dispute with me stems from the fact that I object to what I perceive to be the POV-slant of a variety of articles in my field of work, civil justice reform, where Jance and her predecessor editor identity, Jgwlaw, have made thousands of edits, often simply excising cited, verifiable, and notable information that supports reformers (e.g., [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]). I wish for these articles to accurately reflect both the point of view of civil justice reformers and opponents. I have frankly acknowledged my WP:COI, have added POV tags to articles I have edited, and AfD tags to an article I created, have attempted to restrict my edits to NPOV issues and comments on article talk pages about ways to restore NPOV.

This is complicated by the fact that Jance does not wish for me to perform any edits on any articles, and reverts my edits indiscriminately, and engages in personal attacks on the talk pages of articles where I participate, burying substantive discussion. She accuses me of a "stealth campaign" on behalf of my employer. (I do this as a hobby, and I'm not very stealthy when I use my real name and note on talk pages that I've written on the subject.) This accusation is ironic, because in real life, Jance is affiliated with a left-wing think-tank funded by indicted plaintiffs' law firm Milberg Weiss where she has the title of "Wikipedia Editor" on their weblog, where she is identified under her real name as a blogger. Unfortunately, I am prevented from raising the issue of Jance's WP:COI, because Jance takes the position that she is actually anonymous, that I cannot raise her COI without violating Wikipedia rules, and that she will sue me if I reveal link to her webpage:

Her husband also emailed me threatening me with prosecution for "stalking" (again, ironic, given the actual identity theft committed by Jance).

An editor warned Jance about such litigation threats, and she has deleted the warning on her talk page.

I don't even think a warning was necessary: Jance has previously been warned about this. In fact, her previous account, User:Jgwlaw, was about to be permanently banned from Wikipedia because of similar threats of litigation; Jance/Jgwlaw avoided a permanent ban only by misrepresenting to Wikipedia administrators that she was leaving Wikipedia permanently and would not return.

3. Less seriously, but still annoyingly, there have been problems with WP:CIVIL that are not being addressed, and, in fact, resulted in me being blocked because I tried to keep a list of them on my talk page:

I have other complaints about Jance's behavior, but I'd like to focus on stopping the personal real-life harassment.

I am happy to comply with Wikipedia rules, and I certainly don't want to be sued. I have learned that I need to focus on the substance of articles and edits, and avoid getting pulled into a mud-wrestling match. I just want to ask:

  1. Do I have any recourse on Wikipedia for this harassment and these threats of litigation from a recidivist?
  2. Is there a way for me to raise what are NPOV and COI problems in dozens of articles without these incessant attacks or threats of being banned?

Thank you for your consideration and any advice you might give. -- TedFrank 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

After this type of edit, this is clearly a case where indefinite blocking is absolutely required. Shoot first, ask no questions later. --- RockMFR 22:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I'd rather ask questions first then shoot when (and if) ready. She has removed the threats of litigation has she not? I will ask her about the other stuff? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see any point. Extending an edit war to real-life harassment is absolutely inexcusable. We don't need someone like this editing Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As for the emails and stuff like that, her ISP is <redacted>, so you could fire off an email to <redacted> to let them know what she's done, which violates their acceptable use policy. Aside from getting a lawyer and pressing charges, that's all you can do. Paul Cyr 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There is another side to this story, seeing as Jance came here a few days ago with complaints about TedFrank. I haven't followed the whole thing, but it sounds like TedFrank is only presenting the legal threat issue. There are more issues on both sides. Leebo86 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I discussed Jance's complaint against me above. I mistakenly thought that she was not anonymous, and linked to her webpage where she identifies herself as a "Civil Justice Wikipedia Editor": she accused me of trying to end her anonymity. I apologized and promised not to do it again; she deleted my apology and promises[30] and tried to get me blocked for the conduct for which I apologized and for identifying her previous user account. Jance's ANI complaint is part of the same pattern of harassment. -- TedFrank 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm... for my part, I'm going to address the on-wiki aspect of this. Off-wiki activities do concern me, definitely, but that's going into an uncomfortable territory where (a) I don't know anything, for sure, and (b) I can't do anything, for sure -- it's too far out of what I guess I could call my "jurisdiction." But as for her on-wiki behavior, she's definitely upset, and should probably take a breather at the least. I do support a block under WP:NLT, although I'm concerned about what drove this editor (who's been with us at least since Nov 2006) so far over the edge. I've left a note on User talk:Sarah Ewart asking if she'd care to comment. There may be more to this story than is being presented here -- if so, that worries me. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And, just ten minutes ago, my work e-mail address received a fourth email indicating that <IP number redacted> had created yet another personal ad in my name. -- TedFrank 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, this is an extremely serious situation. Someone in a position to investigate this entire matter thoroughly needs to do so quickly and gather all information available from both parties. (I know people at a law firm that has been tangentially mentioned in this matter and therefore am not in a position to do this myself.) Allegations of real-life harassment, litigation threats, or other alleged off-wiki misconduct of the nature discribed should not be detailed further on Wikipedia. I see that a block has been imposed for legal threats, but even were that not the case, both parties should probably refrain from editing and certainly from any controversial editing until this situation has been addressed. Newyorkbrad 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have redacted certain identifying information from these posts. It should be shared with whoever looks further into this matter but not posted again on-wiki. Newyorkbrad 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that Jance's userpage and talk page have been protected, stating she's a "banned user" - a block makes sense until this can be straightened out, but the b[an] word seems a bit premature, no? There's been a recent spate of on-wiki disputes escalating into off-wiki personal harassment - and way too much talk of lawyers, libel, and identity theft. For the love of God... it's just Wikipedia. Take the time you'd spend creating an attack page and go out to dinner with the spouse, play with the dog, walk around the lake, read a book, or do something to regain perspective. The list of users banned for a terminal loss of perspective is getting too long. MastCell 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This needs CheckUsers, and that indicates ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The IP address shouldn't be an issue. The same editor has made hundreds of edits under her IP address and freely acknowledges it, as my diff showed before Newyorkbrad deleted it.
Per your request, I am taking myself away from Wikipedia until March 6; deleting my name from these dozens of mailing lists and talking to my IT department took up a full day of work, and I even had to decline a television appearance. People should feel free to e-mail me. Ultimate resolution should reflect the head-start Jance has had in adding POV to dozens of articles, however. -- TedFrank 23:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking more in terms of a day or two until this mess can hopefully be straightened out. As important as we like to think our article content is, it is of secondary importance to dealing with any sort of harassment of our users. Redaction of IP information and other details from your posts is in conformity with our general attitude toward and policy on user privacy. Anyone with need of the information I redacted can obtain it. Please rest assured that we take allegations of the type you have made extremely seriously. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is it a surprise Jance (aka MollyBloom & Jglaw)is now alleged to have engaged in hostile or erratic behavior? This most recent episode is par for the course since her genesis. Please refer to (one of) her previous RFC's [31] for more context with her stadard operating procedure. I too suddenly got a flood of porn-spam after dealing with her last year which I'd just attributed to chance, now I'm not so sure!Droliver 03:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • She has sent me an email where she admits that her husband signed Ted up to the porn mailing lists because he was angry. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is serious enough to bring to Brad Patrick's attention (Wikipedia's legal counsel). I don't know how to do it or I would have gone ahead and notified him of this message thread. He needs to know about this in case this off-wiki stuff gets even more out of control. Cla68 07:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You could probably just leave him a message on his talkpage: User talk:BradPatrick, but there is a disclaimer at the top with his email address listed, saying he prefers to be contacted by email for legal issues... Smee 13:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
How was your email address obtained? If it is private, then did some user use Wikipedia to somehow obtain it? If it was made public, then is Wikipedia to blame? Is this email address only used for Wikipedia purposes? Can you definitely say this user is responsible? Just a number of questions I have to ask. x42bn6 Talk 13:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. I don't use my work email for Wikipedia; any Wikipedia editing I do is in my spare time from my personal account. You would have to ask Jance how she obtained my work email address, though I can guess; it's not that hard to find out, since it's public so the press can contact me at my job. I don't blame Wikipedia for Jance obtaining my email address, never claimed that it was, and have no reason to believe that the Wikipedia entity has any legal culpability. I merely asked whether behavior from a user like this was considered acceptable conduct to intimidate other editors from participating.
  2. I am quite confident that Jance is directly or indirectly responsible. As I documented above, several of the emails identified the IP address of the person who signed up my work e-mail address for the personal ad; as I documented above, the IP address corresponds to Jance's Wikipedia editing. I'll be happy to forward you these emails and the diff where Jance acknowledges that the IP address is hers, which Newyorkbrad redacted from my post. And if that's not enough, Theresa Knott's 06:28, 22 February 2007 comment says that Jance acknowledges her husband sent the emails. (Jance has yet to acknowledge this to me personally, and I have not received any sign of remorse or apology or responsibility from either of them. Rather, Jance's husband implausibly claimed that his IP had been hacked, and that there had been a remarkable coincidence that the hacker who just happened to hack their IP had happened to target the person whose Wikipedia talk page Jance had been blocked for edit-warring on, and then threatened me not to pursue the matter further.)
  3. Even if Jance is correct that it is her husband who performed the actual harassment, rather than her personally, I believe the two should be held jointly responsible. On the weblog of the left-wing think-tank, Jance and her husband identify themselves jointly as affiliated with their anti-reform project by real name as "Civil Justice Wikipedia Editors". And the two of them previously tag-teamed editing articles together.
  4. NB also Droliver's comment above, which suggests that this is not the first time Jance and/or her husband took this tack to harass editors who disagreed with their POV-pushing. -- TedFrank 13:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This whole mess looks like it's just about ready for arbcomm. As far as I can tell from the history (see particularly AN/I here and Sarah Ewart's talk archive here, Jance objects to links to a page identifying her real name, or the use of phrases sufficient to identify that page. TedFrank originally offered those pages to rebut conflict of interest charges (through some kind of pot-kettle argument or to show that Jance's identity is not private. Ted apologized for using Jance's name but continues to refer to her webpage. Jance has threatened a bunch of lawsuits and, if Ted is right, Jance and/or her husband has started a campaign of off-wiki harassment. Unless the parties are willing to mediate, I would recommend some quick admin action, followed by arbitration. TheronJ 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree right now that given the potential for real-life ugliness, the best approach may be to have both parties stop editing (either voluntarily or via block) and have ArbCom, Brad Patrick, and/or Jimbo Wales look into it. I don't think any further resolution's going to come from AN/I. MastCell 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know blocking or banning policy very well, so this may be a trivial question: Why not just ban / block (I don't know the difference) indefinitely? --Iamunknown 05:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I emailed Brad Patrick to notify him of this situation. I agree that this is beyond administrator intervention level at this point. Cla68 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefban the stalker.Bakaman 02:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy dealt with this matter several days ago. I don't think any further follow up with Brad Patrick or anyone else is necessary. Sarah 03:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Chibi Goten[edit]

User talk:Chibi Goten and User:Chibi Goten are being vandalized with personal attacks from multiple IPs. Appears to be IP address puppetry. --Selket Talk 01:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As a temporary measure, I've semi-protected both user and user talk pages. Heimstern Läufer 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Spider-Man[edit]

Wrestlinglover420 has had a previous history of violation of the page Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs), where he added false information and removed proven information, eventually leading to a misguided edit war and eventual lockdown of the page. Now I try to add the same info to Ultimate Spider-Man - and, this is proven info, with a linked source - and he accuses me of using Wiki as a crystal ball, the very thing which he himself has tried a number of times. I move that locking down the Story Arcs topic was not enough; since he has a frequent history of misguided edits, and of hurling abuse at other users (including me), he should be banned from editing outright. SaliereTheFish 01:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

More User:Serafin[edit]

I have blocked 131.104.218.46 (talk · contribs) and 210.245.160.188 (talk · contribs) as obvious socks of blocked User:Serafin. For evading his block, Serafin at least needs to have his block reset, though I'm wondering if it's time to show him the door. I'd appreciate any input from others on this. Heimstern Läufer 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Serafin makes many sneaky edits (similarly, for example, to the most recent one by his 131.104.218.46 sock) which completely change the meaning of sentences (to factually wrong meanings) with just a few word amendments. I would suggest WP:RFCU to confirm Serafin and these IPs are one and the same, and then reset/extend his block as you feel suitable. Proto  14:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this guy is taking the express lane to a community ban. :S Anyway, do you feel a Checkuser is necessary in this case? I had assumed it was obvious enough not to need one. Heimstern Läufer 18:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And here's another one: Deszcz (talk · contribs). Editing the same topics as Serafin and using the term "Nazi" in similar contexts. Is there any need for a Checkuser here? I'm inclined to call these obvious and block immediately and extend Serafin's block. Heimstern Läufer 01:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Having gotten no feedback, I've decided to act according to my instinct and block Deszcz indefinitely and have reset Serafin's block and extended it by one week. If anyone feels I've been rash, please tell me. Heimstern Läufer 07:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle this, if at all.[edit]

I saw this in the recent changes, User talk:Poney12, and wondered how to handle this. ThuranX 05:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as nonsense. In the future, you can tag it with {{delete}}. Essjay (Talk) 06:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:SndrAndrss evading block[edit]

I'd normally report this on WP:AIV, but it's the second instance by the same user in the last couple of days, and there look to be a few sock accounts to be cleared up. SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is currently blocked for two weeks, but has been using other accounts to evade the block, first SndrAndrss18 (talk · contribs) (now blocked) and now SndrAndrss17 (talk · contribs). There's also a couple of as yet unused accounts SndrAndrss16 (talk · contribs) and SndrAndrss15 (talk · contribs). Oldelpaso 09:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked all the sockpuppet accounts indefinitely. – Elisson • T • C • 11:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Another password-requesting user[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Please post your password here - this is again requesting user passwords, like a user who was mentioned in the last ANI archive. This appears to be his sole contributions. I've warned him about creating such pages. --sunstar nettalk 13:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Considering that's his only contributions so far, I really doubt he is being serious. —Pilotguy push to talk 13:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Correction: Just deleted a few seconds ago. Issue taken care of. —Pilotguy push to talk 13:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparent single-purpose account at Daniel Brandt wheel war ArbCom case[edit]

On the page asking for evidence, an apparent single-purpose account has added evidence. He has no other contributions than to the evidence page.

I found it at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Evidence - it seems a bit odd, this isn't like an AFD, where you'd expect single-purpose accounts.

What's the policy on dealing with this kind of thing?? --sunstar nettalk 13:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The "evidence" looks like it's nonsense and contains some serious accusations without proof. I'm tempted to remove it. – Chacor 13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure whether to remove it or not, as it's an ArbCom case, and I don't think I've ever seen an SPA attempt this before, though. --sunstar nettalk 13:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's one of the Wikipedia Review trolls trying to stir the pot? I'd say leave it to the ArbCom to sort out. -- ChrisO 13:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really know what to do about it, so I thought I'd mention it here for discussion. --sunstar nettalk 13:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If any clerk is reading this, they might consider the benefits of semi-protecting these pages. I can't see wht legitimate reason an extremely new user or IP would have in posting there. They can use the talk pages anyway.--Docg 13:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Doc glasgow. A well-made point. --sunstar nettalk 13:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
We're watching things pretty closely. Thatcher131 14:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There was some interesting traffic from that IP, including that SPA that came around a few days ago claiming to be JoanneB's sock. I've blocked all accounts there, along with the IP, which was a back-slashing proxy. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A backslashing proxy? Wasn't MediaWiki changed to reject edits from these (by adding a backslash on the edit token)? --cesarb 14:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No idea, but there was a back-slashed apostrophe in a username. Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that wouldn't be rejected; the anti-backslashing code exists only on the edit form (where the backslashing behaviour does the most damage). --cesarb 14:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
So that's what that is for. The extra blackslash always seemed odd. Dragons flight 14:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Amer Delić page move[edit]

Admin GTBacchus closed this move proposal as move, even though only 3 users had participated, 2 of them supporting and 1 opposing. Since I would've closed a proposal with such outcome as no consensus (or at least would've relisted it in order to attract more feedback), I would much appreciate if other admins could comment on the closing admin's decision.--Húsönd 13:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

block review please[edit]

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the 48h block of Haphar (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), see here; but I may be missing something. Could someone review this and give their opinion? thanks, dab (𒁳) 13:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a history, but I can't see any particualar attacks (esp in editsummaries) that would warrant an immidiate 48 hour on first glance. In particular the block does not refer to any particluar diff and I can also see no "back off and calm down" earlier warning, but that does not mean it was not given. I have asked User:Blnguyen to comment. Agathoclea 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated block. The proof has been in the pudding! The problem is that i never undo my colleague admins' actions but i got no other thoughts about this one. If this user is accused of being anti-semitic than we got RfC and the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not sure if anyone has notified Rama's Arrow that his block is being reviewed; I've now done so. Also potentially of interest and relevance to this discussion is the conversation between the blocking admin (here) and Dbachmann/dab (User_talk:Dbachmann#Re:Blocks). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please read the discussion on Dab's talkpage, where I've provided some of the relevant diffs. Haphar's exchanges with Blnguyen date back to the ArbCom election but most recently from February 12-13: his comments on his talkpage consist of aggressive incivility, accusations, taunting and insulting him. This recent flare-up this clearly constituted harassment of Blnguyen. As for prior warning, Haphar has been warned in the past about civility/personal attacks and has been blocked for excessive incivility in the past as well. Rama's arrow 16:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've talked to RA about it now, and I can see his point. He is under a lot of pressure, and rash actions are bound to occur in such a situation. My remaining gripe is just that there should have been a warning. Even just a curt "this is your one and only warning". We let Haphar bicker and pester for days on end, and one morning he finds himself blocked as it were out of the blue. I am not into giving out five stages of warnings in clear cases of bad faith, but this was a somewhat obnoxious debate, not vandalism. That's really it. I can see how the block is justified. There should have been a warning. RA could do with constructive help in his admin workload (the "Indo-Pak mess") in general. thanks, dab (𒁳) 16:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dab and completely respect that admins must warn in good faith, no matter what the situation may be, but I would just like to mention the following for the record of the discussion here. Actually this is an interesting edit summary used by Haphar just 1 day ago, where he is advising Blnguyen to "maintain civility:" Please do maintain civility + who's doing a windup now. It is clear that Haphar was aware of policies (and using them to taunt Blnguyen) and thus merited no particular warning. Rama's arrow 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough but i must point out to Blnguyen prior unhelpful comments such as The proof is in the pudding / Perhaps you would be best off leaving Wikipedia and finding another place on the Internet / I would try and talk to Osama bin Laden. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Fayssal you are totally misrepresenting blnguyen's comment. The "finding a place" section is not even close to the Bin laden section.Bakaman 23:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Bakaman, the thing is that i am not familiar enough w/ the tensions going on between this group of editors but as always is the case and shown above, it is a vicious circle where a simple out of line comment made by a contributor leads to another and so on. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war[edit]

I am referring this case directly to the ArbCom to look at possible remedies for all parties involved up to and including desysopping, blocking, etc. I have absolutely no opinion on the actual content question (Should we have an article about him? I don't care) but this log is a disgrace.

Different people played different roles. I do not have time to sort it all out today, so I am referring most of it to the ArbCom. I have instantly desysopped Yanksox, though, because he's basically begging for it. I have temporarily desysopped Geni and Freakofnurture pending the ArbCom thinking it through.

Here's the action count:

Yanksox - out of process deletion coupled with an insult, 2 deletions
Geni - 3 restores
Freakofnurture - 2 restores
Bumm13 - 1 restore
Deskana - 1 delete
Doc Glasgow - 1 restore
Mailer Diablo - 1 restore
CesarB - 1 delete

I know how these things go. Some of the people involved were trying to calm things down. Others were merely trying to cause more disruption and fighting by engaging in inflammatory actions designed to outrage the other side. It is hard to sort it all out. This is why wheel warring is so bad.--Jimbo Wales 22:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a tad bit excessive, Mr. Wales. I have done well with my sysop tools before this