Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive215

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Problem user?[edit]

I'm not sure what can be done of if action is even merited, but I want to bring attention to a certain user who seems to be just charging ahead without actually knowing what they're doing. The user in question is User:Lt. Col. Cole (talk/contribs). I noticed some pretty bad grammar in one of this users contributions so I corrected it then did a little poking to see if this was a one time thing or it was consistent. When I looked over this users contribs I found that there is a history of uploading images without proper tag (several of which have been deleted), and a few cases where he/she is just duplicating content which is eventually redirected by another user (I did one). See these...

This user is fairly new but much has been posted to his/her talk page. Not listening I guess, or just doesn't know how. What to do? Anything? (Admittedly, I might not even be in the right place posting this concern here, but I think I am.) Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I’ve gone through Special:Log/Lt. Col. Cole and tagged the images. The user is either acting in extremely misguided good faith or vandalising (the warning about not uploading images from websites is hard to miss…). The text contributions seem to be in good faith, though. Would somebody talk to the user? —xyzzyn 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
…And the user has reverted my tags, blanked his or her talk page and uploaded more non-free images with bogus tags. I’d say this means the user doesn’t want to care about copyright issues, which would be fine if he or she wouldn’t upload images. Suggestions? —xyzzyn 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggest one more last warning and escalating blocks if nothing changes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

User:69.132.199.100 is a blatantly obvious sockpuppet of User:69.132.198.252, the disruptor of the Shelby Young page. You'll see he "calls me out" in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelby_Young&diff=prev&oldid=114878446

Pretty obvious. No checkuser necessary.

Cheers Ispy1981 00:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How in the world can one be a sock puppet of the other, when a sock puppet, by definition, is "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name"? In this case, there isn't even one username, let alone two? What's more, there's no evidence provided of any attempts to avoid a ban or other disciplinary action, nor an attempt to increase the perceived support for any particular campaign. In short, there is no sockpuppet there.
By the way, even if they're the same person, there's not even any reason to assume that they're trying to appear under a different IP address. They're both simply coming from Road Runner accounts. It's my understanding that Road Runner assigns dynamic IP addresses, no? Bladestorm 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

he is follow me and have many friend harass me so i ignore or try ignore but is not do good for me he follow me around. 69.132.199.100 00:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The "many friends" in question include an admin and a well-known user. In fact, I think those are the only two who "follow" him "around", warning him against his disruptive editing practices. As for me, I have the Shelby Young pages that on my watchlist, hence I'm able to view any changes he and others make. The whole issue stems from a credit, which was disputed by myself and some others. I spoke with a few editors, did a Google, and was satisfied Shelby had, in fact, been involved in the film. A sort of "silent consensus" has been reached, in the fact that no other user has tried to remove the credit and the fact that the actual Shelby, Shelbyyoung, has, in fact stated her involvement in the film. He has moved on, all right, to trashing Shelby's usertalk page, claiming it's not her, and that the photo she provided (now not in existence in Wikipedia) was photoshopped. The identity of Shelbyyoung was confirmed here by bbatsell a few days ago.

To address Bladestorm's statement, yes, a sockpuppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. However, IP addresses here are treated as usernames. Yes they are both coming from roadrunner accounts. However, a reverse DNS of both shows they come from rr.res.carolina, or something to that effect and, doing an IP check on www.ip-address.com, they are coming very close to one another. The original "puppetmaster" was trying to avoid disciplinary action per his constant edit warring, and I beg to differ on the "increased support for a particular campaign". He has tried to have the credit removed several times, claiming that "because IMDB doesn't list the credit". IMDB also didn't have a page for Emma Fenton, an actress who worked on the same film as Shelby. They had AN Emma Fenton, a producer who began producing when the OTHER Emma Fenton was a mere toddler, and listed the actress Emma Fenton's credit in with the others, until an eagle-eyed contributor (hi!) brought it to there attention. In short, his argument about IMDB being an undisputed source in this matter is faulty. Also, he has tried, in his own "unique" way, to have others agree to the credit removal.

I don't know what he has against Shelby, but two things remain certain: 1. Unless there is good reason to remove it, the credit stays. 2. I don't know what he's trying to accomplish here. Regardless of whether or not the credit is on Wiki, it's on her resume. No casting director is going to turn her down for a role on the basis of a Wiki page. It's not harming her or her career in any way. It just harms the encyclopedia. Put it this way. I have writing credits. I also do not have a Wiki page. Does this mean I don't deserve credit for what's on my resume? Ispy1981 14:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

User:West Bank Boy describing changes he'd made to Al-Nas, used the word infidel. Because the previous edit was made by me, I have the right to suspect that this word was a reference to me (I believe in Allah, so this word is the worse offense to me). The user is also keeping on making wxtremely POV edits (such as this one). Al-Bargit 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:NPA. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm that edit is highly POV and that name makes me suspect the account is here to make a point. I'll look a little deeper into this. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
West Bank Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) -- lots of uncivil edit summaries. Appears to be some POV-pushing going on, but I don't know enough about Islam to say definitively. Article creation such as Islam inside Hungarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suggest a disruptive editor, however. -- TedFrank 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've also had concerns about his behaviour, after seeing his edits at Battle of Baia today. Myself and another user have raised these on his talk-page today, and I was thinking about going to RFC if this does not produce any change in his behaviour. He's not been here long by the looks of it, so it may just be that he needs sometime to absorb Wikiquette. David Underdown 16:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
His latest edits on his talkpage do rather suggest a single purpose account [1] David Underdown 11:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just left them a note as an informal last warning. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Good call. Such behaviour should not be tolerated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Block Review[edit]

Resolved

18:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

InvaderSora (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was previously blocked for revert warring and 3RR, and was warned against inclusion of un-attributable material. The block length was 48 hours, and during that time InvaderSora abused the unblock command, adding it in at least 6 times after being declined, and then arguing with the administrators over that rather aggressively. InvaderSora refuses to admit error, and refuses to listen to reason. After an AFD on an article he had contributed to was closed and deleted by me, he recreated the article. Note, he'd been warned before about removing AFD tags and interfering with AFD process on another article, which I noted. I left a message on his talk page to try deletion review and re-deleted the article. He then said "why was it deleted" (what do you think AFD is for?) He then recreated the page once again. I deleted for a third time, then protected and salted. Given his past history of tendentious editing, edit warring, AFD manipulation (he tried to vote twice), AFD tag deletion, and complete lack of any attempt to understand wikipedia policy, I felt that a block was warranted to allow him time to read up on and understand wikipedia policy before continuing editing. As the prior block was 48 hours and he did not learn anything from that, I therefore blocked for 1 week, with the stipulation that I'm very much open to rescinding the block sooner than that if he shows an attempt to edit acceptably. I also left a warning that if he continues to abuse the unblock template, he will lose the ability to edit his talk page for the duration of the block. Therefore, I'm asking for a review of the block here. SWATJester On Belay! 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

NB also this edit. His user page says he's twelve to the extent that counts in one direction or the other. -- TedFrank 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
He was also blocked three prior times for similar behavior under his previous username, [2]. —Centrxtalk • 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at it now. What are the articles that were deleted? Newyorkbrad 21:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[3] was the one I deleted, [4] is the one that he was warned about interfering with AFDs on. SWATJester On Belay! 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Block looks good. Wikipedia is not a children's playground. Next time, feel free to issue a block that is set to expire sometime after puberty. Sandstein 22:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh whoops, apparently I actually didn't protect the school page, I just added the template and forgot to actually protect it, thanks for the catch Centrx. SWATJester On Belay! 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Depression[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-15 17:38Z

We're going on fifty edits in twenty-four hours, most vandalism via anon IP's. How about sprot? /Blaxthos 00:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and semiprotected the article for a week (it can be unprotected earlier, if necessary), but for future reference, requests for protection and unprotection should go to WP:RfPP. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... clicked the wrong bookmark. BTW I love your tool (I bet you get that a lot!). :-> /Blaxthos 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial page move proposal now a fait accompli[edit]

One user (X) made a polite request at Talk:Sinmiyangyo to move Sinmiyangyo. I disagree with his/her reasoning, but reasoning was provided, and the request was entirely proper. There were one or two short, polite, but unreasoned reactions one way or the other. There have also been longish, reasoned, and I think polite objections from two users (Y and Z), one of them myself. X on the one hand and Y and Z on the other appear to be talking past each other. Well, these things happen, and I (sorry I mean Z) thought we could keep talking a little longer and reach agreement. But X has just gone ahead and moved the page.

As an admin, I could easily reverse this move, which I'm certain was improper to make before obtaining what WP calls consensus. But as Z, I think the move was wrong at any point; I recognized that I'm interested and may be biased, so I'm "recusing myself" (ah, such grand language). Could somebody else look at what has transpired on the talk page? Thanks. -- Hoary 05:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm Y, and I'd like to hear views from other editors/administrators regarding the move discussion on Talk:Sinmiyangyo, which I certainly don't want to see take a turn for the worse. There's no reason this dispute can't be resolved amicably. I hope the intervention of others can help to set things straight again. Thanks. Pinkville 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive blocking of Frater Xyzzy by Blnguyen[edit]

This is really bugging me, for all sorts of reasons. It's an example of a user that has been proven innocent being blocked obsessively by the same admin.

Blnguyen has now blocked Frater Xyzzy 3 times now. The first block was "23:53, January 18, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock of Jefferson Anderson, by RFCU)" (That RFCU does not exist, more on that below)

Xyzzy then moved accross country, took a wikibreak while traveling, and edited on an anonomous IP (from his new home) while waiting for his main account to get a new RFCU on it, and get unbanned. That RFCU was completed on February 4th by Jpgordon who established that the first RFCU (which I cannot find) was faulty, and that they are infact different people. Using that RFCU result, Xyzzy Requested an unblock and it was granted "10:35, February 4, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) unblocked Frater Xyzzy (contribs) (Unblock as per checkuser)"

Now this is all 100% ok and how wikipedia should work. Now is when it gets fun.

Immediatly after Xyzzy was unblocked due to the RFCU showing that him and his suspected sockpuppet were unrelated users, MSJapan began admin-shopping to get Xyzzy re-blocked. He asked |Jpgordon, WMC, and Yamla (the unblocking admin) stating on Yamla's page "I don't care that Frater Xyzzy is not Jefferson Anderson. Xyzzy stated clearly he moved - of course it's not going to match." all 3 admins declined to re-block Xyzzy, they didn't agree with MSJ's argument that Xyzzy should be re-blocked since he was using a anon-ip to evade his block that later turned out to be based on incorrect information. When MSJ couldnt' get any of those 3 admins to block Xyzzy for block evasion, he asked Blnguyen to re-block him. And Blnguyen did so stating "Well, he's bent the rules again by evading his block and I wouldn't be surprised if he was evading the technology anyway.". The block reads "00:49, February 5, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (proclaimed block evasion)".

User:Theresa knott noticed this odd block and asked why Xyzzy was re-blocked. Blnguyen responded "Ah, he was originally blocked after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood raised some issues and Dmcdevit and UC showed that they were linked, initially. Given the editing patterns, there was also suspicion that these guys had multiple computers or were meatpuppets of some banned users. So I blocked Frater Xyzzy. It turns out he was evading that block, as he later admitted using an IP, and then re-signed the IP address using his username." Blnguyen blocked Xyzzy originally as a sockpuppet due to circumstancial discussion and analysis of editing patterns there was no Check User done as he claimed in the original block. He then re-blocked Xyzzy for evading his original block, even after a RFCU proved that Xyzzy was not a sock, and that the original block was invalid. This is in Blnguyen's own words.

Now the 2 week block on Xyzzy lapsed and he was unblocked. Blnguyen couldn't stay away and once again blocked Xyzzy, this time perma-block with the block "21:00, February 22, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Ekajati/999 sock) "

What's wrong with this? How about the fact that the new checkuser Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/999 didn't show that Xyzzy was a sock of Ekajati/999, infact it showed exactly the opposite. User:Fred Bauder ran the Checkuser and "Checkuser shows no connection. User:Fred Bauder 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)". So somehow Blnguyen decided that even though checkuser shows no connection that he would ban them all as socks anyway. This is unacceptable behavior from an admin.

To make the situation worse, Xyzzy posted a Block Review request on his talk page. With the reason "Arbitrarily blocked by Blnguyen on a witchhunt. Multiple checkusers have been done which show that I am not a sock of anyone. This is getting ridiculous." Which is 100% accurate. Multiple checkusers have been done, and all have proven that Xyzzy is NOT a sock of anyone. Why is the situation worse? The block was reviewed by User:Ryulong and DENIED with the reason "I trust Blnguyen's discrepancy."

This is rediculious. How many times does a user need to be cleared??? What's the point of Checkuser if the results of it are completly ignored by admins? And what is the point of a Block Review if the reviewing admin doesn't look into the block, but instead simply says that they trust the blocking admin? Talk about a breakdown of the system. Personally i'm disgusted by this, and it needs to be addressed. Seraphim 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your post above contains a lot of false information. I asked Dmcdevit to do a RFCU, and he said that they were the same guys (early January) - and when I looked again Dmcdevit had recused from the case, so I asked UC to reconfirm the date for me. He noted the connection at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop that both JA and FX were related. Thus, they were blocked, with the on-wiki certification of a CU being run. The claims by Seraphim that I invented the sock data are false. Thus, my reblock of FX for block evasion was not a second punishment for an innocent user, since the CU already showed that he and JA were related. I did not state that I was justifying the initial block due to my instincts alone. After a few IPs from open proxies and TOR hosting machines started swamping an AfD in the general topics of these editors, I asked Dmcdevit to do another careful dissection of the data of 999. The results are here ->User_talk:Blnguyen/Archive40#User:A_Ramachandran.27s_block, after I have IP addresses left lying about by the aforementioned editors, it yielded a match. It also showed extensive use of anonymous proxies, TOR etc, by the parties. In February after another spate of socks turned up, I talked to another arbitrator and checkuser and he checkusered the accounts, and they revealed widespread use of proxies and tors from right across the world in one day. From the discussion, it was agreed that the chances that multiple honest new users all popping up on the same obscure topic with TOR and proxies was very unlikely. Added to that the fact that they had the same religious ideology with strong knowledge of wikipolitics, arbitration cases, and instantaneous use of popups tools makes things very obvious. Given that I had already noted at the Starwood evidence that HD, Ek and 999 had interweaved edits despite being in the same timezone, that the latter two were created or became active 3 hours after the first was blocked, etc, they were blocked. I went back and checked FX's record as well, and it shows perfect overlapping as well with the other four. This is in addition to the use of subversive technology. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
So where are the checkuser results for the indef block posted? The only checkuser results that are up on wikipedia now after his first block, all show no relation. Basically what your saying is, even though the public checkusers showed no relation, somehow you decided that since people have the same religious ideology and knowledge of wikipedia they are obvious socks? Even though for example, the Frater Xyzzy account has NEVER edited the Starwood pages that the people he was blocked as a sock of obsessively edited it? The lack of transparancy in this case is kinda scary. I don't want to be blocked sometime in the future because someone else in my city starts editing pages that I edit and some admin comes around and decides to indef block me even though the RFCU shows we aren't editing from the same IP. The checkusers on the site clear Xyzzy every time. You might have found another sock group, that's great, however the Xyzzy account NEVER edited Starwood. Never ever ever. There was no reason to block him as a sock of those other users. The fact that nobody from the starwood case is pushing for him to stay blocked, instead his case is being pushed by people who edit the freemasonry related pages that he was active on. The lack of transparancy in this case is simply a complete failure of the wikipedia system. Don't block someone saying you blocked them because of a RFCU if a RFCU doesn't exist. And don't just deny block reviews stating that you trust the previous admin. That seems to just be common sence. Seraphim 05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The results weren't posted publicly, they were discussed by arbitrators. The results showed that the editors used the same techniques of technological obfuscation. I have been advised that the percentage of honest editors who use these techniques are very low. Then the second user also has the same editing interests as the other on many obscure pages, has the same POV, and seems to have instantaneous knowledge of wikilaw. The user is blocked because he is the same guy evading his block, and editing the same articles that the master wrote. If these guys have nothing to hide, then they would edit cleanly. The RFCU does exist, although only the checkusers can see it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
So basically to sum up. People went through the official channels to get socks checked, the results of the official sock checks were that the users were unrelated. Then some arbitrators discussed the situation and decided to block the users anyway, and run a new checkuser because apparently the people that ran the 2 checkusers before, the official ones, apparently don't understand how to interperate checkuser results? I cannot understand how 2 admins with checkuser find no connection, but then somehow on a secret checkuser all of asudden there was an obvious connection. Also you don't seem to be understanding my other point. "user is blocked because he is the same guy evading his block, and editing the same articles that the master wrote" Xyzzy NEVER EVER EVER edited the Starwood page. He has ZERO edits on the starwood page. If he was a sock puppet and the guy was making socks to evade blocks then he would have been editing the page on his sock! "If these guys have nothing to hide, then they would edit cleanly." What is Editing Cleanly? How does someone edit cleanly? I wasn't aware there was such a thing. Plus I am not the only one disturbed by the idea that RFCUs that only checkusers can see exist. The idea of people running checkusers without a proper RFCU filing kinda defeats the whole idea of checkuser. Seraphim 05:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a FISA warrant RfCU, and it's a need to know basis. (joke.) I agree with Seraphim. When did wikipolicy start permitting secret actions by people outside the real wikia offices? (other than like, Jimmy Wales' actal paid staff?). This is sort of troubling behavior, and can easily lend creibility to accusations of 'cabalism'. better than caNIBBbalism, but only slightly.) ThuranX 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually RFCU was started as an outlet for people to put a request in conveniently. It never stopped arbitrators or checkusers from just doing it themselves if necessary. As for what the report is, there is no magic machine which prints the result or conclusion from the data, so there is no difference between what an arbitrator says on a Wikipedia report and what they say via email, unless they tell different stories.As regards to the CU, it depends on how closely one is looking of course. As I pointed out above, I found instances where IP addresses were left lying around after the initial check, and with the extra evidence, Dmcdevit certified that the users were indeed the same. As for the second point, if a user is subverting the system by violating WP:NOP, then there will be no connection at all just by numbers, unless someone verifies to see if the numbers are from illegitimate editing means. And FX did edit the same articles as 999, who is currently blocked. The fact that he does not edit all of them, eg Starwood, still does not mean it is not him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As amused as I am by the Freudian slip of Ryulong ... I looked at the second block while going through WP:RFU a few weeks ago. I was unimpressed with the block and I was unimpressed with the behavior of those supporting the block who felt the need to harass the user while he was blocked. I trust Blnguyen, but would like to hear a good explanation. From my own research then and now, I haven't seen anything to justify it. (I'm not saying that there isn't justification - just that I haven't seen it, but would like to.) --BigDT 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
My best advice, from the outside perspective, is email the ArbCom mailing list. Fred, jpgordan, and Blnguyen are all on there and two of the users ran the RFCU. I certainly cannot check on the IP information and what might be causing this confusion, and they might best clarify their actions. It's an interesting case that you've presented, but what is there to say if there seems to be private conversations taking place concerning abuse? We don't know both sides, and we may never in the interest of beans. AGF that these long-standing editors have some kind of clue, I say. Teke (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I was doing a normal CAT:RFU check. I looked at the block log, saw that he had been blocked before for other reasons, and I trusted Blinguyen's block, as checkusers are not definitive at times and for all I knew, he could have asked for a checkuser off of Wikipedia. I do that from time to time to close down sockfarms that I come in contact with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A clean checkuser is "definitive" in the sense that it is (supposedly) the last resort, so the fact that a case is accepted means there is no other evidence sufficient (via edit patterns etc) to establish that the user was a sockpuppet. To suppose "oh, well, he might be a sockpuppet anyway, despite there being no sufficient basis to say so, because it's unprovable that he's not" is a blatant violation of AGF. On that basis, you might be a sockpuppet, and you can never clear your name of that - AGF, in this case, implicitly means innocent until proven guilty.
And for someone who had already _had_ one checkuser run on them establishing nothing, there should _not_ be a presumption that another checkuser with different results was conducted in secret - any further checkuser should be done openly. And, regardless of anything related to this particular block... if you "trust" the blocking admin, you should leave the unblock template for someone else not so trusting to look at, otherwise we might as well just delete it. --Random832 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well a CU is essentially private even if the results are posted, since only the executing CU operator sees the data. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd disagree with that assessment of Checkuser utility, it's a last resort confirmation if nothing else is conclusive, but it doesn't prove a negative, particularly when there is a lot of behavioural congruence.
In this case one C/U indicated a link, a second was inconclusive inasmuch as it didn't show enough to confirm a link. jpgordon, who ran the second, did become aware of this debate the last time Seraphim raised it and took no action.
A recent SSP case regarding this link was closed without action because of the onging starwood arbitration, rather than because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a link.
There appears to be a lot of doubt about this incidence of puppetry.
ALR 14:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it proves a negative. It is conclusive in so far as it is final, since there is nothing else that comes after it. It doesn't prove a negative only because a negative cannot be proven. If there's "a lot of behavioural congruence", then a checkuser is unnecessary. If there's not enough to make a checkuser unnecessary, and a checkuser is negative, there is NO valid basis for considering the user a sockpuppet. --Random832 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that it's part of the ongoing Starwood mediation, which is a pretty bloody and unpleasant affair, then it's clearly not as simple as Seraphim has sought to make out above. That's really about all I'm saying.ALR 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Xyzzy has never edited the starwood pages, nor is he involved in the mediation/arbitration. Seraphim 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a note to Blnguyen's talk page pointing him to this. He should respond before it gets archived. Seraphim 17:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen hasn't edited since the 8th, this shouldn't be archived untill he has a chance to respond. Seraphim 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to second the concerns of Seraphim here. It seems like, recently, there've been several people blocked as socks of Ekajati by Blnguyen that have been done without enough transparency and that seemed dubious to me on the surface. First 999 was blocked as a sock of Ekajati, which struck me as wrong because a) I don't know too many socks that disagree with each other and b) like Xyzzy he had previously been cleared by checkuser of connections to Ekajati. However, my doubt about the block was lessened when he responded with his reasons. But, I'm particularly incredulous about this block, just because Xyzzy and Hanuman Das (another person blocked as a sock of Ekajati) seem even less like the same user than 999 and HD did. I would like to see these blocks reviewed beyond a simple "I'm going to go with whatever Blnguyen has decided." I don't know if it's a systemic flaw in Wikipedia admin practice, but at the very least I think WP:SSP cases should be opened, because it doesn't strike me as right that long-time contributors should be blocked for life without a formal presentation of why. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You can see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chacor 2 which documents the use of two confirmed and confessed sockpuppet accounts that voted oppositely on one occasion. Only the most incompetent (or short-term usage sockpuppets used for temporary swamping) sockpuppeteers do things obviously - like use the sock for voting and reverting only. As for the rest, see above. A CU was done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
And SSP case was opened in this instance, here, but the admin closing it copped out of acting because of the ongoing arbcom case.ALR 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The admin also closed it because JA was no longer going to be editing wikipedia. Also a Sock check was already done between Frater and JA here, so running the check again 2 weeks later would have once again shown no connection. Seraphim 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well yeah, there was that SSP, but it was basically unrelated to Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati. From what I saw of that, it was edited for a while with accusations re: Xyzzy and JA, then let sit for a while, then the closing admin saw Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati and went, "Oh, well this is irrelevant now, Xyzzy's blocked. So, closing this." What I wish would be done is for there to be SSPs for long-time editors for the block in question, basically showing why a block was done. Yes, it involves more process, but IMO long-time editors deserve this before being indefinitely blocked. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have concerns in this case. The evidence and rationale behind the indef block is way too thin, or there is a serious lack of transparency. Either way, more process is required to substantiate an indef block. I'm also disturbed by the actions of Ryulong in reviewing the block with such apparent superficiality. —Doug Bell talk 07:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, couldn't agree more. Seraphim 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well you can read above now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I would hope in the future that the evidence supporting a indef block of a longtime user would be presented at the time the user is blocked instead of after the fact. Transparency is important and should not be lightly tossed aside. The reasons can be summarized, as you have done above, without the need to expose confidential information. —Doug Bell talk 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course the major problem with not presenting the evidence, is that it's impossible for another admin to review the block. How would in this case any admin beable to review his block properly? You blocked him as an admin not an arbitrator since it was not an arbcom ruling. Are we to assume that somehow your blocks are not reviewable? Seraphim 01:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If another admin wants to review a block and the reasoning isn't clear, he/she can simply email the blocking admin and ask for information. All blocks are reviewable. IrishGuy talk 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is prefereable that actions such as that are simply transparent. Asking questions about it off-wiki is not transparent. —Doug Bell talk 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta[edit]

This is a content issue. Take it to the talk page of the article or WP:DR. Nothing belongs here.--Docg 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone took the archive off. I don't know who. But I would like to comment that this is more than of a content issue. Review the case if you are interested. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely had it with Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs). He constantly revert-wars and refuses to discuss. When he does discuss he doesn't listen to what anyone else says and ignores consensus. A quick perusal of his contributions will show that he completely reverts any edit he doesn't like, without thinking about why those edits were made or whether he can productively fix the more controversial parts while retaining the good parts. In his latest adventure he has reverted an edit I made to a talk page that removed some posts that were using it as a discussion forum for general issues related to the subject of the article, but not to improving the article itself.

In this edit history you see him revert the talk page something like eight times.

You may recall his edit-warring and stubbornness over the deceptive banner on his userpage. It took only four editors and three months to get him to stop. --Ideogram 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something specific you want us to do? --210physicq (c) 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but "absolutely had it" is a little ... strong, perhaps :P? Yuser31415 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
He's a revert-warrior. 3RR is an electric fence, not a quota. Limit him to 2RR. --Ideogram 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Electric fence may be the wrong analogy. Try minefield. :) --210physicq (c) 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer machine gun crossfire, actually. Yuser31415 06:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He is now edit-warring on multiple pages. Just look at his contribs. --Ideogram 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Michelle Marsh (model)#English vs. British for an example of his debating "style". --Ideogram 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no (substantive) interest in Michelle Marsh, but his persistent, unrepetent, and endless edit warring on that article has come up on my radar. Since I've reverted him, there, it's not appropriate for me to intervene administratively. But someone uninvolved should definitely take a look. Nandesuka 22:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this user can be assumed good faith anymore. He denies any sort of communication, and insists that his opinion is the only correct one. User have been edit-warring rather inappropriately for half an year. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AQu01rius. This user's disruptive editing and edit-warring has gone too far. I think it is time to file a RFC. LionheartX 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"You may recall his edit-warring and stubbornness] over the deceptive banner on his userpage". Yes, I recall the brouhaha and the bullying. If four editors care so much about a harmless joke on somebody else's userpage that they spend three months of "edit-warring and stubbornness" to "get him to stop", it suggests to me that they need something more constructive to do. And LionheartX, who has just been blocked indefinitely, is hardly a neutral voice here. Bishonen | talk 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Please note that I am not referring to the joke banner, which I have never cared nor posted about. What I referred to is how this user constantly uses extreme Pro-Taiwanese tone in various articles and claims all editors (mostly fellow Taiwanese) who tried to adjust his edits "POV pushing". This user never displayed a sense of understanding on the WP:NPOV policy, and the consistent edit-warring over the Taiwa-China subject matter is becoming very distruptive. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I undertand that, and it's to your credit that you weren't one of the Four Musqueteurs. But please note that I was replying to Ideogram, not you. That's why I quoted Ideogram. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Do you really think the banner incident was that important to my case? How can I get you to focus on the important issue here without (my) making a personal attack? --Ideogram 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta is at this very moment engaged in revert-warring on Culture of Taiwan and ignoring the comments we have made on the talk page explaining our edits. It is impossible to get him to discuss and cease revert-warring. --Ideogram 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He has broadened his POV-pushing campaign to People's Republic of China. Just look at his contributions, they are almost all revert-warring and never stand for long. --Ideogram 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please block him instead of allowing him to burn up 3RR every freaking time? --Ideogram 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just blocked Certified.Gangsta for 24 hours for violation of 3RR on the article Culture of Taiwan. Reverts: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Please note that this was done prior to Ideogram's request above. ViridaeTalk 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen, since you are friendly with Certified.Gangsta, can you please try to convince him not to continue this unproductive behavior? --Ideogram 01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that they're supposed to follow the spirit of the policy, and not the letter... but still, 4 reverts in 28 hours? That hardly seems like a 'revert war'. Especially since there's still a note on his talk page about how someone wasn't blocked in spite of literally violating 3RR, gangsta getting blocked when he didn't violate the letter seems a bit heavy-handed. It certainly appears to present an inconsistent application of policies. "If you violate the policy, you may go entirely unpunished. But, even if you don't technically violate it, you still may get punished. Just because." Bladestorm 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me. I hadn't realized. The person who actually reported the "edit war" was, in fact, the same editor who avoided being blocked for literally violating 3RR. Seriously, what sort of message does this say?
Ideogram clearly violates 3RR, and isn't blocked.
Gangsta doesn't technically violate it, and is blocked, when he's reported by Ideogram.
Does nobody else see the inconsistency here? "Do as I say, not as I do"? (For reference, I'm not saying that ideogram should've been blocked either. But it's certainly a double standard, and a disproportionate application of policies; especially for very-much related cases. Bladestorm 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Any previous block (or lack there-of) had no bearing on this one. 3rr is not a right and 28 hours is four hours past the normal 3RR deadline, however I that agressive editing style is very disruptive and hence he earnt the block. If an uninvolved admin wishes to review this and remove or shorten the block (24hours) then feel free. Application of policy is entirely up the the administrators discretion, as paticularly noted on WP:3RR. ViridaeTalk 01:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bladestorm, I am not sure if you have reviewed the original case. User:Certified.Gangsta have a long history of advocating pro-Taiwanese point of view, which violates the WP:NPOV policy. His reverts are mostly reverts against the consensus version of the article, that is agreed by most sides to be politically neutral. User:Ideogram merely performed reverts that changed back the version with questionable point of view to the consensus version. This should be within the scope of WP:3RR#Exceptions. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, first off, you really did more to prove my point than you may realize. The action was taken for who he is, rather than what he did. Being pro-taiwan, and occasionally lacking neutrality doesn't provide license to nudge the rules around. And no, that is absolutely not covered by the exceptions, and intentionally so. Content disputes, even when stubborn, misguided, etc, are not allowable exceptions for 3RR. I wish I could remember where I saw an admin explaining that very point.
I still stand by my initial protest: rules should be applied as consistently as possible. When two people clearly have issues with eachother, admins should endeavour to not take sides. What's more, if editor A reports editor B for a verifiable violation of 3RR, and then editor B reports editor A for a violation of the spirit but not letter of 3RR, it's grossly inappropriate to punish B, but not A. Bladestorm 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever been warned that if you use your third revert again you will be blocked? I have. Gangsta consistently reverts up to his third revert on multiple articles, every freeking time. I strongly suggest you review his entire edit history and then see what you think. It's not about the letter of the law here. --Ideogram 03:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(Reply to Bladestorm) Whether the admin's decision on blocking User:Certified.Gangsta for 24 hour due to violation of WP:3RR without acknowledging User:Ideogram's possible violation of the rule was inappropriate or not? Um, First, I don't think User:Ideogram have reverted more than three times today, correct me if I am wrong. Second, this is not really an dispute between two editors, but between a editor with disruptive history and a whole community. However, you are right on that we should not take the user as who he is. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, for the sake of reference: [9], [10], [11], and [12]. Four edits within just under 22 hours. And, in this case, even if other people have issues with gangsta, this is still very much a matter of a dispute between two editors.
First gangsta reports Ideogram's actual violation. Then Ideogram reports gangsta's violation in spirit. That doesn't sound like a dispute between two editors to you? (Since I don't remember which page I said this on, I'll say it again: I'm not saying Ideogram should've been blocked either. I'm only saying that there should be consistency with how rules are applied.) Bladestorm 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Those 4 reverts you showed were the ones reported by C.G as there is a self revert a couple of edits after the last one. Yes, 3RR was broken, but it was self reverted. Consistency between admins is very hard to achieve. I personally try to apply consistency among all my actions, and in an attempt to be fair to the parties involved, I have above asked that any admin who feels the block was unjustified to unblock or reduce it as they see fit. However without hard and fast rules (which 3RR is not) you cannot be totally consistent between different admins as we all approach the situation differently. ViridaeTalk 05:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to add, see Talk:List of Chinese Americans#Chinese Americans .3D Americans of Chinese descent for an example of User:Certified Gangsta persisting in so-called discussion where he repeats the same mis-guided personal opinion over and over again no matter what other editors put forth as evidence or argument. I would submit that this is an example of non-good-faith discussion, which is merely a delay tactic by which he justifies continued edit warring on the article page. --Sumple (Talk) 05:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, that's a content issue. And maybe a civility issue. But those are beside the point. I have no specific allegiance towards gangsta. To be frank, my only interest is in both fairness, as well as the appearance of fairness. When A reports B, and then B reports A, if A is the only one to literally break the rules, then B shouldn't be the only one punished. Simply put, it doesn't inspire confidence. Bladestorm 05:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) did you look at Gangsta's edit history or not? There is absolutely no point in talking to you if you aren't capable of looking at the whole picture. --Ideogram 05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in talking to you if you aren't capable of addressing my actual concerns. I'll say it again. I don't give a flying crap if he was generally uncivil, beligerant, or even radioactive. If the admin position is to have any credibility whatsoever, then it needs to be presented as a fair and unbiased position. Using an evaluation of an editor themself, rather than the specific action you're addressing, is a step in the wrong direction. When two editors are in an edit war together, and only one of them actually directly violates 3RR, then punishing the other is inappropriate. And it annihilates credibility.
I don't care what you think of gangsta. You don't need to convince me that he isn't a saint, because I couldn't give a flying crap if he was a deranged giraffe pretending to be a human editor. Frankly, at least half the articles on my watchlist are topics that I have relatively little interest in, but where my only concern is that they are approached fairly and neutrally. Two editors involved in the same dispute, with similar 'crimes' should be treated similarly. If one editor has a lesser 'crime' (or none at all), then he certainly shouldn't be treated worse, regardless of who he is. Bladestorm 06:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(I stopped reading at your first flying crap.) I don't give a flying crap about your concerns. You only care about the letter of the law which is the perfect definition of wikilawyering. If you can convince an admin of the validity of your concerns, more power to you. So far you don't seem to be having much success. --Ideogram 06:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ideogram, don't mess with my comments. Not only does it make it harder to follow what people are saying (signed or not, if it's inline then it becomes harder to read), but it's also terribly rude.
Next, announcing that you didn't even bother reading a point, but still felt the need to reply to it is the height of "disruption". I'm now going to request that you refrain from commenting at all. If you're going to admit that you don't feel like reading before replying, then there's no question that you aren't even trying to accomplish anything.
Next, I'm not wikilawyering. Nor am I only concerned with the "letter of the law". There's a difference between wikilawyering and asking for consistency and fairness. If you don't know the bloody difference, then you shouldn't be announcing that fact to everybody else. Incidentally, I think that's ignoring the whole AGF thing; attributing false motives to everything I do? Remind me again, who was the disruptive one in that dispute?
If anyone wants to actually discuss the issues, then I'm game. But if you once again announce that you don't feel like reading before replying, or that you don't care about people's concerns (but will still belittle them), then I'll expect an admin to immediately blank such comments. Bladestorm 06:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(stopped reading at "disruption") You don't seem to understand how things work around here, what requests you can credibly make, and what admins are likely to do. You seem to think that it's ok for you to remove other people's comments based solely on your judgment that they constitute personal attacks, and you don't care that it makes it harder to follow what people are saying. I think you have a lot to learn before you will be effective at convincing others here at Wikipedia. --Ideogram 06:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, well, I hope you can see by reading the link I supplied that it's not simply a matter of (1) a content dispute, or (2) two editors warring with each other. A user's behaviour in what starts as a content disupte, beyond a certain point, becomes an issue of disruptive editing. Secondly, its not just Ideogram who has had, and continues to have, problems. --Sumple (Talk) 05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanna add my two-cents here, having dealt with him rather recently mostly on Culture of Taiwan. I have to say it is wrong to say it's a content dispute, about pro-taiwan vs. pro-china. Based on my interaction with him, he shows that he basically knows little about the issue and when approached on discussion pages generally writes a lot of nonsense, things that even an extremely pro-taiwan person would not say. He also reverts and accuses everybody opposed to it of being "pro-china" and has accused me of being of "community banned sock puppet". It's one thing to be back and forth with reasonable arguments on the talk page, but it's another when he's totally inaccesible and "just don't get it". Blueshirts 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Second that. It's not just a matter of having a strong opinion or putting in wrong/unsourced/improper content. Its a matter of refusing to discuss, and using inappropriate tactics to advance said content. --Sumple (Talk) 01:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Separate Dispute between Bladestorm and Ideogram[edit]

Well, this has officially entered a new chapter.
Previously, I had been proceeding on the assumption that gangsta was exaggerating, at least a little bit. However, Ideogram has now just started stalking me as well.
Take a look at this edit here. In a long, drawn-out problem with whether or not to include references to richard gere cramming small rodents up his butt, there was a problem with someone choosing not to address the actual issues at all, but rather accuse editors who care about the policy for bios of living persons as being "rabid Richard Gere fans" whoa re "unable to cope" that "feel the need to suppress them at every opportunity." Since this wasn't directly about the article, and was an accusation of bad faith, and was a direct personal attack, I removed it.
Maybe the right choice, maybe the wrong choice. But that's not the issue here. Here's the issue.
In addition to proclaiming that he wouldn't read my arguments (but would still belittle them), Ideogram actually traced back my contributions to try to find something to report. And, sure enough, take a look here. Notice that, when he was unable to address my arguments directly, he instead tried to find another method of getting to me.
Not only is this rude, and disruptive, but it also throws out any possible arguments that gangsta is a strictly disruptive editor, while Ideogram acts in good faith. Normally, I don't comment on contributers. Only content. However, I don't know how else to interpret this. Bladestorm 06:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah good luck with that. --Ideogram 06:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in my side of the story, it is here. --Ideogram 07:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I'm giving you a room of your own to avoid distraction from the Certified Gangsta problem. --Sumple (Talk) 08:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, but I think our dispute is over. --Ideogram 08:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do we go from here[edit]

Okay, I don't think anyone seriously believes that this one block is going to make Gangsta change his ways. If people are willing, the next step is to file an RFC against Gangsta to show that the community disapproves of his actions. If that doesn't work, the next step would be ArbCom. I am not eager to take it that far, but I really don't know how to convince him he needs to change. If anyone can propose any other solutions I would like to hear them. --Ideogram 08:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've been upset enough to do all this on ANI and then the spinoff into my talk page, please take the time and effort to do a RFC. The value in showing someone that there is a community consensus feeling, not just a couple of people picking on them, is enormous. Much more so than a single block. And it takes less effort than last night's arguments here did... Georgewilliamherbert 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I did file an RFC already but no one else certified it and it got deleted. I am quite willing to file another but I need someone to certify it. --Ideogram 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gangsta is back and edit-warring again. Someone please have a word with him. --Ideogram 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram is stalking me on a variety of article such as John Profumo and Michelle Marsh. The last block was unjustified anyway.--Certified.Gangsta 17:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that. --Ideogram 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar behaviors toward Bladestorm as well who disagree that I should be for 3RR when I didn't violate it. It's blatant double-standard.--Certified.Gangsta 18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw you claimed I edit war. Well, it takes 2 people to edit war. From what I'm seeing, you're the one who's edit warring and stalking my contributions. You also stalk Bladestorm just because he disagrees with you. Stop now or we go straight to arbCom.--Certified.Gangsta 18:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, I would love to take you to ArbCom. --Ideogram 18:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not you taking me. Me taking you since you're the one who is stalking, disrupting, bullying, and POV pushing all over the place. Bishonen made that quite clear. You called me a vandal and a dick before. Now tell me who's wrong in this dispute?--Certified.Gangsta 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't realize that there is no real difference between you taking me to ArbCom and me taking you to ArbCom. And you don't get to decide who's wrong, that's what ArbCom is for. (PS Please supply the diff of where I called you a vandal. And referring you to WP:DICK is not the same thing as calling you a dick.) --Ideogram 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least he is talking now. --Ideogram 18:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, Gangsta's comments seem to indicate he believes you support him in this affair. Given the concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop, perhaps you should say something to discourage him. --Ideogram 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll pass, I worry that that might encourage you. As for the "concerns" expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop", unless I'm missing something—is this the thread you had in mind?— those are just the standard attacks on me by Tony Sidaway, with the standard endorsements by you. That don't impress me much. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Do you condone Gangsta's statements and actions or not? Try to concentrate on the issue here instead of what you believe my relationship with Tony is. "you're the one who is stalking, disrupting, bullying, and POV pushing all over the place. Bishonen made that quite clear." Do you believe that or not? If you do believe it, speak up, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning. Do you think it would encourage me if you corrected his misconceptions? Do you think it would exacerbate the dispute if you "encouraged" me? --Ideogram 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think I am trying to impress you? --Ideogram 21:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The real question here, Bishonen, is, are you ever willing to admit that a friend of yours has done something wrong? --Ideogram 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Note from this that Gangsta knows perfectly well when consensus is against him and when it isn't; he just chooses to ignore it. --Ideogram 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not in any position to accuse me this way since you're the one who is crusading to have me blocked and advocating a pro-China agenda. Your accusation is bogus. You use article talkpages as forums to gather support for your Rfc against me. We all know Taiwan-China relation is a delicate topic and the most important issue here is presenting encyclopedia reader with a neutral point of view. You need to cut the talk about consensus because in this case, a few people who endorse your change don't represent consensus. Of course, Taiwan vs. China is like David vs. Goliath so if we talk about consensus rather than content factuality than all Chinese editors will probably make these articles uneyclopedic and unreadable. At one time, you successfully obtained a 3RR block on me by presenting blatant lie and false accusation on this page (not to mention it's misplaced, it shouldn't be on AN/I). The blocking admin didn't do enough research. Then after another neutral and uninvolved user Bladestorm voiced his objection on my block above, instead of discussing constructively with him, you make veil threat and stalk his contributions and reported him for something that is uncalled for. A heated dispute occured soon after between you and bladestorm above and on Georgewilliamherbert's talkpage. You claim you represent consensus but all you're doing is stalking me all over the place, even in article you don't care about (John Profumo for example, you better apologize for your actions) Therefore, intentionally instigating me to edit war with you. Being incivil to Bish doesn't help your cause either. (especially watch what you're typing into the edit summary) With the way you edit right now, I'll be surprised if you're still around in the next couple of months.--Certified.Gangsta 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you said in this post was relevant. --Ideogram 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you ever say is relevant. You're showing a lack of respect for me, bladestorm (when counter by something you didn't like, you said you stopped reading), bishonen, and wikipedia as a whole.--Certified.Gangsta 21:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Take it to ArbCom. I don't see any point to responding to you here anymore. --Ideogram 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Except that you are. Would you please give it a rest. WP:DR is that-a-way. El_C 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Doc already said this is misplaced since this is a content dispute. Then Ideogram unarchived it.--Certified.Gangsta 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that Gangsta is threatening to edit war again. This is the reason I posted here in the first place, to get admins to keep an eye on him. --Ideogram 22:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The real question is who started this mess? The answer is Ideogram himself. He now forces me to keep his preferred version while showing no effort to either discuss or compromise. Ideogram will no doubt edit war again if his preferred version is not kept.--Certified.Gangsta 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can see at Talk:Culture of Taiwan that I have stated my reasons and you have not responded to them. --Ideogram 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I see is you don't think other readers will be appealed to click in on the relevant articles. Blank statements serve no purpose here. I did respond. Stop making misleading accusations on AN/I.--Certified.Gangsta 22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I see. If you want to have this discussion it should be on Talk:Culture of Taiwan, not here. --Ideogram 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Just want to point out something here, the issue at hand has absolutely nothing to do with pro-China vs pro-Taiwan. It has to do with "gangsta"'s repeated reverts without any reasons that are convincing or even "debatable". Say, on the culture of taiwan page, if he were to write up some examples that show "dutch and spanish" influence on Taiwanese culture, then that'd be great, because now we can argue about how much influence is there, is the influence long lasting, how relevent it is to present day taiwanese culture? But NO, gangsta doesn't do anything like that. He just automatically reverts and then labels anyone of being "pro-China" and writes egregiously blanket statements about taiwanese people. In essence, gangster hides his own refusal to discuss competently by resorting to playing name attacks and identity politics. To the outsider, our arguments with gangster might look like yet another china vs taiwan issue, but in reality it has nothing to do with the issue. So, please don't be played into thinking that the argument is about content dispute, this is a very important point here. Blueshirts 23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I restroed the RfC, but note that it will be redeleted in 48 hours unless there is a 2nd certifier and until the evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute has diffs instead of simply links to article talk pages. It would be in Certified.Gangsta's best interests, I think, to respond. El_C 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stevenstone93 (talk · contribs)[edit]

This section has been courtesy blanked. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

[13] User:Tropicaljet accuses me of committing a personal attack on user Ikeda Nobuo. While I usually think it's silly suggesting somebody is committing a personal attack by saying sb is committing a personal attack, I feel these comments are purposedly dishonest and misleading. The intent is only to miscredit me, not to stop actual personal attacks.

Also please have a look at this edit by an anonymous user to this page. [14]
While I have nothing against those links being posted here, I'm irritated an anonymous user is trying to botch up me request. Mackan 23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow revert war[edit]

...at Fräulein. Long-standing problem, see talk page. I hate doing that. Really. Please watchlist/intervene. Thanks. Kosebamse 21:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

True name privacy outing[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 10:33Z

(diff) This user's talk page was invaded by an IP editor of dispute-related pages, who outed him. This invasion occurred during an ongoing, simmering debate with another user, who was pressuring the talk page's user to admit some kind of prior involvement with an anti-cult organization off-Wiki. I request adminstrative deletion of the outing from the page history, protection of user's talk page from further editing by the IP editor, and whatever else is normally done to IPs in this situation. (I was a page debater, but not part of this debate, and don't know this IP# editor.) Milo 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete, toute suite, block IP and semiprotect user talk. Additionally, it would be worthwhile to determine the user behind the attacking IP.Proabivouac 08:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Though, taking another look, outed user seems okay with it.[15] I shall request clarification.Proabivouac 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I would indeed like it removed. Xanthius 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk page deleted, restored without 4 revisions with personal information, request sent to WP:RFO. -- Avi 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody re-added it.. Xanthius 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Err- nevermind

User page scrubbed, WP:RFO sent. Scrubbing THIS page will be a nightmare. Let's hope that since there is no last name for the aforementioned individual here, you'll be safer. -- Avi 05:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Xanthius 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Pardon, maybe I don't know where/how to look, but I can't find User talk:Xanthius in the (semi) Protection Log. Also, was the invading IP# blocked? Milo 02:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Xanthius, do you want your talk page semiprotected? Quarl (talk) 2007-03-15 16:46Z
Yeah, that might help avoid future problems. Xanthius 16:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-15 18:22Z


Thanks to all who helped resolve this issue, promptly and effectively. This part of Wikipedia user protection is working. Milo 02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible return of User:Barringa[edit]

User:Sluzzelin suspects that User:Leasing Agent (who signs himself "Diligent", not to be confused with User:Diligent) is a sock of indef blocked antisemitic User:Barringa. Sluzzelin has notified EL C, the blocking admin. NB User:Jfarber has oddly confused my name with Leasing Agent. Leasing Agent has made a post at the Humanities Ref Desk that seems antisemitic and has so far declined to retract it (he made a minor amendment). His pattern of behaviour to date is similar to, but more subtle than the more obvious trolling of Barringa. Sock or not, Admin intervention gratefully received as there is (at least) disruption to the Humanities ref desk and some discomfort being experienced by a number of editors in good standing. --Dweller 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For now, I'm only capable of adding two special pages showing the contributions of 71.100.171.80 and 71.100.166.228. Other version of 71.100... posting similar questions and comments on the Humanities and Miscellaneous Reference Desks can be found. Thank you, Dweller, for posting this notice. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Two more I dug up: 71.100.0.252 and 71.100.169.228. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is the great Shape-Shifter himself, coming in manifold guises. I have encountered him in the form of Barringa or Nocterne or Rabbi Benton and now Leasing Agent/Diligent, that is if he uses any name at all. But it's always the same relentless and tiresome manifesto. Clio the Muse 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And User:71.100.12.76 posted on my talk page because I told him Diligent is an existing user and his signature shouldn't be the same as an exising user name as said in WP:SIGNATURE. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

I would like to ask the opinion of administrators if it is OK to nominate the article for deletion 5 days after the previous AfD closed with "keep"? This is what happened here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khachkar destruction (March 14, 2007). I was the one who nominated the article for deletion first time, but then deletion did not get a consensus because of the position of users, who nominate the article for deletion now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khachkar destruction After that the article was expanded, and apparently some are not happy with the outcome and renominated it for deletion 5 days later, claiming that both sides agree to deletion, why it is not so. I don’t know if this is the right place to ask, but is there a certain policy on how often an article can be nominated for deletion and is it OK to renominate the article for deletion so soon after the previous AfD closed? Grandmaster 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is discouraged to quickly relist, with two exceptions. Those are when the closing admin of the first AFD decides that a relisting is needed or when the first AFD is taken to DRV and the article is relisted there. I've generally maintained that the delay needed after a no-consensus AFD is shorter than the delay needed after a keep AFD. The usual thinking is that a second nomination ought to be a few months after the first. If the new AFD is better interpreted as challenging the close of the first (your description does not sound like this), then closing the second and taking it to DRV would be the thing to do. But if it is those who opined keep in the first that think it should be deleted, what the heck, let them change their mind, it doesn't cost that much. GRBerry 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, it should have been created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khachkar destruction (second nomination). Moved and fixed links/transclusions as appropriate. Daniel Bryant 03:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unicorn144 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Well, this is my fourth appeal at this noticeboard for attention to the above user - see this, this, and a mention here - previous reports have all been ignored and archived. User creates nonsense pages, is self-publishing work, pushing some sort of POV. It's beyond my ability to handle and numerous editors have had problems, see the talk page. Will someone please, please, please not make me return here a fifth time? I really appreciate any attention that can be spared here - thanks! RJASE1 Talk 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense page deleted, and user warned. If he continues, let me know (preferably on my talk page). SWATJester On Belay! 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I already gave him a final warning for creating pages (even that page specifically), but I'll keep an eye on his contribs. RJASE1 Talk 02:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This [16] diff shows some rather POV editing, along with soapboxing and snide comments about 'open minded christians' and so on. This guy really needs to review policy. ThuranX 04:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to ban Keltik31[edit]

This User has a long, long history of disruptive editing, contentiousness, and other behavior unbefitting Wikipedia, despite repeated warnings and requests to stop. --DavidShankBone 04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Djwatson not adhering to WP:CIVIL[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 05:36Z

User:Djwatson posted in a move discussion, and I replied arguing my reasons against the move, to which he posted a personal attack against me. I reverted it on the ground that it's personal attack, and he reinstated it and added more uncivil commentary. For fear of acting out of line, I would like some intervention. Thanks. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack part of his comment but left the rest alone. Hopefully that will resolve the matter. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother restoring edits made by a banned user[edit]

Justanother (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log • rfcu) was mentioned by me here a short while ago (see Archive 214) [17] for reverting edits made by what is clearly a sockpuppet of the banned User:The Real Barbara Schwarz.

Again, Justanother has restored an edit made by a suspected sockpuppet of this banned user on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)‎. There is no privacy issue involved this time, however I do not believe my actions in reverting the sockpuppet are inappropriate; if so, I would appreciate a warning to that effect, and administrator intervention with the sockpuppet. Citations to follow shortly. Orsini 04:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations and DIFFS

The sockpuppet has had the template for this banned user placed on the User and Talk Pages. If my edits and reporting this here are inappropriate actions, please let me know so I don't repeat this mistake. Orsini 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Please also see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block - Comments by Admin Bishonen on his inappropriate behaviour. And also please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive214#User:Justanother_restoring_harassing_edits_made_by_a_sockpuppet_of_a_banned_user.2C_and_growing_incivility - Comments by user/respected editor Athaenara on his inappropriate behaviour. Also posted the abusive sockpuppet of User:The real Barbara Schwarz to WP:AIV, in addition to this user. Restoring a banned sockpuppet's disruptive edits is vandalism. Smee 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Oh good, I would really like an admin to set us straight here. Let's forget the other possible sockpuppet post earlier please. Apparently there was some personal info concealed in that one that no-one would notice unless they knew what they were looking for. So I admitted that, had I known there was personal info in there, I would have removed it myself, not restored it. Honest mistake.
    • Now on this one - My understanding is that if you suspect a sock then you tag it somehow, maybe with {{spa}} then report it and let the normal admin and checkuser process take over. You would not remove a simple posting just becsue you suspect it is a sock. Am I right? Because Orsini, an inexperienced wikipedia editor, thinks that he should get rid of non-threatening posts that he thinks are socks of Barbara Schwarz. Can an admin please provide us fellas with some guidance. Thanks. --Justanother 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No, not in this case, and you know better. And you were warned that the editor was a banned abusive editor, but restored anyway. This is a special case because if we went to WP:SOCK every single time that User:The real Barbara Schwarz creates a new sockpuppet, there would be complete disruption and abuse all over the place. Smee 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC).


WP:CALM, please. Tagging as a SPA is sufficient to alert administrators that the comment is possibly an extraneous sock- or meatpuppet. It's a dumb thing to get into an edit-war over, given that AfDs are not head-counting exercises. -- TedFrank 04:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ted. Please note also the sockpuppet also edited on her favorite places to cause disruption. I agree it's a foolish reason for an edit war. However, is it appropriate or inappropriate to leave edits by a banned user to stand? This is a point on which I am uncertain, and I hope you can set me straight. Best, Orsini 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's where WP:CALM comes in. The suspected sock edited made one comment each on two talk pages and an AfD. Where's the disruption? Add the SPA tag if you have a good-faith basis for doing so, and it won't be the end of the world if an administrator gets to it on Friday instead of Thursday. It's not going to influence the AfD decision any more than it does when a newspaper columnist encourages readers to flood in to vote in an AfD. -- TedFrank 04:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with you about canvassing in that way. However it may be worth noting the Talk page archives of Talk:Barbara Schwarz available to admins only, or the previous 3 AfD discussions to see the degree of disruption which this one abuser can cause in a very short time. But I take you point; I do need to remain calm myself. Best regards, Orsini 05:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Appropriate for me to restore? yes? No? my choice? Thanks. --Justanother 05:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

whats the official policy on this, out of curiosity? I saw this come up on Brandt's afd as well, where certain admins supported his posting, others RV'd it out, and one even threatened to ban anyone who removed his commentary. - Denny 06:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to know this. My understanding of policy is 1. a banned user doesn't get to edit Wikipedia at all; 2. edits from banned users are treated as vandalism; and 3. dealing with vandalism can be done by any editor by reverting. However I've been over-ruled here and the banned edits were restored. I don't understand why. Please point me towards a clue, since WP:VANDAL is what I've based my actions upon and I must be missing something. Orsini 06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(1) is true. I see no basis for (2) in WP:VAND. And, once again, we're talking about AfD-space, not a substantive article edit. A sock or two with an SPA tag isn't going to make a difference; a hundred socks are going to be obvious and counterproductive. In either scenario, a reversion isn't necessary. Moreover, given that this is a suspected sock, rather than a confirmed sock, WP:AGF militates against reversion. -- TedFrank 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the sock allegation even confirmed in this case, or is just suspected because of the SPA? -- TedFrank 06:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The puppetmaster has used a huge number of sockpuppets. Her style can be easily identified by those familiar with her editing paterns and writing style. As normal users, we do not have the tools (like IP checking) available to admins, and they only confirm the suspicion. As Smee stated, if we went to WP:SOCK every single time that User:The real Barbara Schwarz creates a new sockpuppet, there would be even more disruption. Usually User:ChrisO spots her sockpuppets quickly and deals with them since he is familair with the pattern. Orsini 06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So if a sympathetic and knowledgeable admin is already involved, I don't understand why an SPA-tag + wait-for-a-few-hours isn't sufficient, and the aggrieved parties feel the need for an edit-war and a lengthy AN/I thread. Especially when the sock's only role is to make unpersuasive AfD and talk-page arguments. It makes me want to create a WP:WOLF essay. -- TedFrank 06:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Ted, it wasnt my intention to waste ANI's time or fill up space with a frivolous matter. I reverted edits in good faith which I reasonably suspected to be from the banned user's sock, and which were edits made in bad faith. User:ChrisO has dealt with this in the way I did, and Justanother didn't see fit to complain or restore those edits, only mine. History shows the sockpuppets' inciteful comments soon begin a flood of disruption, so doing a fast revert has minimized this impact. AGF policy also covers those situations where there's evidence to the contrary of good faith, and trolling by a banned user is not GF; I hope you and Justanother can AGF in my judgement that the sockpuppet is a banned user. I also believed Justanother's actions were inappropriate, and so I apologize for wasting your time. I note your comment in the AfD itself, and will take that comment on board with regards to my own behavior. Regards, Orsini 06:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I sympathize with your plight. From personal experience, when one is dealing with a disruptive editor, the most effective strategy is to minimize one's own disruptive actions so that third-party editors can quickly see who is at fault. If the other editor is truly disruptive, they'll hang themselves quickly; if they're not truly disruptive, then hanging back and avoiding provocation can save both parties tsuris. -- TedFrank 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
We are up to 30 plus socks not counting the many that were just plain IP addresses. There are numerous editors and admins that aware of this issue and they will remove her comments as soon as they appear. She has made legal threats and she attempts to "out" anonymous editors. He latest comment adds nothing of value to the AfD and it contains material that is against Wikipedia policy, namely it accused other editors of bad faith and even suggested that Wikipedia editors "wished her harm". These are personal attacks and they should not be permitted by anyone anywhere, let alone a user that is indefinitely banned. Vivaldi (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Child's personal information needs disappearing[edit]

See [23]. Seems like it was always a part of the page. Thanks. MER-C 10:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFO - gets done safer. x42bn6 Talk 11:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Possible sockpuppetry and unexplained breaking of MOSBIO rules[edit]

[24] Japanese users (most likely sockpuppets belonging to User:ShinjukuXYZ) keep inserting the ethnicity of Joji Obara in the opening paragraph, even though this goes against WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph. They keep on changing the opening line to "Joji Obara is a Korean Japanese"... when in fact, his only nationality is "Japanese". I asked for a ratoinale on the talk page, but was ignored. Also, User:ShinjukuXYZ was found guilty of using sockpuppets, but no block, no warning, no ban, no nothing. Mackan 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you just gonna ignore this? What the hell, how can you expect anything but edit wars when you don't do anything even in a case with a disruptive editor as obvious as this?? Mackan 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All[edit]

From my Talk:

I just posted this to Tbeatty's talk page.

  • In the past two days you have followed me to two seperate articles that I have been actively editing, that you had never edited before. Zombietime and Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_scandal When I did that a few weeks ago I was charged by an Admin with 'wikistalking' and given a 24 hr block. I encourage you to stop wikistalking me. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap)

I trust that you will deal with TBeatty's 'Wikistalking' the same way you dealt with mine. Thanks FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 07:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty is a decent enough editor, FAAFA is shaping up to be banned by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. I am not an univolved admin by now, and would not block TBeatty anyway for this, but if anyone feels that TBeatty is doing something wrong by checking the edits of FAAFA then please feel free to follow this up. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty's 'honesty' on display.... After admitting to 'Wikistalking' me to two articles including the US Attorney article: "You are a disruptive and tendentious editor. As such, I check up on your edits." diff he actually claims on the talk page of the article in question, that I Wikistalked him to said article ! "The other editor came here jjust to revert me. He's about to be banned." diff He was entirely civil in his fallacious and specious claims though, and we know that carries much more weight around here than a mouthy truthful editor ! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
FAAFA I have been excessively lenient about WP:NPA, and I have warned you countless times. However, this was your last warning. I can see where this is going, and involved as I am, I have remained nuetral. Therefore, I am reminding you to watch yourself, or you will be blocked. Prodego talk 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I've been having some issues of my own with Wikipedia lately, I've been watchign this whole Freerepublic thing spread and spread, and I don't think there's been a day gone by in over a month that some FR-editors-war-related incident hasn't been up here, either a new one or one taking days to resolve. By now, everyone involved ought to be on eggshells around each other, avoiding the appearances of attacks, stalkings, hostilities and improprieties. Instead, I note that Faafa is accurate. He's got an established edit history on both articles, then TBeatty shows up. while I'm also aware that TBeatty isn't a 'subject' of the RfAr for FR/BB/FaaFa/DH/BfP, he's been a highly active participant, and All I've seen shows him leaning heavily to to FR/DH/BfP side. As such, he really shouldn't be out there trying to get Faafa riled up into another violation. I think it's definitely questionable behavior to do what he's doing. This stupid FR mess is so big on Wikipedia that it's almost impossible to avoid it if you pay any attention to the Wikipedia pages of wikipedia... (or however AN/Policy/VillagePump should be called...), and anyone involved should be trying to look like they're participating in the spirit of the AN/I, not just the letter law. It's mildly unethical, I think, but I'm not sure if it violated he written text of any WP policy, since he's claiming that he's 'checking Faafa', which means with have to evaluate 'check' with AGF, meaning he's just 'reviewing for hte good of the project'. parsing games aside, I think TB should be told to step off.Neither's an angel, and they all need to know that this mess is serious. I jsut hope it ends soon. ThuranX 21:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) After seeing his below tantrum, and his deliberate interruptive way of initially posting it ... Nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ThuranX 23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Prodego: Yeah - I know ! I know ! DECORUM and CIVILITY are the only things that really matter around here - unless you're an Admin (like those in the InShanee RAFr) - MONGO - other Wikipedians who protect 9/11 articles from the 'truthers' - or just a a member of the 'chosen few' - then decorum doesn't matter. Yup - decorum is much more important than sockpuppetry, dishonesty and POV pushing ! I do think I finally get it! Too bad I'm not an Admin or a member of the 'chosen few' and I could tell you all to ____ ___ with impugnity, but since I'm not, I best not insult our benevolent, fair and impartial masters. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 21:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
And you wonder why even those who think you're in the right with the Free Republic RfAR are pretty much resigned to you getting blocked for a lengthy amount of time. SirFozzie 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your sarcastic and sharp comments are exactly why you are going to be banned for a year. We all tried our best to not let that happen, but you threw your chances and our efforts into the wind. —210physicq (c) 23:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but you'll never subjugate me into becoming a brown-nosing 'rent a cop' ass-kisser, as is required for long term success on Wikipedia. I'd rather be banned with my dignity than emasculate myself like the slavish cult members of Wikipedia Heaven's Gate so willingly did/do. - FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No one is telling you to be a naive kiss-up. But you're just convincing everyone here that you are getting on everyone's nerves. You say that you want to be banned with dignity intact. It would be true if only you had any dignity left in the first place. Getting yourself banned for a cause doesn't mean that you will be canonized. We're not in the Greek-hero mindset now. —210physicq (c) 00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What you term "dignity" appears to be an excess of pride. While you clearly seek to martyr yourself, that doesn't automatically make you noble. IrishGuy talk 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The behavior that I might be banned for is no worse than the daily behavior of at least half a dozen editors/admins who are given 'free passes' by the Wiki 'Ruling Class', for various reasons. (mostly cronysism and really good brown-nosing) I agree with Harriet Miers - Fire them ALL ! LOL! - FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(comment redacted by contributor) - Crockspot 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Please, just ignore him. --Ideogram 01:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That form of excuse didn't work on your mother, I'll wager, and it's not any more convincing here. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Would it be inappropriate to crosspost Faafa's request to be banned to the RfAr? ThuranX 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
"Request" ? Such an HONEST characterization ! FaAfA 'Mistakes were made'
Yep. You asked for it, so it's only fair that your wish be given the consideration it deserves. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks FAAFA's username is highly inappropriate? Chris cheese whine 23:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I presume he's fair and accurate in the Fox News sense? -- ChrisO
FaAFA's name has been debated at length, and has never been found to be at issue. Dogpiling all possible issues for draggin up again when he's down and being kicked isn't appropriate. Besides, Fox is 'fair and balanced' he's 'fairness and accuracy'. Sufficiently different to begin with, plus a name about one's purported intent here a WP, taken in good faith, shows nothing to see here. move along. (Ironic, yes. Inappropirate? no.) ThuranX 23:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Bingo! FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
ChrisO, WP:NPA. I am getting pretty annoyed about this whole thing. Prodego talk 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting pretty annoyed too. FaAfA, stop trolling or I'll block you. Everybody else, stop feeding him. Picaroon 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration case will be resolved within the next few days. The proposed decision that the arbitrators are voting on, for those interested, is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Proposed decision. Absent a real emergency, let's try not to invest any more energy or emotional resources in dealing with this group of editors. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked FAAFA on the force of this thread alone, plus a cursory look through his contribs. This is disgraceful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is odd. I noticed that in two edits, Crockspot removed both is text and that of other editors in this section: [25] there, he takes out FAAFA, then [26] here, he takes out his own reply without replacing the other. Odd. Further, he calls himselfhte contributor. If it was an oops, he'd have replaced another editor's work ,wouldn't he? ThuranX 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's probably a DB glitch. Have you asked Crockspot about it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Not wanting to stir things up, [27]. Chris cheese whine 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I was attempting to redact my own comment, and when the page loaded, it was still there, so I must have accidentally removed someone else's comment on the first edit. Sorry. Is it something worth restoring at this point? BTW, FAAFA is having a complete meltdown on his talk page. Not a pretty sight. Protection might be called for. - Crockspot 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC) fixed now - Crockspot 03:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If he wants to leave this place so much, why can't we just grant his request? —210physicq (c) 03:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That last comment[28] has resulted in me restarting the block, making it 10 days, and protecting his user talk page. Just as a FYI to all involved; we shouldn't let crap like that continue. Daniel Bryant 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
He has another account, User:NBGPWS... Just sayin'. - Crockspot 03:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
He hasn't used it in almost three months. It's not impossible he might log on to it, but for someone who's given the impression they're 'leaving forever', it wouldn't make much sense. HalfShadow 03:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If arbcom does ban him for a year, simply block the FAAFA and the NBGPWS accounts. I still haven't figured out why my name seems to always come up wiht this fellow...I actually lessened a lengthy block I had placed on him for gross incivility a while back, even though most felt he should remain blocked for the duration. Oh well.--MONGO 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd like to say that while I usually think FAAFA treads the line this time he was way over it, and I am very disappointed. --BenBurch 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Anetode[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 05:36Z

Anetode violates the civility policy by calling anonymous internet users fukwads and characterizing them by saying things like sh*t and c*ck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anetode

Here is the policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Examples —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.41.162.51 (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

  • I freely admit to having been uncivil to anonymous internet users I have never run across or communicated with. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Your logic does not follow. I seriously doubt his intent was to call all anonymous users fuckwads. Its clearly an explanation of the motivation of vandals. Wikipedia is NOT censored. Ocatecir Talk 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC
  • Nothing to see here, move along now... Guy (Help!) 11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we really accept this sort of language on an admin's User page? Would we accept it on a non-admin's page? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a cartoon. It makes a valid point. Yes. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's the GIFT. HOly smokes. Are Wikilawyers really going to turn this site into a job? No jokes mimicing in any way WP functions on the pages, and now no humor? We've got ridiculous POV from entire nations of editors out to make their enemies look bad, we've got libelists rampant, and the best we can do is argue the GIFT, when we're knee deep in proof throughout any editing session? COme off it. The GIFT ought to be POLICY, not banned. ThuranX 11:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
For goodness' sake; it's an obvious knockoff of Penny Arcade's presentation of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (GIFT). Aside from the fact that it's just a harmless comic, it also happens to be a pithy, distressingly accurate social comment, and a valuable warning to members of internet communities. My only criticism is that it would be best if Anetode linked the specific comic he's borrowing from, to make the source absolutely clear and to give credit where it is due.
Incidentally, there didn't seem to be any effort whatsoever by the complainant to discuss things politely and reasonably with Anetode, who probably would have been willing to explain the joke. Instead, we're seeing a (failed) attempt to form up a lynch mob. The interpretation of this 'dispute resolution' attempt in the context of the GIFT is left as an exercise for the reader. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point, I mentioned the source but neglected to add a direct link. Fixed ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert war at GNAA[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 05:35Z

Users are reverting back and forth as to whether this disambig page should include the troll group whose article was deleted (and the deletion review kept it deleted). Someone should protect the page (I'm involved so I won't). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-16 13:43Z

Protected. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Salute (pyrotechnics)[edit]

Resolved: Don't need administrator intervention yet. Tom Harrison removed the italicized comment. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 05:35Z

I was happily editing disambiguation pages for Messier objects (such as M82, M90, M110, etc) when I encountered a very upset User:Pyrogrimace and some apparent content disputes at Salute (pyrotechnics) that have spilled into M80. At the moment, Salute (pyrotechnics) contains an italicized warning against "sabotage". Could an administrator please go figure out what is going on and intervene if appropriate? Also, Salute (pyrotechnics) apparently needs a warning template. Does anyone have any suggestions? Dr. Submillimeter 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me see any dispute that has spilled into M80. There is what appears to be a misplaced comment in the talk page for that disambiguation page, but the page is fine. As for the content dispute on Salute (pyrotechnics), that's not an administrator issue unless policies are violated. I don't even really see much of a dispute. It surely does not need a warning template. Lexicon (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. Maybe I simply had an alarmist interpretation of the various messages at Talk:M80 and Salute (pyrotechnics). Thank you for looking anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned user evading block[edit]

Pulvis angelus (talk · contribs · block log) is banned, then a new user - Macedonia.eu (talk · contribs · block log) - turns up and claims to have written a page which was in reality written by Pulvis angelus. Macedonia.eu is then promptly indefblocked. Macedonia.eu has said his IP is from Bulgaria and then lo and behold, an IP from Bulgaria starts making the same edits on the same page, Radoviš. Could an administrator take a look at this, please.--Domitius 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible PR firm editing[edit]

I believe Weimpact (talk · contribs) New2007york (talk · contribs) and Rfbinder (talk · contribs) are all employees (possibly the same employee) of the Public Relations firm RF Binder. The articles they have written have all been POV ad copy masquerading as articles. These are RF Binder, David Finn, Harry Lipsig - The Lipsig Law Firm, Lemon Tree salons, Homeric Tours, and Stratford Career Institute. What would people think about blocking these accounts as meta:Role accounts? From messages left on my talk page you can see that they intend to continue editing. I worry about the message we are sending otherwise about WP:COI and paid editing. Mak (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Based on IP evidence, I don't think Weimpact is an RF Binder employee, but New2007york and Rfbinder are, as well as two others - Katefarber and Cmo2007 Raul654 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And I was just about to suggest a checkuser. If it looks like corporate spam, smells like corporate spam...I think our zero tolerance policy on the issue is appropriate. Teke (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But do we block the editors? Mak (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say give them fair warning that we're on to them, and what/why their actions are wrong, and don't do it again or gone. That would be for brevity's sake. They will either spam again or not, I would think as there's not much other use for those accounts. Other takes welcome. Teke (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Block them all. Block the 4 that Raul pointed out indefinitely, then block Weimpact pending confirmation from him that he's not an employee (we'll have to AGF that he is telling the truth) and if Weimpact disruptively edits again, reinstitute the block. Of all the users, it looks like only Weimpact has any chance of positively contributing. SWATJester On Belay! 07:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with SwatJester - block 'em all. Natalie 13:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not give them an opportunity to show that they understand what they've done is wrong, instead of just a knee-jerk block? 216.234.128.8 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Teke; give them a warning and then block if they do it again. An immediate indef block seems a bit harsh. Veinor (talk to me) 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

71.112.7.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) disruptive editing[edit]

This user is systematically deleting "Academy-Award winning" or "-nominated" from every actor article. -- TedFrank 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked due to repeated vandalism. Thanks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure all those vandalism warnings left by a single editor for a content dispute were appropriate. 71 is being disruptive with an unusual POV-push, but it's not quite vandalism. -- TedFrank 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that this user is requesting unblock via their talk page ({{unblock}}). I'm on the fence-leaning towards endorsing with this one, but given there is already a thread here, might as well get the second opinion from an ANI reader :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Something is wonky in the coding on that page. I can't see half of it (anything below the "Cool (aesthetic)" section), but I can't see anything which would do that. I'm guessing it was something that BaseballDetective did as it was fine before his multiple edits of the page. Anyone want to look and see if they can figure out why the page isn't showing half its content? I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.2 on Windows XP SP2.
Also, I've unblocked as I think about 24 hours is good enough. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with Academy Award Winner Page Vandalism[edit]

Can someone please help me with this problematic anon IP address: 71.112.7.212. Scroll down to 'Academy Award Winner Page Vandalism' to see what I am talking about. The user barely knows how to use Wiki and despite multiple warnings, continues to engage in various forms of vandalism and page blanking. His current 'kick' is the bizarre concept that saying someone is an Academy Award winner is somehow 'advertising' and randomly editing various Academy Award winner pages to remove this reference. Additionally, he/she is blanking out warnings whenever he gets the chance: See his/her log Special:Contributions/71.112.7.212. I'm exhausted trying to revert this trolls constant vandalism and I truly need someone else to step in. There is also a long history of this IP address simply engaging in similar behavior on other articles. The IP address traces to a Verizon address, but it seems static; same person, same behavior. Help! Please :(

Thanks in advance for the help! Best, BaseballDetective 05:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've left him a note. Let's see what happens. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This absolutely screams WP:POINT (and indeed WP:SOCK). Look at recent blacklistings at m:Spam blacklist, and recent reversion of spamming campaigns, and I suspect we will find the individual behind this IP. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hop two sections above this to find another thread regarding this IP's behaviour. Daniel Bryant 12:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour, Thumperward (talk · contribs) removing piped links[edit]

Okay, this is really, really silly and stupid, but I would like to get some input from uninvolved users anyway. There has been an ongoing heated discussion on Talk:Football (soccer) about the name of the article. That discussion seems to have cooled down, and "my side" seems to have "won". This seems to have lead to a user on "the other side", User:Thumperward (signs with name "Chris Cunningham" on talk pages) making a few undiscussed edits to the article to "improve it". Some were good, some were bad, but the main thing I would like to get input on is these edits, and my subsequent (silly) reverts:

Now, note that he removes working and correct piped links to use unpiped links and redirects instead. Also note the edit summary of the 3rd edit. Now, I know that I should probably just have been cooler and just ignored this, but I really can't understand his behaviour in these edits and I could not stay away, although his edit summary implies that I could not make another revert without breaking 3RR, he's wrong, "I have one revert left", but I'll stay away from using it this time and instead seek the opinion of others. – Elisson • T • C • 13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. The edit summary was intended to reflect that I wasn't going to pursue the matter further today.
  2. The link edits are (a) in keeping with MoS and (b) justified both in summary and on talk.
  3. The WP:OWN comment was intended to point out that Elisson had, in edit 2's summary, decided to start telling me how and how not to edit articles.
This article isn't being allowed to evolve. It's being held in a static state, and now editors who are attempting to be bold and do something other than vandalise it (check the glorious edit history) are being reported for being "disruptive". Chris Cunningham 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
How are the link edits in keeping with MoS? Please give a link and citation. You just waste server resources by doing edits that actually does not help the article (and so was I, reverting you...). This is also what I wanted to tell you by the second edit summary, and it is applicable to all edits anyone makes anywhere. I don't see how WP:OWN is relevant in that context. – Elisson • T • C • 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The WP:OWN comment was a pithy retort at being told to leave the article as it was. I meant to link to WP:MOS-L#Context, which states: "Don't use a piped link to avoid otherwise legitimate redirect targets that fit well within the scope of the text." this includes splitting Zurich, Switzerland into Zurich, Switzerland (Switzerland is irrelevant except in that it helps place Zurich in context) and expanded instances of things like Fédération Internationale de Football Association where the redir points to FIFA unambiguously anyway. As for "wasting server resources", server resources are less valuable than editor resources, which is why MoS recommends keeping markup simple (to make it easier to edit). Chris Cunningham 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOS-L#Context does not give you justification to remove such a pipe link, the meaning of that section is that if you link to for example Religion in Sweden (I created it for this example as it didn't exist), which is a redirect to Church of Sweden, don't do a pipe link [[Church of Sweden|Religion in Sweden]] because 1) the concept religion in Sweden is not neccessarily the same as the concept Church of Sweden, and 2) it hinders the usage of "what links here" on Religion in Sweden to check if it is a good idea to create a more general article on religion in Sweden. It can not be applied on this case, where "FIFA" and "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" mean the exact same thing. I have no opinion on the Zürich matter whatsoever, as it is not the thing I reverted over. And regarding keeping markup simple, I'm not sure that the difference between [[FIFA|Fédération Internationale de Football Association]] and [[Fédération Internationale de Football Association]] is that big of a thing for anyone to parse... If someone decided to type the first version when writing something new, I don't see any point in changing that perfectly working link to something else, just as I don't see any point in "fixing" redirects as it works just as fine. The whole point about keeping markup simple is to not use HTML and CSS where it is not needed, the point is not to change things that work just because you can make the link five chars shorter. – Elisson • T • C • 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
My user page has been vandalised by User:Thumperward using a certain sock [[29]] - check out the coincidental intrest in "Cunningham" in recent days by "both" users. This is ironic since I was trying to reason with him about how to describe the Glenn Greenwald Sock-puppetry scandal (covered in the MSM) only gaining a promise that he would "delete on sight due to BLP". I find the homophobic remarks by this user particularly offensive. I thought I should add this here as this user seems to have issues. David Spart 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of this revert war. From WP:LINK, "It is not necessary to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page." In these cases, full names & acryonyms are pretty stably connected. It is feasible that the acronym FIFA will become a disambig page if some notable organization starts to use it, so unpiped is marginally better in my opinion. However, mostly this appears to be just a dumb turf war.

The first edit ("fixing" the links) was rather pointless; the reversion was arguably more pointless since it seemed to be picking a fight over an unhelpful, but unhurtful, edit. Thumperward (talk · contribs), "see you in 24 hours", a clear reference to WP:3RR, is borderline uncivil & disruptive, as I interpret it as goading Johan Elisson (talk · contribs). I'd advise these editors to cool off for a while and quit this battle. [I have not done any research to verify the claims of David Spart, so I have no opinion on such a matter]-- Scientizzle 16:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He not only attacks my sexuality but is also a sock-puppetmaster.David Spart 18:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a Uw-upv3 warning to 195.194.68.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (after which I noticed that JoshuaZ (talk · contribs) blocked the IP). In any case, if you've evidence to support allegations of sockpuppet abuse, I'd encourage you to file a claim at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Scientizzle 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Social networking[edit]

Resolved: Users blocked by DragonflySixtyseven. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 05:33Z

Would it be appropriate for me to request attention to User:Ak-47ck, User:Jesterjokes2 and User:Xiv4show? They are using Wikipedia as a social networking site, their only non-vandalism contributions are chatting with one another, and my friendly warning to User:Ak-47ck met only with a not-so-friendly response. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Warnings left. I'll keep an eye on it. SWATJester On Belay! 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've blocked them and deleted their pages; Wikipedia is not a chat client. DS 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Evanescence[edit]

Well, there are many problems. First, the user ed g2s has been deleting images from the Evanescence articles, because according to him the use of album cover images violates thes Fair use criteria. This is totally fake, and it can be proved. Nirvana (band) and Nightwish have images of album covers, and these articles are Featured articles. If the use use of album cover images is forbidden, then these articles would never have passed the FA. Now, he is also contradicting himself, because he has also deleted an logo ([[:Image:Evanescence early.png, an earlier logo of the band). Logo are not album covers, so...? He has deleted it with no reasons. The only thing he said was that the use of the images hasn't been discussed. What's that??

Some edits he made (deleting images):

Another problem is that he has nominated an free-use image created by me, Image:EV-