Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive232

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

SlimVirgin violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy[edit]

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) blocked User:Tsunami Butler to gain an advantage in a content dispute. This appears to be part of a pattern of behavior on SlimVirgin's part.

There has been a content dispute brewing since last fall. The background to the dispute is that one week after joining Wikipedia in November of 2004 [1], SlimVirgin authored the article Jeremiah Duggan, which she has OWNed ever since. This article is essentially a mirror for the "Justice for Jeremiah" website. That website is a compendium of libels and harsh attacks on Lyndon LaRouche, issued primarily by Chip Berlet and Dennis King, two former leftists who, twenty years ago, received relatively prominent press coverage for their polemics against LaRouche. Not long thereafter they faded into obscurity and the Duggan affair was an opportunity for them to get back into the public eye.

Jeremiah Duggan was a college student who was a casual attendee at a LaRouche conference in Germany. During the conference he committed suicide, for reasons that have never been explained. The "Justice for Jeremiah" project has implied that the LaRouche group somehow caused his suicide, although no motive has ever been suggested. Also, no reliable source has ever specifically alleged that the LaRouche group caused his death, although as SlimVirgin put it, "almost every single source that has written about this implies that it is somehow involved in his death."[2] The idea of an article for the sole purpose of promoting "implications" of involvement in a murder is troubling from the standpoint of WP:BLP. SlimVirgin has insisted on inserting material from this article in other articles, including: Helga Zepp-LaRouche,Schiller Institute, Lyndon LaRouche, Jacques Cheminade, LaRouche movement, and Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement. Meanwhile, during the latter part of that same year, Chip Berlet had begun to edit Wikipedia as Cberlet (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), and began working as a team with SlimVirgin in POV disputes. Along with Will Beback (who used the username Willmcw) they began to assert ownership over the articles on the "LaRouche template." In June of 2005, Dennis King opened an account as Dking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), but he did not begin to edit LaRouche articles until November of 2006. His edits of those articles developed into a frenzy of self-citing (see [3], [4],[5])

Tsunami Butler (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) began editing in October of 2006. Among her first edits is a question on a talk page, where she receives a personal attack from Cberlet in response:[6][7]

Tsunami Butler began to put together evidence that Cberlet and Dking were in violation of numerous policies, including WP:COI#Citing_oneself, WP:LIVING#Biased_or_malicious_content, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS. This became the basis for a MedCab case (see Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07.) Four days after SlimVirgin first took notice of this case [8] it was closed without any explanation[9]. The essential content dispute between SlimVirgin and Tsunami Butler was over whether Wikipedia articles should be a soapbox for the theories of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, in violation of WP:NOT.

Here is the chronology of SlimVirgin's ban of Tsunami Butler:

  • April 1, 2007: SlimVirgin asks for ArbCom permission to ban Tsunami Butler. [10]

I won't list all the diffs for the following section, as the material has been neatly archived here: Tsunami Butler ban discussion.

The reason given for the proposed ban is "acting to promote LaRouche," under the "LaRouche 1" ArbCom case, where it says: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." However, SlimVirgin was unable to produce any evidence that Tsunami Butler had violated this remedy. As ArbCom member Kirill Lokshin put it, "The various LaRouche rulings have not really been kept up-to-date with the evolution of policy—even the most recent considerably predates a number of significant policy developments in 2006 and 2007—so I do not think they should be interpreted as providing for broad restrictions on behavior; the main remedy imposed in them that was not applied to specific parties covered only the introduction of LaRouche-originated material into unrelated articles, in any case."

Consequently, SlimVirgin changes her rationale for the ban. Unable to find evidence of a violation of the ArbCom decisions, she falls back upon the old stand-by, accusations of sock-puppetry. Tsunami Butler has informed me by e-mail that she edits using AOL in Los Angeles, meaning that she has a dynamic IP address. As I understand it, this means that any check user evidence linking her to another user is circumstantial at best; I don't know how many people edit Wikipedia using AOL in Los Angeles, but my hunch is that it is quite a substantial number. SlimVirgin chooses her words carefully when she says: "A check user has confirmed that Tsunami Butler appears to be sockpuppeting."

The relevant policy that has been violated by SlimVirgin is the following: Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (Wikipedia:Blocking policy)

From the time she launches the campaign to ban Tsunami Butler, to the actual banning 10 days later, I count 133 edits by SlimVirgin to LaRouche-template articles and talk pages, mostly of a contentious nature.

  • Example: on April 6, 2007, Tsunami Butler requests that quotes from King and Berlet "be reduced to a level that is commensurate with their notability." April 7, 2007: SlimVirgin adds new attack material from Chip Berlet, alleging that LaRouche is guilty of secret, coded anti-Semitism: "You would have to listen over time to a ... set of patterns, and you would begin to hear the echoes of the classic antisemitic conspiracy theories." This material is added to Schiller Institute.[11]

This ban should be overturned, and POV pushing at the Jeremiah Duggan article and related articles should be scrutinized. --NathanDW 05:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This is pretty much the same info that was on the now deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin...it was deleted for a reason.--MONGO 05:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, NathanDW's post appears to be vexatious. As was clearly explained to him already, Tsunami Butler was blocked for sockpuppetry, confirmed by Checkuser. The block is clearly valid. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I know virtually nothing about LaRouche; he sounds like a political cult figure similar to Ayn Rand, with a small cadre of devoted followers, a few equally devoted opponents, and a majority of the public who has never heard of him. But I find the claims about LaRouche in Jeremiah Duggan to be problematic. There are some weasel words ("The group is widely seen as a fringe political cult"). I'm also not sure whether it's appropriate to mention LaRouche's prison term for tax evasion in an article this distantly related (it is, of course, appropriate to note this reliably sourced fact in LaRouche's own article). I think it's questionable whether allowing significant influence in the LaRouche article from relatively minor figures (Berlet and King) is appropriate under WP:BLP, especially since Berlet and King are Wikipedia editors themselves, and we usually don't allow self-promotion of this nature. While we must be on the lookout for LaRouche POV-pushing (I've seen enough Ayn Rand POV-pushing to know the kind of stuff that got people pissed off here), we must be equally diligent to ensure the articles do not tilt too far in the opposite direction. I would urge Arbcom to revisit their cases on LaRouche in light of WP:BLP, which didn't exist when some of the cases were initially heard. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 05:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • tl;dr, and please, cut it out with that funky formatting, it looks like you cut and pasted from a 40 column C64. SchmuckyTheCat 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


  • SlimVirgin explained her TsunamiButler block to User:Don't_lose_that_number, another Larouche rep on WP:

    The permanent block was for a violation of the ArbCom rulings and for WP:SOCK. The accounts are believed to be operated by a banned user. The ArbCom does not distinguish between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and they made that explicit in their LaRouche2 ruling. However, as I said, I'm perfectly willing to have another admin review the block — bearing in mind that seven admins apart from me have commented already — and then it will be as though that admin instigated it; or they may agree with you and unblock. If you want me to pick one, let me know; otherwise you can choose an admin and ask him or her to e-mail me for more information.[12][13]

    I also see no problem at all with this block. It is very common for ArbCom to not distinguish between sock and meat puppets based on their behavior pattern, and once there is such pattern any admin can block, regardless of any content disputes or involvement. SlimVirgin makes it clear that multiple admins reviewed and supported her decision, both before and after, so I think bringing this issue here, without mentioning these reviews and support, including the certification of the action by an ArbCom member, is misleading at best. Crum375 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the block looks good to me, it has received plenty of attention. I do wish you would keep your complaint much briefer though. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems to have been handled properly. Not a content issue, but rather violation of Arbcom rulings. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Same as this? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think every i's been dotted here. I would also hope that arbcom can make it crystal clear what LaRouche supporters can and cannot do (apologies if they have clarified earlier rulings somewhere already). IronDuke 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about the content dispute, but it seems pretty clear that SlimVirgin was on absolutely solid ground here. Let it go. --Leifern 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Khoikhoi 05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
<--Multiple clarifications have been issued, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche_2, as well as the case decisions themselves, which establish a bright line test. Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles. In other words, sources tied to the LaRouche movement are not considered reliable for use in articles except those that are closely related to LaRouche. I don't see how this is ambiguous, except as you can see from the talk page links, this seems to come up over and over again. Thatcher131 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
And it's utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. SlimVirgin initially posed her desire to ban as an ArbCom violation, but she dropped it like a hot potato after Kirill Lokshin pointed out that there was no ArbCom violation. After that, she had to resort to the all-purpose, "one size fits all" excuse of the ban-happy admin, sockpuppetry (or in this case, meatpuppetry.) But I would also point out that Herschelkrustofsky was banned for very specific reasons, not simply disagreeing with SlimVirgin on content. If anyone who has a content dispute with SlimVirgin is a meatpuppet, then you are giving her a virtual 007 "license to ban" which it looks like she has abused more than once. Please remember that, lacking a valid claim of a violation of ArbCom rulings, the operative policy is Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (Wikipedia:Blocking policy) If the basis for banning is supposed to be so solid, what is preventing her from having another admin do it? --NathanDW 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
So if some other admin just does it, does that satisfy your complaint? --Rednblu 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely you jest. We are looking at major league POV-pushing by SlimVirgin, Cberlet and Dking, aggravated by the misuse of admin authority to silence any opposition. In my opinion, this is an abuse of trust where the only appropriate remedy would be de-sysopping. The use of admin authority must be rigorously POV-neutral, or it undermines faith in the whole system. --NathanDW 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then your issue is POV-pushing, is it? I don't have independent knowledge of what the truth is. But when I look at a page like Jeremiah Duggan, it looks just about right in terms of a 50-50 turf war over what rumors and hearsay will be allowed on the page. There is a lot of OriginalResearch there--on both sides. I'm not sure it is good for Wikipedia to have such a page--because, by my standards, there are no ReliableSources that have adequately Verified their assertions. Notwithstanding my questions about whether the page Jeremiah Duggan should be deleted, judging from the HistoryRecord and the TalkPage, it does not seem that the honorable User:NathanDW, User:SlimVirgin, User:Cberlet, or User:Dking have any of them singly or together done POV-pushing that is not completely justified from the best available rumors and hearsay attributable to the best ReliableSources. Can you suggest a step-wise procedure that we could both use to detect this "major league POV-pushing" that you see? --Rednblu 18:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be very enthusiastic about removing the rumors and hearsay from said article, which would leave it as a stub. The article was put up for deletion by one editor, who was promptly blocked by SlimVirgin (see User_talk:IAMthatIAM.)
But, to the larger issue of POV pushing. It's a perennial problem, and there are lots of policies here to discourage it. But my real issue is POV-pushing with abuse of admin powers, which is intolerable, and when someone is caught red-handed doing this, there ought to be consequences. --NathanDW 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
So what is your stepwise procedure for detecting "POV-pushing with abuse of admin power"? I would be glad to try it out. --Rednblu 08:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That's an easy one. The tell-tale sign is when you see an admin blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute. --NathanDW 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be circular reasoning. It hasn't been established that Tsunami Butler was blocked to "gain an advantage in a content dispute". That account was blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user based on CheckUser findings. -Will Beback · · 18:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Another question, why was the original RfC oversighted? What policy did it violate? Or are all RfCs permanently deleted once they run their course? If not, why was this one the exception? Cla68 13:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just answered my own question...although several users (including myself) endorsed the RfC, only one was listed in the block for attempting resolution with the object of the complaint. Therefore, according to the rules, the RfC was deleted. If I'm wrong on this, please let me know. Cla68 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
If I understand right, there was evidence that Tsunami was a sock. The blocking admin, however, was also involved in heavily editing the same article that Tsunami was editing. Thus, it was a conflict of interest for that admin editor to also act as the blocking admin. I've seen the same situation resolved appropriately here in this forum or on the admin noticeboard by the involved admin editor stating the problem, noting that they have a conflict of interest, and then asking another admin to look at the situation and act if action is warranted. That way it won't appear to be a conflict of interest. I guess this is Nathan's complaint and I dont't want to "hijack" it, but that's what I feel is the real issue here. COI more than POV. Cla68 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The block was reviewed in advance by Taxman, Fred Bauder, Jpgordon, Will Beback, Thatcher131, Ral315, and Georgewilliamherbert, all admins. You're beating a dead horse, for reasons best known to yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You can add my name to the list of admins who have looked at and approved the block. I've seen SlimVirgin on many occasions not blocking, but taking something to other admins, because she was involved herself. Admins don't (or shouldn't) block regular users they're in dispute with; they do block sockpuppets in articles they're editing themselves, when the sockpuppetry is obvious. Can that be abused by an admin accusing an obviously innocent user with the opposite POV of sockpuppetry, in order to block him? Sure, which is why other admins can review the sockpuppetry evidence, if someone thinks that the person wasn't a sockpuppet. That's been done. SlimVirgin was right. Time to move on now. Musical Linguist 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can point me to the diffs that show where those other admins reviewed and commented on the proposed block of that editor before the block was executed, then that should close this discussion. Cla68 05:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd imagine most of the discussions were made privately rather than publicly; certainly the discussion Slim and I had regarding this were private, as they should be. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

talk page of user: Grace E. Dougle being blanked[edit]

Need help with how to leave the talk page of an user who has left Wikipedia: [14]. --Mihai cartoaje 08:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Of course, that is the user's preferred version; it's filled with warnings, but seeing as how they're the subject of an ongoing RFC, I don't think it's the right time to blank this particular talk page. If they were to return unannounced finding the evidence of the previous warnings would be impossible unless you know where to look. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That user is not the subject of an ongoing RfC. --Mihai cartoaje 08:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. I striked out that bit of my comment. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The user is the subject of an RfC [[15]] and is involved in an RfC involving mihai cartoaje, who has been stalking me and harrassing me [[16]] DPetersontalk 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The usernames are significantly different. Could this just be inattention? --Mihai cartoaje 13:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But the warnings were undeserved. The warnings from RalphLender and DPeterson were for moving threaded replies to comments in a RfC to the talk page, which the RfC rules say we must do.

I think I understand what happened now. At the time I went on a wiki-break to catch up with my income tax filings. Also, I didn't know what to answer the user: being disdainful would be hurtful, but being friendly would make people say "the user wrote a positive comment about you because you are friends." My unexplained wiki-break combined with an user writing a positive comment about me in the RfC made people think that it was an alternate account I had created. That is not true: look at this thread [17]. I'm a guy; hardly a discussion I would participate in. But the suspicions made people bite the user, and Mr. Darcy write a very vitriolic warning which reads "If you don't alter the way you deal with this user, I'm going to have to block you to prevent further attacks" which may have meant, "if you don't stop complaining, I'm going to indefinitely block you because I think you're a sockpuppet."

I hope you understand now why the warnings were undeserved. --Mihai cartoaje 13:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I find it bizarre that RalphLender and DPeterson were tag-team edit warring to add threaded replies to the RfC, clearly against RfC rules, with similar edit summaries (and similar fake warnings). It's almost as if they were trying to push the user into making a mistake. Here are the relevant edit summaries with a name starred out:

(cur) (last) 13:57, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view)
(cur) (last) 15:18, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D***** (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view - moving comment to talk page, it clearly says users who post in other sections should not post here.)
(cur) (last) 16:02, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (I may be wrong, but I don't believe it is the editor Grace's place to edit this Request for Comment page.)
(cur) (last) 16:06, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D****** (Talk | contribs) (rv and stick to the rules, cut out misleading edit-summaries: I did not edit other peoples comments of course)
(cur) (last) 20:12, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view - PLEASE do not edit this page. Leave other's comments alone.)
(cur) (last) 20:43, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D***** (Talk | contribs) (stick to the rules and post in appropriate section, and don't yell.)
(cur) (last) 20:54, 23 February 2007 DPeterson (Talk | contribs) (Please do not move or change my comments. That is for an uninvolved administrator to do.)

--Mihai cartoaje 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've followed this and other disputes of Mihai cartoaje, particularily on the mental illness page and schizophrerna article. He does seem to be hounding DPeterson with something like a vendetta. Mihai's blanking of another user's page is odd and the fact that both he and Grace E. dougle have/had RfC's about their conduct almost makes it appear that he is retailating against DPeterson. JohnsonRon 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I have never edited the Mental illness article or associated talk page. And Grace E. D was never the subject of a RfC. Please stop twisting facts. I restored that user talk page to the version it was when the user left Wikipedia. I note that you have changed the section title: [18]. --Mihai cartoaje 01:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course she was. JonesRDtalk 22:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting continous insertion of unsourced material[edit]

Sc4900 (talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced and unverifiable movies to the filmography of Hrithik Roshan. The trouble started from here - one, two.

Sc4900 (talk · contribs) again added it, with this edit - three. Please note, Sashank-part1 isn't verified and he added Sashank-part2. Moments later zie repeated that - with this edit.

It was after this that he made the page Sashank. Sc4900's added in whoever zie feels like - Arnold S, Hillary Duff, Jackie Chan, and Cameron Diaz! Not a single reference on the entire page, seems like fantastic fictional writing on the part of Sc4900.

A search on Google, such as this one. The only result on the first page that even mentions Roshan is this page, which in fact is an older version of WP, with this rumour attached. Another Google search - this, reveals all the sites which suggest Sashank as a real film are in fact copies of older versions of the WP page of Hrithik Roshan.

I requested Sc4900 to stop adding it, by posting messages on zir's talk page - no response. Instead, these edits were made - again, again, and again, this time reverted by another user.

Recently, Sc4900 has made Killer (hindi film) which also seems to be entirely made up, as noted by Shakirfan (talk · contribs). An entire string of edits to London Dreams, The Time Machine (hindi film), Kabhie Jeene all show the user is trying to propagate rumours.

All of us working on the Bollywood bios would be grateful for any help in this matter. Regards, xC | 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The only positive entry I could find was one that said that Illeana(allegedly to star in Killer) has signed for a Hindi Film(it doesn't metion what and opposite whom). And how can this guy give a definete release date for a film whose Muhurat has not taken place? --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 14:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The user is clearly disruptive and totally uncommunicative. I'll leave a stern warning on his talk page and block him upon next violation if I'm online. A Traintalk 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
User continues to add unsourced material after last warning. Looks like vandalism to me. TwoOars (T | C) 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Update:I'd like to draw your attention to zie's latest edits -

There are more, of course, please have a look at Special:Contributions/Sc4900. Please stop this editor, zie's run amok! :P

Regards,xC | 06:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this guy is doing it as some sort of experiment or bet: to see how far he can go writing unverifyable stuff without hinderance.
This reminds me of a similar incident that happened with Nature magazine a few years back. They had published an article from a researcher who wanted to prove that you just have to write anything that seems scientific, with a lot of jargon for Nature to publish it even if it didn't make sense. He then promptly went to the press having "proved" his theory ; to the great embararrasment of Nature magazine.
I feel this guy is also trying the same. I suggest that he be blocked immediately and the articles deleted. --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 06:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Further update:

Clearly, this editor is trying to disrupt the bio and film pages. I've given about a dozen references proving zie's (mis)behaviour. What will it require for an admin to end this disruption, and block this vandal?

Any guidance in this matter would be appreciated. Regards, xC | 06:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These movies have been made up by Sc4900 -

This page is also entirely made up by Sc4900 - Shashank (hero)

How many more nonsensical edits will we have to revert? When will this vandal be blocked?

I was blocked for a revert war on Rani Mukherjee, when I was trying to cleanup the article, remove POV and throw out fangush. Here this vandal's given free reign and allowed to vandalize for almost a week. His first edit as a registered editor was on 16 April, 2007. However vandalism of this nature has been affecting Bollywood bios for many weeks now, thanks to several anon IPs. It may be the same, or someone else, fact is today is the 21st of April. Its been five days (minimum) and nothing has been done yet.

There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do. - RickK

Best regards,xC | 07:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for a week and left a message on his talk page. Let's see if he starts communicating. My apologies for the delay in action. A Traintalk 18:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, A Train, this vandal needed to be stopped. Best regards, xC | 19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with blocking him although there is a chance the user will return with a new name and start it up again. Users like these usually do.Shakirfan 22:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting guidance and/or mentoring[edit]

While patrolling recent changes a few days ago, I noticed this edit. Because it seemed whimsical and was linked to a completely unrelated article, I left the {{uw-joke1}} template on the talk page of the anonymous editor here and reverted the edit.

The anon's response to this (as it sometimes is, of course) was to leave an abusive message on my talk page and to restore the edit, with a rude edit summary for good measure.

In conjunction with another editor, I continued to warn and revert. Along the way, the anon vandalized my user page. I reported them to WP:AIV, which resulted in a block.

I signed off for the night.

A few minutes later, the anon restored his edits from another IP, again with an abusive edit summary. The other patroller reverted, and the anon returned from a third IP.

The next time I logged in, I noticed the new activity and reported it to WP:AIV again. In response, Pilotguy implemented a rangeblock. I reverted the anon's most recent changes.

Yesterday, User:Anonywiki appeared and restored the anon's edits, using the edit summary to refer to me as a troll and agreeing a bit too conspicuously with the anon on the article's talk page.

I don't think there's any question that it's the same person, but I also think that along the way this may have evolved from a vandalism incident to a content dispute. I'm not comfortable reverting the edits again. They're silly and stupid, but I can see how some people may view them as valid. On the other hand, I feel that the user's edits at this point are clearly a variation on WP:POINT, as well as a probable violation of WP:SOCK.

After spending a year or so quietly editing articles of interest, I've only recently become more involved in change patrol and I'm still learning about best practices. I'd like some feedback on whether my actions have been appropriate and whether additional action (preferably not involving me) is warranted. Thank you. Dppowell 01:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the incivility of the anon-editor, I think the reference was valid. The edit war that followed however, is defenitely a candidate for Wikipedia:lamest edit wars. You don't want to end up there. So my advice: let it rest. --Edokter (Talk) 12:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure you can safely remove it as theres no article for it. Notice the link above it to the album is the exact same wikilink. Pull it out, block the user for socking. -Mask? 20:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
looks like I needed to finish reading diffs, only the first couple do that, afterwards they wikilink Santa Claus. In this case, as obnoxious as it seems, leave it in, should still be blocked for socking, give him a 1 weeker. -Mask? 20:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, both of you. In any event, I'm not an admin, so I leave it to one to decide whether AKMask's recommendation is appropriate. Dppowell 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rules on RfC[edit]

Need help in keeping this RfC in accord with the rules: [19]. --Mihai cartoaje 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This individual seems to be continually attacking DPeterson in a variety of venues. See above filing by him.JohnsonRon 17:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It was not me who filed the RfC [20]. --Mihai cartoaje 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This is another example of how this individual is harrassing other editors by making false and misleading statements and violating wikipedia policy of Assume good faith. He has no basis for his statement, "trying to trick one or more other editors into calling them sockpuppets." JonesRDtalk 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

sock puppet of banned user Cleargoing[edit]

Resolved: User already blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cleargoing2 is a sock please ban.--Lucy-marie 11:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

lilkunta revisited[edit]

I have blocked this user for three days due to continued disruption. The original discussion related to Lilkunta can be found in Archive 225 of this page. Despite having been blocked for using nonstandard font and color previously, Lilkunta has continued after numerous warnings [21] [22]. Since the original discussion/block received a fair deal of discussion, I'm leaving this here for review. Also note the user refuses to remove the statement "I think what happened, Virginia_Tech_massacre is very sad. But sh*t happens" from his/her talk page. Maybe adoption could help here. - auburnpilot talk 03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with this editor in the past. She is, and I'm sorry to say this, a lost cause. If anyone tries to work with her, she takes it wrong and snaps at them. Now she's making highly inflammatory statements on her talk page. Her consistently referring to this site as "Wiki World" leads me to believe she thinks of this as sort of a myspace thing. Personally, I don't think adoption would do any good, and we'd probably loose a good editor over it. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Making anons fill out a Special:CAPTCHA in order to edit[edit]

Makes it a real PITA to revert vandalism, since the CAPTCHA only applies to people who add new content to an article, it means anon vandals can still blank pages, but anon vandal fighters have to fill out a CAPTCHA to revert/undo them. I imagine RUs don't have to jump through quite so many hoops just to be able to edit--172.148.109.92 13:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not getting these CAPTCHAS. 86.145.105.149 13:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's because your edit history is filled with page blanking/vandalism, which as I said, doesn't add new content to wikipedia, thus no CAPTCHA--172.148.109.92 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You'll only get the CAPTCHA if there's external links in whatever you're editing. You won't get them everytime; it's to prevent spam. It is a pain for anons trying to revert vandalism, though, I admit. – Riana 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • In theory aren't all articles supposed to have external links/sources? otherwise wouldn't they be origional research?--172.148.109.92 13:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
        • A citation is not the same as an external link, and it is quite possible for a citation to not contain any links at all. In a citation of a news article, for example, what counts are the publication name, dateline, byline, and article title. With those, a reader can locate the news article being cited, using the publication's archives. An external link to an on-line copy of the article is an added bonus. It is not a necessary nor an integral part of a citation. Indeed, if you see citations that are given as bare external links, please fix them to include the requisite information necessary for a proper citation. Uncle G 15:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You could just create an account. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's why. MER-C 14:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • So what stops spammers from creating an account?--172.148.109.92 14:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Same thing, a capcha, but only for the first 4 days. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
        • But account can be indefblocked; anonymous IPs cannot. Natalie 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war w/User:Stanley011 pushing POV on Cho Seung-hui, 3RR, ignoring consensus[edit]

First off I hope this is the right place. It seems trivial, but it is the principle. I have tried to "talk" to this person,Stanley011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), about his insistence on changing the wording in a particular sentence and I believe it is his POV. He is also bordering on being uncivil, and is ignoring consensus. He has said to have "compromised" by finding a reference to support his POV and changed the wording to "mother's aunt." I know this sounds ridiculous, but he is the only one pushing this and continues to change it despite the consensus, talking, and the many references pointing to a specific term, belittling other editors, and using grammar, vandalizing and accuracy as his reasons for the reverts. Where, hopefully, you can see by the evidence below, that it is none of them.
Evidence:

  • On the article's talk page: [23]
  • On his talk page: [24]
  • His responses on my talk page: [25]
  • Google search of the article that uses the term "great aunt": [26]
  • An image on google, provided by another editor on the talk page: [27]
  • Dictonary says both are correct so grammar cannot be used as reason for revert. Which he has used a number of times.
  • Most importantly the article references the term "great aunt" throughout.

Hope it's not too much, or too little. I'm begining to doubt the good faith of the editor thus reason I'm bringing it here. Jeeny 15:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Stanley 011's response: I have laid out an argument for the wording I have used, here and thus far, contrary to what Jeeny has asserted, there has been no consensus reached on that particular matter--in fact, he refuses to respond to my argument, instead leveling false attacks such as POV pushing. It cannot possibly be my POV that I am pushing though because everything I have written has been well-sourced. Further, the very fact that this editor questions my good faith, when as you can see from my user page, I have contributed to and created countless articles for wikipedia, should be alone grounds for his suspension from editing. Thank you. Stanley011 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Update from Stanley 011: In fact, it is now Jeeny who is in the minority on this issue. Stanley011 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another broken code of conduct! You even went so far to delete this entry?! [[28]] and then put it back? Your POV again, you insulted an editor's intelligence, and erroneously supported your reverts as a "grammar" edit, when in fact, was not. You, should be suspended from Wikipedia for many policy violations. My contributions have all been in good faith, even when I disagree with the subject or I am repulsed by an issue. I am an advocate of accuracy and good faith as they are critical here on Wikipedia. Jeeny 16:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is where y'all want to be. If there's been a 3RR violation, this is where it needs to be reported. --ElKevbo 16:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. Forget it. I have no more energy and I quit this place because of people like him, and the constant vandalizing. I'm done. Over and out. I have wasted too much of my valuable time. Jeeny 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
zomg drama! Dispute resolution exists for a reason, we are not children running to mommy. If you've quit because of something as simple as this, perhaps you need to reevaluate how you relate to other people. -Mask? 19:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, Stanley011 was blocked for violating the 3RR. - auburnpilot talk 22:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rookapooka[edit]

Resolved: blocked and articles being deleted

Rookapooka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - A probable sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Danny Daniel. Recreated the hoax Captain Melonhead, a hoax that was created by a likely sockpuppet (now indefinitely blocked) of Danny Daniel. The user also created the article Space Jam 2, which is similar to the deleted hoax Astro Jam (created by User:Booooomerang, another indefinitely blocked sockpuppet). Rookapooka's username is similar to User:Ranapanna, an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet.Squirepants101 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked, and I will go through and delete all of the articles he created. I must say, I love the misspelled movie title. Natalie 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor[edit]

Resolved: EVula // talk // // 19:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

65.88.88.55 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a clear sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), given that's he repeating the edits of the previous sockpuppet that was blocked yesterday - 216.194.4.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), plus edits on numerous Irish Reuplican related articles, and even stalking my edits to undo edits like this on an article I reverted vandalism from. Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney303 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Gnangarra 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 15:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone block the latest sock please? Rapunzel-lite (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 17:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
And 63.164.145.85 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as well. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 17:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Both blocked. – Riana 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Stand Dealt[edit]

Could an admin please checkout Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Stand Dealt, the sock just admitted to creating a new account each time he/she edits and its getting out of hand. --24fan24 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to harass me. It's getting out of hand? What is getting out of hand? What has been done? What is the problem? I am listing all of the accounts for you prior to using them so you can't accuse me of being deceptive. So what's the problem? -Clearages 19:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Much quacking here.  REDVERS  SЯEVDEЯ  19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact, so much quacking, I've blocked all of them except the puppetmaster. I've also blocked the one I was most doubtful about - the least loudest quacking, shall we say - User:Movie Eager, and I invite review of all of the blocks but Mr/Ms Eager's in particular please.  REDVERS  SЯEVDEЯ  19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Abusive sockpuppets. Good block. No ambiguity at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mackan[edit]

He has put a tag of sock puppety on my talk page three times[29]. But I wasn't done CU in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vml132f. So it is no reason to suspect a sock with me. He is doing personal attack on me now. Please give him a advice to stop it. DDRG 19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets], step 8 in Reporting suspected sock puppets: "Tag the suspected sockpuppet(s). Edit the user page (not the user talk page) of the suspected puppet account(s) to add the text {{subst:socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}}".Mackan 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any personal attacks. JuJube 19:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd like to ask an admin, if he reverts the "suspected sockpuppet" notice, what am I expected to do? I reverted him twice, but that doesn't really seem like a solution to the problem. Mackan 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Mackan has already done CU on Vml132f and there isn't any evidence of him without "possible". And I wasn't checked in it. So there are any reason to suspect me as a sock. Is it able to be suspecting and to be putting a tag on talk page every minute?? Isn't this a harassment? DDRG 20:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon-user removing categories from pages[edit]

An anon-user (see Special:Contributions/63.215.29.25) has been removing the category Black Superheroes from various articles. He also tried deleting the category itself, but only removed the text from its page.

The same user also attempted to remove a section on the character Northstar's homosexuality.

This user has also added false information to articles, and has been warned about vandalizing several times before. --DrBat 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Block for Greedy Guy[edit]

Sole contributions consist of vandalizing Rugrats episodes. Editing Maniac 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please resolve ongoing move dispute, over name[edit]

Persons named Juan González use an accent over the "a" in Gonzalez. Editors have moved the page for Juan González (journalist) to Juan Gonzalez (journalist) without the accent several times. Please help secure that the page can remain with the accent. The system is now locked against moving the page to the proper spelling. Dogru144 21:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

SHould be returned to the with accent version, as the no accents name leads to a disambig, in which all options HAVE the accent. ThuranX 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This should be settled on the talk page by propsong a move, gaining consensus, and following naming conventions. The user proposing the move has not provided any evidence that the accented version is used by the subject, or is the best-known spelling. Instead, the user created a new article then redirected the already existing article. That isn't the right way to change an article name. -Will Beback · · 23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It was I who reverted that change because instead of moving the article the user just blanked the original article, turned it into a redirect and then c&ped the content of that article to the version with the accent on it. This in turn completely messed up the history of that article. Furthermore, I don't think I've ever seen Gonzalez' name used with an accent (but this should be resolved outside of AN/I).--Jersey Devil 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the "á" is necessary for proper Spanish grammar (as the third-to-last syllable is the stressed syllable of González), but that's a minor point. It depends on what the journalist himself uses. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs) and Bowsy (talk · contribs)[edit]

See Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive6#Common debate ban on Bowsy and Henchman 2000 from AN/I, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive223#Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Henchman 2000, User:AKMask/puppets, and Henchman's and Bowsy's contribs and talk pages. They've been accused of being sockpuppets/meatpuppets in the past, though the sockpuppet part was dismissed after Henchman admitted that they share a computer. However, Bowsy's edit to User talk:AKMask/puppets says "Bowsy and I", instead of "Henchman and I" (which could mean that he/she/they forgot to log in as Henchman 2000. This leads me to believe that they could possible be sockpuppets. I might be jumping to conclusions, though. Comments? — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You are. I think it should be perfectly understandable for an editor who people are conspiring against to be not thinking straight and make silly mistakes like these. Oh, and I admitted that we share a computer, and it was the honest truth, for why would you lie on a case that determines whether you have a future on Wikipedia? Bowsy (review me!) 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I documented the slip up on the puppets page as well, thats been updated. Bowsy has also expressed a desire to get my evidence page deleted as an attack page. I explained how to put something up on WP:MfD if he wants to, as I have confidence in a speedy keep on that. Not fully relevent, just a note. -Mask? 21:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit: The updated section of the evidence page) -Mask? 22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It was a simple mistake, OK?! Bowsy (review me!) 08:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

139.153.12.133 blocked for 31 hours[edit]

I've blocked User:139.153.12.133 for 31 hours after repeated acts of vandalism and the user's replacement of the talk page contents with "Don't leave comments on my page you cunts." The IP is registered to University of Stirling (RIPE). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

another cleargoing sock to block[edit]

User:Cleargoing4ThisTimeItsPersonal please block ASAP.--Lucy-marie 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This user was blocked earlier by Alison. Will (aka Wimt) 23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How about User:Goingclear1 I think all variations ion these names need looking into.--Lucy-marie 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That user in fact stated "I am a sockpuppet and I am only here to vandalize Wikipedia"[30] and has been blocked accordingly. Will (aka Wimt) 00:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think at this point these Cleargoing sock can be reported at WP:AIV instead of here - they'll be dealt with faster and then cleared from the page. Natalie 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review request[edit]

I would like to submit this block for review. This user, under two different IP addresses, has repeatedly added an unsourced claim to Chris Leak that he is engaged and that his fiance is pregnant. I requested both in edit summaries and on the talk pages of both IP addresses that they either provide a source or stop adding the claim and provided them a link to WP:BLP, which states that unsourced contentious material (whether positive, negative, or indifferent) is to be removed on sight. Both IPs simply continued to add the claim.

Both IP addresses are from Gainesville, Florida, where the University of Florida is located, so it is distinctly possible that this individual has firsthand knowledge of the situation. However, it is still unsourced and potentially contentious.

I submit my reverts (which exceeded three) and blocks for review. Thank you. --BigDT (416) 23:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Further PAs[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 48hrs for continued personal attacks, talk page semi-protected.--Jersey Devil 00:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Further personal attack by User:82.20.124.228. Andy Mabbett 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 48 hours. The talk page has been semiprotected for two days after the IP tried to use it to launch personal attacks against users.--Jersey Devil 00:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Burgz33[edit]

Hi all. I've just blocked 76.213.169.162 (talk · contribs), 75.5.179.122 (talk · contribs), 75.40.61.80 (talk · contribs), and 70.253.160.220 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets of the blocked user Burgz33. I'm not sure if CheckUser would be able to confirm that this is him, but if it is proven, I think Burgz is up for a much longer block. I was wondering if another admin could review this and let me know what they think, if they have had any experience with this user. Thanks, Khoikhoi 00:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've had extensive dealings with this individual and tagged a number of the sockpuppets of Burgz33. He has openly admitted that he is still editing anonymously here on my talk page[31] where he openly mocks any administrators that have blocked him. You can also contact CambridgeBayWeather to verify this. Thanks. Yankees76 00:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • He's currently trolling WP:AN. JuJube 00:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not if I have anything to say about it. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like him. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Reporting Admin Abuse. Avoids block for abusive comments then complains that others are picking on him. Because of Burgz33 User talk:Yankees76 is now semi-protected to keep Burgz33 off the page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
He's now Wikistalking my edits and spamming AuburnPilot's talk page as User:75.43.137.179 claiming another admin is abusing his powers, referring to Khoikhoi. Yankees76 04:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocked. Khoikhoi 04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn McCarthy vandalism[edit]

I've reached my skill level on this page. It is being attacked mercilessly by pro-gun advocates because the Congresswomen is pro-gun control. I've tried to keep on top of the constant changes in the last couple of hours of adding in clear vandalism and POV and unsourced information. I've requested discussion on the talk page. The last reasonable version of this article is [32]. I've been reverted countless times. I have to step away and allow someone else with great available skills to protect this page.  ∴ Therefore  talk   01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The page has been semiprotected before, and I semiprotected it again for 3 days. If the vandalism returns, I'll bump up the protection some. This is at the lower end of the amount of vandalism I would need to see for semiprotection, but I think it's warranted in this case. CMummert · talk 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock review needed[edit]

Resolved

Other admins are requested to review and comment on the unblock request at User talk:Nightscream. Heimstern Laufer blocked for 48 hours for a 3RR violation, rejecting the user's contention that he was enforcing BLP. I believe the user had a good-faith believe that BLP was being violated, and would unblock. Would appreciate further review and comments. Newyorkbrad 02:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what part was negative information about a living person? What I saw in the reverts was only the revert of a definition of the term "conflict of interest". I missed how it could be seen as a BLP issue. Would appreciate some clarification. Heimstern Läufer 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the disagreement is over felt vs knew. If Clark "felt" it was a conflict of interest, then that's a statement of his opinion. If Clark "knew" it was a conflict of interest, then that means that the article is making the claim that the producers (who are living people) acted incorrectly. I agree with Brad's contention that this user in good faith believed that WP:BLP covered this case. --BigDT (416) 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The change from "felt" to "knew" there was a conflict of interest implies a degree of certainty about the producers' alleged misconduct that is not well-supported by a cited source. The citation of a legal definition of "conflict of interest" applicable only to lawyers, which is enforceable by disciplinary action and sometimes civil or even criminal penalties, could imply that there was a specific regulatory definition of conflict of interest that Clark knew the TV producers were violating, which is not the case. I also think it's significant that the now-blocked user was addressing these issues on the talk page, in a reasonably appropriate manner, in the face of another user who was screaming at him and using obscenities. I agree with Heimstern that this is probably borderline as a BLP problem, but the user believed there was one, and that belief was not so unreasonable as to warrant being summarily disregarded. I believe that this was a situation that could have benefitted from more nuanced administrator intervention and a warning rather than a 3RR block, and certainly not a 48-hour block against a longtime editor with an extremely strong record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
All right, then, I can see how that could be the case. Unblocked. Thanks for keeping me accountable. (P.S.: It was only 18 hours. But either way, it is gone now.) Heimstern Läufer 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Carlblackburn (talk · contribs)[edit]

User continues to add this Web site[33] to the article PlayStation Portable's external links that promotes PSP Blender, a scam site that claims to offer commercial content for download (including PSP video games) for monthly fees. This practice is illegal. The link has been reverted several times by many users but Carlblackburn continues to readd it[34], citing that the Web site is not illegal when it obviously is. We've tried settling this matter in the talk page (Talk:PlayStation_Portable#Squidoo_site) but user refuses to acknowledge that illegal activity does not belong on Wikipedia. - Throw 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar[edit]

The user account of Robdurbar has gone crazy. Deleted the main page, blocking everyone in sight. His admin powers need to be taken away quickly. — Lost(talk) 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking where the stewards are. Agathoclea 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Desysopped. – Riana 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for unblocking me. Agathoclea 10:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about any rude unblocking summaries I may have left. – Riana 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
What the fuck happened there? Was that someone saying goodbye in spectacular fashion, or did a vandal hack the account? Moreschi Talk 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt it was a vandal; that user left several weeks ago. A vandal would probably choose someone who is at their peak of activity. — Deckiller 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The block of Jeff makes it quite clear that this wasn't a comprimised account, for me anyways. Daniel Bryant 10:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how much this will shake up the RfA reform debates. — Deckiller 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's go and see... Carcharoth 10:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Merged from separate thread directly above.

What's going on? --Dweller 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping of USer:Robdurbar??? The accounts either compromised, or he's taking the **** Ryan Postlethwaite 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Desysop please ASAP. He is unblocking himself, blocking other users (just got me), and creating havoc. Anyone on IRC? – Riana 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Desysopped by Jhs. MaxSem 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted all his blocks, hope that's OK. – Riana 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You're too fast. A pity, I had hoped I'd get an opportunity of unblocking Jimbo once in my life. Fut.Perf. 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Fast? Tabbed browsing, my friend ^^ – Riana 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheese needs to be undeleted. MaxSem 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Good going Riana!--cj | talk 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
What now then? Leave him desysopped and blocked, or take it to arbcom to make it official? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No formalities needed. He'll just remain blocked until he comes back with a plausible explanation how this was not him. Fut.Perf. 10:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we'll need a rather good explanation... no vandal goes and blocks a bunch of established users, not to mention a user the admin has blocked previously. – Riana 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Continue :) Daniel Bryant 10:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Wow. Should this be documented somewhere? Has this ever happened before? An admin goes rogue and got in three edits before being blocked, got in 25 blocking, unblocking, unprotecting, and deleting actions. Can someone confirm all the mess has been tidied up? Carcharoth 10:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It has. Good thing he wasn't pissed off enough to do something that's actually damaging. —Cryptic 10:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Shake up RFA? After this, we'll have people saying that the crats should be able to desysop...which will lead to even higher standards at RfB....arrrrrgggghhh....Moreschi Talk 10:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm one who thinks the crats should be able to desysop...but then again, I also feel we shouldn't raise the standards either :) — Deckiller 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we need more stewards who are highly active on WP? None of the stewards seem to be half as active as the folk you see on ANI everyday. Standards for stewards seem to be lower than for crats... who wants to have a go next year? :) – Riana 10:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Lower? As in, like, needing to speak ten languages, active participation on 50 WikiMedia projects, and accounts on more? Moreschi Talk 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the criteria are different; because of that, I think it might not be a bad idea to consider giving crats the right to desyssop. But I agree that we need more tools to fight hacked or crazy admins. — Deckiller 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Before we get too hung up on the idea that we need more stewarts or drastic measures to prevent a rare sysop rampage, remember that this mess started at 09:57 with the unprotection of "cheese" and was over by 10:14 when Robdurbar got desysopped. I'd say the stewarts (and JHS in particular) did a good job. As to bureaucrats getting the right or technical ability to desysop, I have no opinion.--Chaser - T 10:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah apparently they were alerted on IRC [35]. Will (aka Wimt) 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
But is it good or bad that it took 17 minutes to deal with this? To be fair, the smoking gun of Main Page deletion (and edit summaries like "I wonder how long I can get away with this") didn't occur until about 13 minutes before he was desysopped. But is 13 minutes a good response time or a bad one? Carcharoth 11:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
He got in more than three edits. Some of them remained deleted when I restored only the revisions of the main page from before the incident began. —David Levy 11:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just submitted a patch that disables main page deletion, please vote/comment. MaxSem 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFA thread is here. Carcharoth 10:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... First case of rogue admin I've ever seen. Have to thank your for your quick actions Riana, before he deletes the whole Project... --KzTalkContribs 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCheckUser started at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the trouble couldhave been avoided if admins could not unblock themselves or .... there would be a 30 minutes delay in unblocking. Agathoclea 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I just said exactly the same thing at WT:RFA at exactly the same time! – B.hotep u/t• 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, his autoblocks should also be undone. MaxSem 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I just undid the autoblocks. Can someone check if I've done it correctly? – Riana 11:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Gah! That's a mess. From 10:01 to 10:14 on 19 April 2007, in case it scrolls off the screen. Hang on, they are vanishing in front of my eyes. Weird. How does that list work? Carcharoth 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You gotta show me how to do that sometime :) – Riana 11:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Tabbed browsing, of course :) Firefox FTW! >Radiant< 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That was a rather freaky demonstration of aberrant behavior... (Netscott) 11:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser results in - account seemingly not compromised. Moreschi Talk 11:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe Robdurbar had logged in with the "Remember me" option enabled, and someone got onto his computer? --Ixfd64 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

According to someone (I can't remember whom, I thought it was in one of the IRC channels, but I can't find anything there), people in #wikipedia were panicing for quite some time before someone knew whom to contact (e.g. stewards). What is needed for this kind of situation isn't more stewards or ability for bureaucrats to desysop; what's needed is for people to know where to go when something like this happened, which luckily Peter Isotalo did (and also five or six other people who came in too late). When (or, more optimistically, if) an admin goes on a havoc spree like this, you should go to #wikimedia-stewards and write !steward, and someone will usually respond within seconds (there are stewards from many different time zones). If there are none, developers (in #wikimedia-tech) will be able to do a desysopping. Jon Harald Søby 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem was I couldn't remember the name of the stewards IRC channel: by the time I remembered it, he'd already been desysopped. Thanks for the reminder. Moreschi Talk 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem[edit]

Of course we did not follow proper process here, because Robdurbar should first have gotten a standardized warning template that deleting the main page is considered inappropriate, and that repeat actions may result in deopping. I have taken the liberty of designing this, Template:Uw-delmain1. >Radiant< 12:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well done, Radiant. I'm a bit puzzled regarding the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bit — admins are not new users as far as I'm concerned (unless the RfA reform goes a little too far, heh). Michaelas10 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
ROFL :D. MaxSem 12:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the assessment. By the time I blocked him he had already been vandalizing on top of deleting. Even though the main page was involved I did check if there was a particular issue that needed an emergency deletion. The subsequent re-creation of the page showed a vandalizing intend. I knew that he could unblock himself, but the block would stop further deletions to bridge the time until a steward could be alerted. Agathoclea 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if this shows us anything it is that the whole emergency de-admining system works. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 12:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it's very encouraging. By the time I'd logged into the stewards IRC channel it'd already been done. – Steel 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd venture a guess that any admin that deletes Main page will be desysopped (probably emergency desysopped) whether the actions are repeated or not. I see no need for a warning for such actions. -- Renesis (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not be overly dramatic. As the admin who recently deleted the mainpage said, "Indeed, it was my terrible mistake. Looked at the wrong page, pressed the wrong button. Restored immediately, so no damage was made." They weren't desysopped for it, and rightfully so. Zocky | picture popups 13:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Before today, main page deletions were entirely accidental and were reversed with no warnings. Bad-faith deletions of the main page require emergency de-sysopping. Period. // Sean William 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, I was referring to bad-faith deletion, not accidental. And I agree with HighInBC below. -- Renesis (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we can all tell the difference between an emergency and something that can be discussed prior to desysoping, this would be the former. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, deletion of the Main Page is such a big deal that, even if it was accidental, it wouldn't kill the offending admin to be desysopped until such time as he explains that it was a mistake. If it appears to be an emergency, shoot first and ask questions later. The desysopping "bullet" does no permanent damage. --Richard 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Except, it leaves the "offending" admin with no way to correct his/her mistake. --Edokter (Talk) 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There are a few hundred others willing to correct that mistake, though. – Riana 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Availability of stewards and emergency procedures[edit]

Jon Harald Søby indicated that there will probably be stewards available at any time, as they are in different time zones, but that seems a little bit like wishful thinking to me. There probably are quiet times when no stewards are available, but the only way we will find out, unless a system is set up, is when something like this happens and we find all the stewards are asleep/away/inactive, or whatever. Can we be sure that stewards or developers will always be available? The other point Jon Harald Søby raised was that the people active in #wikipedia at the time didn't seem to know they needed to find a steward. I'm sure a whole generation of Wikipedians will now have this fact burned into their psyche! :-) But seriously, what other enculturation problems might lie ahead? Is there something that you personally don't know how to handle, and who would you go running to if you encountered something big you couldn't handle? The obvious thing that springs to mind is the dark mutterings made by people who, always invoking WP:BEANS, say that there are really destructive things that a rogue admin can do. I have no interest in knowing what those things are (and please don't try and guess), but can I ask if the solution would be obvious if the unthinkable started to happen? Carcharoth 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More Stewards are not necessarily the idea. After all, does it make sense for an incident on the English Wikipedia that lasted only a few minutes warrant more Stewards to cover all time zones? Short of designing a new protection policy where only Bureaucrats can edit a certain page so that people know what to do when an Administrator goes wild (ugh) or a Steward-power bot that desysops Administrators that unprotect the Main Page (ugh), the easiest solution is, of course, make sure it doesn't occur again. Either way, Stewards are a meta thing and whether or not more Stewards are needed will be a meta consideration. x42bn6 Talk 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Steward bot = bad idea. People mess up. Prodego talk 01:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I have an alternative idea that could get us along without stewards. What if we made it possible for someone to effectually block an admin (i.e. self-unblocking would be impossible), but only with the agreement of several other admins. The likelihood of more than one account being compromised at any one time would be rather low.--Pharos 00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Self unblocking needs to be possible, lest someone manage to block all active admins. Which, by going backwards through the logs with a bot shouldn't be too hard. Having no admins and no Stewards would be pretty bad. Prodego talk 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but the idea would be that it would take the agreement of multiple admins (possibly three) to make an effectual block. And then, to guard against the remote possibility of more than one rogue, we could also limit the number of such accounts that could be blocked in this way (also maybe three).--Pharos 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Going back to Carcharoth's question, I firmly believe that the solution to the really destructive thing we never state is not immediately obvious. How to describe the solution without describing the problem is an issue beyond my current leaps of intuition. GRBerry 00:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can think of two really destructive things, but probably not what you are thinking. What are you thinking? Prodego talk 01:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

E-mail, please, guys... :-) Anyway, I'd hope the developers are aware of any really big loopholes in security and/or vandal possibilities. I suspect some bot-operated thing is one of the big scary things (going backwards through the logs is a clever idea), but the specifics are beyond my intuition as well. Interesting Wiktionary story below, the idea of timing things for a quiet period like that is a good idea. Of course, some planes now allow internet access (I think), so that will soon no longer be a problem. Carcharoth 04:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh geez yeah. WP:BEANS and all that - Alison 04:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This has happened before on Wiktionary[edit]

The same thing happened twice before on Wiktionary. wikt:Wonderfool (talkcontribspage movesblock log) Local: User:Wonderfool on Wiktionary did the same thing twice, once using the sockpuppet wikt:Dangherous (talkcontribspage movesblock log) Local: User:Dangherous because no one in their right mind would ever sysop Wonderfool after his first rampage. On the second time around, "Dangherous" blocked all of the other admins and deleted the main page. This vandal timed it just right so that all of the stewards were on airplanes coming home from WikiMania 2006, so a developer had to directly tweak the database to remove Dangherous's sysop bit. See wikt:Wiktionary:Administrators/Former#User:Dangherous for some of the details on the Dangherous case. Jesse Viviano 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible technical solutions[edit]

If anyone has any ideas on how to allow regular administrators or bureaucrats to solve this problem, please post them in this section.

I am proposing a somewhat technical solution to the administrator turned badministrator (yes, the pun is intentional) problem. If an administrator turns bad, we should have some measure to allow other administrators to temporarily take care of the problem. We should have a system that temporarily remove all rights beyond regular editor from someone for 24 hours if 24 different administrators, or two bureaucrats, give a strike to an administrator in the same minute. I feel that this will give us time to find a steward to fix this problem. I chose 24 because 16 different administrators in one minute will be too easy to overcome for things other than true emergencies, but 32 different administrators in one minute might be too hard to overcome in a true emergency. Jesse Viviano 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a simple idea, why not write a tool that blocks a user every 5 seconds untill a steward can desysop? I could whip one of these tools up in about 10 minutes. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
But can't an admin still block users while being blocked? (I don't think they can protect or delete when blocked). --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 05:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of an admin acting like this before.
This might take a bit of work, but what if there a way to flag how many times within, say, 5 minutes, a user was blocked, so that if (for example) 3 different administrators blocked a rogue admin within a 5 minute timespan, the rogue admin would be automatically desysopped for a period of time, and the actions of everyone involved could then be reviewed? --Kyoko 05:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea of auto-desysopping. I hope you mean a software feature though. (I don't think we want a steward bot going crazy. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 05:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I meant a software feature. I wouldn't want to see a malfunctioning steward bot desysopping people... or granting admin tools to everybody in sight, either. --Kyoko 05:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The idea that an admin should not be able to unblock themself has been rejected because of the danger of all other admins being blocked, but a blocked admin could be able to unblock others, but not issue blocks or unblock themselves. It would then take two rogue admins to cause trouble once the first problem was noted, and this is much less likely than one.-gadfium 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the solution where an administrator can unblock others, but not unblock himself/herself if he or she is blocked. While it would work on Wikipedia due to its army of administrators, it could allow a rogue admin on a small wiki running MediaWiki with few administrators to take over it with no solution but to reformat and reinstall MediaWiki. Any technical solution must be able to apply to all installations of MediaWiki, no matter what size it is. Also, it makes it a pain to recover should an administrator accidentally block himself, or when the administrator intentionally blocks himself for testing purposes, and the test is finished and the administrator must recover from the test. Riana broke the never unblock onself rule when she unblocked herself in response to being blocked by Robdurbar for no valid reason at all, and therefore had a valid reason to unblock that was good enough that WP:IAR easily trumped that rule. I would prefer a solution where software determines that there is a consensus among administrators to temporarily desysop a rogue admin until a steward comes around and solves the situation, so that there is no possibility that a rogue administrator completely takes over a small wiki. Jesse Viviano 07:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is another possible solution that would work on big wikis like Wikipedia and Wiktionary: allow an administrator to sacrifice his or her sysop bit in order to remove the sysop bit from another administrator. This will then generate a message in a log for a steward or bureaucrat to sort out the mess this creates. In this wiki, such a sacrifice should cause someone to initiate a request for arbitration, because someone must investigate the situation and determine whose sysop bit should stay removed. If the sacrifice was done in a situation that warranted such a response, a bureaucrat can then repromote the person who sacrificed his sysop bit. If the situation did not warrant that, then the admin who did this would not get his sysop bit back, but the admin whose sysop bit was taken in this manner would get it back. Of course, this ability should not be allowed to be used against stewards and bureaucrats, because all MediaWiki wikis require them to grant and remove rights. Jesse Viviano 07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now this is an idea I have not seen before on Wikipedia. I think it could open the door to resolving wheel wars on Wikis. Very promising from a first glance. --HappyCamper 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nekohakase (talk · contribs)[edit]

While I work to delete/unlink this user's various inappropriate PD images, can somebody that is less annoyed serve them a tactful warning? Circeus 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind that. I need to clear the source of several images anyway. THey need to be watched, though. They seem to assume scanning an image makes them the "creator", so I wouldn't trust the "I made/took it!" claims.Circeus 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've seen quite a bit of that, actually. Would it be too condescending of us to add something like "scanning somebody else's image does not make it yours" to the Special:Upload page? — CharlotteWebb 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably not, but I suspect nothing short of the suggested changes at Commons will really help, and even that will still let copyvios in. Circeus 15:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate blog linked from the userpage User:Hammersfan[edit]

Resolved: User has removed the link following a request from another user. Adambro 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hammersfan has a link from his userpage to what appears to be a blog written by him. One of the entries is as follows:[36]

March 13
What a f*cking c*ck

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

This person is a fucking cock - a close minded tosser who I'd very much like to hurt by inserting a cricket bat into his rectum and twisting very slowly. Tosspot Welsh arsehole.

As such, I feel that the link from his userpage to this blog is not appropriate. I've raised this issue with the user (diff) but their only response was to delete my message from their talk page, as they did yesterday when I left a warning about their behaviour. I'd welcome the opinions of other editors with regards to this issue. Adambro 12:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I get an "XML Parsing Error" when I try to follow the blog link above; it seems my browser (Mozilla SeaMonkey) can't cope with its bogosity of serving the page with an XHTML MIME type but using an HTML 4.0 doctype on it. *Dan T.* 14:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Annoymous user 63.231.59.4 removing content from pages[edit]

The IP 63.231.59.4 has been removing speedy deletion notices and some maintenance templates which I placed on several articles. I would report this user at AIV, but they're not currently active. He has no prior contributions before doing this, as you can see here. I've placed several warnings on his page, but am unsure about what to do next, and would like some input from an admin here. Cheers, -Panser Born- (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch for half an hour or so, and if they come back, go to AIV, I reckon. – Riana 15:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the advice. =) -Panser Born- (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Threatening Other Users[edit]

Someone want to give this guy the sternest kind of talking to? WilyD 15:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved: Indef blocked by Dgies --Guinnog 15:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone posing as Jimbo Wales?[edit]

Resolved

This fella, Princess Peach Toadsfool, left a message on my talk page, [37] "Greetings, after a positive dialogue with Princess Peach Toadsfool, i hereby suggst that she should be promoted to an administrator. Will you please fix that? yours sincerely; --Jimbo Wales 18:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)" Signed with Jimbo's signature.. Perhaps this should be handled by an admin?

GavinTing 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef-blocked by Drini. Was a vandal account. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright =)GavinTing 16:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt reblocked[edit]

Recently, as most of you know, particularly if you have seen the hub-bub about it, I unblocked Daniel Brandt as part of a discussion around his appeal of his block. In his appeal, on his website dated April 11, he explained that the main reason he wanted his editing privileges restored was to be able to comment on the talk page of the article about him. This and other indicators of good faith on his part let me to grant that portion of his appeal while continuing a discussion of the other parts.

I still think he is acting in good faith, but for reasons that I do not understand, he now claims that my unblock of him was "the wrong decision." Ok. Well, then why appeal? Hopefully he can explain it to me, but in the meantime as a further gesture of goodwill, I am following his wishes again and reblocking him.--Jimbo Wales 12:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting sillier.Geni 13:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the idea of Brandt "acting in good faith" is the silliest thing I've heard in ages. Iamnotmyself 16:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, Wikipedia is an excellent spectator sport and a great use of my Saturday afternoon. 86.145.105.149 13:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm so annoyed I'm off to play 3 hours of tennis, I want to sit here following the drama unfold. Beats the hell out of the Super Bowl, never mind the Heineken Cup. Jimbo, with all due respect I'm not sure this was what Brandt was getting at in that email. He stated that, ultimately, he doesn't care about being blocked or unblocked. As long as his bio is up, he wants, however, to be able to comment on the talk page. His fundamental wish, however, is not to be unblocked: he wants his bio gone. He recognises that his state of blockedness doesn't really matter: he just wants the bio to disappear. I think that's what he was getting at in that email, not that he wanted to be reblocked! Moreschi Talk 13:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Brandt has never had a problem in making his wishes known to editors editing our article about him, as a review of the history of its talk page shows. Even his comments at WR have been used as clues to improve the article on him. We encourage him to continue commenting at WR and/or on the talk page as an IP# to help improve the article's compliance with WP:BLP - in particlular removing or rewording privacy issue items or poorly sourced items. Comments he makes that are removed are still in history and are read and considered. WAS 4.250 14:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, he didn't do any harm during the brief time he could edit. I also couldn't find the request to re-block him in his contributions on the Wiki. Was it in an email? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
He emailed Fred Bauder, and, per Brandt's request, Fred posted it on the mailing list. Moreschi Talk 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Brandt has an ongoing legal threat against the foundation which is sufficient grounds to block all by iteself. Note that the point of blocking due to legal threats is to avoid introducing bias (POV) based on threats. "Make the article the way I want it or I will sue" is the problem. We do want input that helps us make our articles better. We don't want to give ammo to people with a conflict of interest to interfere with our mission of a free neutral encyclopedia. Balance is key. WAS 4.250 14:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It is good that Daniel's desires came to match the communities, as the communities desire for Daniel to remain blocked did not seem to be enough. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's my guess (with no information beyond the email in question) that he meant that the "wrong decision" was not deleting the article, rather than the unblock. OTOH, it might make sense for him to clarify this issue. JavaTenor 16:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Those trying to remove his comments from the bio talk page have less fuel, if any, than before, so progress is being made, SqueakBox 02:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Global search and replace and edit warring by User:TingMing[edit]

TingMing (talk · contribs) is enforcing his own naming convention and edit-warring across dozens of Taiwan-related articles. I suggest an admin have a word with him. --Ideogram 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am alarmed by Ideogram's random warring. For the Chen Shui-bian article, it is uncontested and TRUE that Chen is the President of the Republic of China. Nonetheless, Ideogram continues to revert it to Taiwan and makes errornoneous judgements. Ideogram has no good faith after I tried to reach out to him. TingMing 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You just don't get it. If someone reverts you, you don't keep reverting. You take it to the talk page and discuss. Any massive change across dozens of pages needs to be discussed with as many as people as possible to reach consensus. You don't get to decide policy all by yourself. Your edits will not last long, you are wasting your time. --Ideogram 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already discussed and written notes before. You just dont get it. You have serious issues TingMing 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


I have also wondered aloud to separate editor 'who' this person resembles. They do seem to be ignoring prior discussions (though I am not acquainted well-enough by far myself with status quo). I'd like to second the concerns about mass-renaming/editing of Taiwan<-->ROC. I will look to see what discussions they have participated in. Shenme 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The only substantial discussion TingMing has participated in is at Talk:Guantian, Tainan#Chen Shui-bian is the President of the Republic of China. It's mostly insults (at least I think "Tai Ke" is an insult). --Ideogram 22:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
(Tai Ke is not an insult at all. You have no idea what it means. That is Chinese and not English. Even user Jerrypp772000 said that Tai Ke is not an insult) TingMing 00:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You really are a liar. According to my Taiwanese sources, Tai Ke is a term for a stereotypical native Taiwanese, complete with slippers and munching on betelnuts. Although the term has been rehabilitated recently, anyone using it in a political context certainly means it as an insult. --Ideogram 13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
He has many similarities to Heqong (talk · contribs) but that account is too old for checkuser. --Ideogram 21:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
And let me further qualify my concern. Anytime I see names changing back and forth between two or three versions I have to wonder at the utility of those actions. Repetition only makes me wonder more. Picking one particular (simple) article at random I see the same back and forth by six different editors since the article was created (five since November 2006). I see references to Naming conventions (Chinese) and wonder why something as simple as
Taiwan Province of the Republic of China     vs.     Taiwan
can't be decided. I'm afraid to dig into this, and no wonder. Shenme 21:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
We've never had a large discussion establishing consensus for policy on this. The current system is hard to understand, and many people have different understandings of it, with the result that usage is ad-hoc and decided by who last edited it. I have been trying for months to establish consensus behind a standard at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Naming Conventions but a large number of participants just want to leave the mess alone. You would certainly be welcome to participate in that discussion, maybe we can get it going again. --Ideogram 22:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution. Navou banter 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very familiar with all the DR options. I'm not going to RFC or CSN, and this is too early for ArbCom. Which leaves this. --Ideogram 21:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Out of the blue, Ideogram comes out and destroys all productive edits that I am making. I didn't see him come out when Jerrypp772000 mass renamed all Republic of China articles with Taiwan. I am not eliminating Taiwan. I am actually following the Wikipedia Chinese Naming Conventions set forth on Wikipedia. Its people like Ideogram who are arrogant and ignorant to the system that Wikipedia fails. For example, Chen Shui-bian is the President of the Republic of China. It was a vandal who changed it otherwise. I tried to help by reverting it to the original, yet Ideogram persists in reverting my edits..thereby hurting the Wikipedia system. He is only doing it to annoy me. How random. TingMing 00:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Now this guy is edit-warring with me on my own talk page. --Ideogram 00:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram has persisted in deleting my comments on his talk page. The comments reveal Ideogram's motives and personality. He has persisted to remove that for fear that other users and admins will see it. TingMing 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the funniest thing you've said so far. Add it one more time and you get blocked. --Ideogram 02:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I haven't been following this conversation, but I'd like to note that there is currently no consensus that removing warnings or other forms of communication is governed by anything other than an editor's opinion. That said, editors are encouraged to archive and not simply delete comments, but it is Ideogram's choice what he or she would like to do. But those who repeatedly post comments that are removed are liable to be blocked as violating the WP:3RR rule. Make sure that you do not violate it, TingMing. --Iamunknown 02:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


This Taiwan VS China thign comes up at least once a month. It's ridiculous, because we won't solve it easily, if ever. Some editors are Pro-China, and insist on seeing Taiwan as China, while Pro-Taiwan editors insist on seeing Taiwan as its' own entity. This is a political fight on a much bigger scale than Wikipedia, and I doubt it can be solved. ThuranX 05:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that if we can get a large enough consensus behind a standard we will have enough patrollers to rapidly quash any potential edit-warriors. --Ideogram 09:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pro-People's Republic of China editors and the Pro-Taiwan independence editors are pushing their own POV to the ire of Wikipedians. They have a baseless argument. Because the current de facto status of the situation is that the Republic of China continues to exist since 1912 and it currently controls Taiwan as a province. There is still a Taiwan Province government in Taiwan. There is no stressing the identity of China or Taiwan. This is mainly an issue about facts. Some pro-Taiwan independence users are continually erasing all signs of Republic of China, but that is the CURRENT FACT. They need to accept that facts of the situation and stop disrupting Wikipedia. TingMing 22:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact is relative. Some people in the world consider the existence of the Republic of China fact. Others don't. --Iamunknown 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why his relationships with Nationalist, who is still currently blocked for another 1 month, is never mentioned here (or at least I didn't see it). There is a history of RFCU on TingMing/Nationalist which identifies him to be a possible sockpuppet. I have grown to getting tired of this pointless struggle he has been wrestling on, as he continues to revert, edit war, unilaterally pagemove, assume bad faith/personally attack, and etc. on articles and other editors while he has been warned for way too many times.

A simple removal of his comment on a user talk page (most likely insults/attacks) will get that person in troub