Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive240

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

WP:UAA[edit]

Resolved: As of 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC), the page no longer has reports.

Could someone please check WP:UAA? Some reports are over 3 hours long. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Still one report there that I'm not sure what to do with. ··coelacan 23:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, backlogs at WP:UAA aren't exactly urgent, most of the names listed there don't/won't ever have any edits, so there's no real rush to block them--VectorPotentialTalk 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kronecker[edit]

This user keeps on being disruptive and offensive. See: [1] or [2] --Tresckow 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When is he gonna learn that calling someone an idiot is a personal attack? --24.136.230.38 23:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture of Australia[edit]

Can we get an administrator to use their rollback feature to revert 13 edits at Culture of Australia, by 64.119.64.211. The user is being warned. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, but I just reverted back to an earlier version which anyone can do, rollback wouldnt even work as there were later edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)::
Alright, and thanks. I didn't realize how the administrator rollback function works, since I'm not an administrator. The only edits after the 13 edits were more vandalism, however. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You can always just pick the version you want from the page history and revert (see help:reverting). ··coelacan 02:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Rollback only appears for the very last revision of an article. Undo works nicely for everyone after that. Teke 04:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User SanchTachi refuses to stop adding irrelevant material[edit]

Resolved: tentatively resolved, 24hr block for Lode Runner, warning for Sanchi Tachi SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is regarding an ongoing debate at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Original_research_in_talk_pages. User SanchiTachi replies to nearly every single post that is pro-change and lectures them about how he believes their posts violate Wikipedia policy. His explanations do not make sense, and as of yet there is no one who publically agrees with his analyses. He has just recently taken to blockquoting entire (irrelevant) sections of the rules--a LARGE paragraph--instead of merely a link. I have repeatedly deleted this inclusion as off-topic spam.

Remember, this is NOT regarding the issue being debated--it is regarding SanchiTachi's (and only SanchiTachi's) belief that every single person's arguments are not only wrong, but *against the rules.* I do not believe that his own crazy interpretation of the rules gives him the right to spam and ruin conversations (and this is not the first time he's done this, either.)

Yes, I am personally involved. Yes, I do think that, objectively speaking, SanchiTachi is doing nothing but harm at this point. --Lode Runner 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that I'm not requesting a ban per se, but perhaps instruction from an admin (or his fellow editors) that his off-topic attacks are not constructive and will not be tolerated. --Lode Runner 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside perspective: Having reverted the removal once and run through the history of this discussion, this would seem to be nothing more than a dispute between two users. It's certainly not in the same vein as off-topic spam, and is more of a vague personal attack than anything. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that in his attempt to remove the context of SanchiTachi's statements, Lode Runner has broken 3RR: [3] [4] [5] [6]. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It's illustrative of behavior in different places, usually based on claims of what is valid and what is not as a source (obviously, whatever Sanchi doesn't agree with is invalid). See Wikipedia: WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 and Talk:Warhammer 40,000 for examples. I'd say this was POINT, but I'm not sure what the point is. Could someone look into this? MSJapan 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I dispute that you are an "outside perspective." You reverted my edits too, and are the only one other than Sanchi to do so. (In fact, you weren't participating in the discussion at all, leading me to suspect that you are either a socket puppet or a friend of Sanchi.) And technically, I did not break 3RR (because there was stuff added in-between)--Sanchi did. This is quibbling, however--I have voluntarily chosen to stop the edit war, and I appologize for whatever inconvience by *minor* alleged breakage of the 3RR rule (i.e. ONE extra revert) caused. I am concerned for the future of the conversation, not assigning blame for what's happened in the past. Sanchi's personal attacks (or spam, or whatever you call it) must stop in the name of constructiveness. --Lode Runner 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I reverted you because you were removing the entire context of his statement, including his signature, leaving only a single link to a policy page. This is in every way unacceptable behavior, disregarding whatever reason you had for reverting it. Second, you did break 3RR, because you reverted the page four times in a row. The 3RR rule does not make exceptions for altered text, which in your case is just noting your blanking. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, you are party to the situation (having already made your judgment and acted on it) and not an outside perspective. Thank you, I was just clarifying that.
Fine, even though I disagree, I confess to it! I'm guilty of a *single* extra edit! I'll do whatever penance is required of me!
It happened *once*. It is already fixed. I won't do it again (for the sake of not providing quibblers ammunition, if nothing else.) I am not being accused of being a repeat offender here. Sanchi is. --Lode Runner 04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to continue this, since you are intent on character destruction and clearly unwilling to admit fault beyond the obvious. I will only explain to you why your point of view is quite frankly, stupid. See WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable. Specifically, read this line: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.", which is what you did. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not truthful. 1. I editted a blockquote down to a link instead. First off, they weren't HIS words (it was a quote), second, I left in the link so the meaning wasn't changed. 2. I just admitted fault. I'm sorry for whatever infraction you think I committed, real or imagined. It might have sounded sarcastic, but it was genuine. My exasperation was only to point out what a quibbling little point it is. YES, OK, I REVERTED A FOURTH TIME. Didn't quite realize/am sorry for/won't happen again. Etcd. It doesn't require a more sincere appology then that, because it is such a completely trivial quibble.
This is not about fault admitting (even though I have already done so.) I am endevoring to have a constructive debate on the NOR policy, and Sanchi has *repeatedly* interfered. I have every reason to believe that this interference will continue. Will you comment on this aspect, or will you be like Sanchi and continue to bring up my past sins (which always one-time in nature, as I *do* learn from my mistakes) ? --Lode Runner 04:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is truthful. Sanchi bolded the point he intended to get across, which you removed. I reverted you because of this, not out of taking sides. As for the both of you, I think you've both devolved to a pretty uncivil exchange. Your view is not constructive, because you seek to redefine policies which you will never succeed in fundamentally altering. You doing so anyway spite of consensus doesn't help matters. Sanchi mentioning this at every opportunity isn't helpful either, and you'd both do well to simply step away from the issue. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, right there you show your own bias. You do not know that this clarifiction (and yes, in the context of WP:NOR it is JUST a clarification! It only contradicts WP:TALK, and WP:TALK is not "non-negotiable") is impossible. I say that if the consensus wants it, the change should be made and the higher ups can veto at their leisure. Neither you nor Sanchi (if there is a difference) are allowed to dictate what is and is not inalterable.
As far as the uncivil exchange goes, yes I should endevor not to let him get under my skin. In tone, I could have been better. For that, I am genuinely sorry. In content, I stand by what I have written.--Lode Runner 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
To put it another way, there is no consensus that consensus isn't enough to clarify WP:NOR in the manner I've described. Yet you have used this point anyway to call me "not constructive." --Lode Runner 05:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
What you call a "clarification" is quite obviously not accepted as such. As for your assertion that my comment somehow shows bias, you need to learn the meaning of the term. Lack of knowledge is not bias, it's ignorance, and I've read your change to the policy. It is not a clarification. Not even close. Consensus, which you will never attain anyway, is not enough to allow your change, which you have been told. On the other note, I hope you mean that, because your current tact isn't all that productive. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It has been accepted as such by at least two other people than myself. --Lode Runner 05:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
And denied by just as many, some of whom also hold more weight in such matters. Simply put, even if you succeeded in gaining acceptable consensus (50/50 isn't), they still have core policies to fall back on, which consensus cannot defeat. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
To add to that, your behavior is no more constructive than his. Especially so is your refusal to continue any discussion on the grounds that he is not blocked. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I refuse to continue because he is drowning out the rational voices, just like he did on the WP:NOR talk page.--Lode Runner 04:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I am also refusing to continue because he inevitably hijacks the conversation in an off-topic manner (such as the stylistic problems he has with my posts, the "credibility" I've lost, etc.) --Lode Runner 04:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Sanchi's behavior on the WP:NOR talk page. I admit my behavior wasn't perfect either, but I wasn't aware of the policies regarding things like additions to the NOR page being discussed here instead of the talk page (nor was I aware, when I made the addition, that there was any contradiction at all. I later found out that it contradicted WP:TALK.) On that talk page, Sanchi would not let go of the fact that I had violated a policy (nevermind that fixing it took 2 seconds, I said I was sorry, and said I wouldn't do it again) and was declaring my entire proposal invalid because of it. I created this page, and warned Sanchi that I would not tolerate any more off-topic attacks here, yet he did it anyway. --Lode Runner 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

remedy[edit]

I was not aware of this incident until just now, but Lode Runner is not a stranger to disruption: he's in the past several days significantly attempted to modify WP:NOR without consensus, edited other people's comments on article talk pages, and now reverts other people's contributions on article talk as "invalid". For full disclosure: I am against Lode Runner's policies, and I have previously called him out on his editing methods, both on the user talk, and on the article talk in question. On his user talk, he told me that he would "not allow me" to contribute to the discussion. I told him that I would not take any actions based on my status as a member of the discussion.

However, this is a clearcut case of disruption after prior warning (which by his own admission he has seen): therefore, I will be blocking Lode Runner for 24 hours to prevent further disruption to the village pump. I invite block review from other admins, and while I stand by my actions, I have no objection whatsoever should any other admin decide they wish to overturn them.

Also, Sanchi Tachi should get a strong warning that he needs to be more civil in his debates over policy and assume good faith; he should also consider using AN/I as a noticeboard for reporting policy violations, as opposed to individual admin's talk pages. I'd advise Sanchi Tachi to take a break from getting involved with both policy pages, and with Warhammer 40K articles for a little while. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

John Paulus and User:JohnPaulus[edit]

JohnPaulus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) claims to be the subject of the article John Paulus. He is continually deleting content from the article and appears to me to have broken 3RR some time ago. He claims the article is "borderline libellous". I have checked the article and some of the sources appear rather weak to me (bloggish, for lack of a better term). I'm thus hesitant to block because of the possibility of this being a BLP situation. The user has also implied a legal threat: [7]. I have warned the user. The user seems to want this bio deleted completely [8]. I'm bringing this up for attention from others both as to whether this article is a potential BLP vio and as to what, if anything, we should do about the editor. Would rather we don't have another Daniel Brandt on our hands, needless to say. Heimstern Läufer 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an indef block due WP:NLT until he retracts, then another indef block until we can confirm his true identity (contacting the Foundation could work), and remove all the content that is not referenced from the article. -- ReyBrujo 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
AFAIR, we don't automatically block when someone claims to be the subject of an article, whether they're using their real name on Wikipedia or not. Let's not bite the newbies more than we have to, hmm? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • First order of business should be to request that he contact the Foundation through official channels, in order to confirm his identity. As for the article itself, I agree that some of the sourcing here looks questionable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I am more inclined to delete the article, or at least want it deleted. It is about a guy who stalked a star. We have plenty of people stalking stars daily, yet we do not have articles on them. The AFD is a way to go, and if Mr. Paulus sends an email to OTRS, I have access to the system and see what happens from there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Paulus (2nd nomination) -Will Beback · · 03:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the subject, John Paulus, identified himself as the editor, JohnPaulus, on his blog, The Naked Truth. -Will Beback · · 06:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally off topic[edit]

The joys of wikipedia - I just became aware of a stabbing in my university library by way of the wikipedia article on my university. Considering I am on campus at the moment, less than 100 meters from the library I find this quite amusing. (No prize for guessing which university I attend) ViridaeTalk 03:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I was guessing, and it turns out that at least three universities have had stabbings in the past 24 hours. Anchoress 03:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well then - you want La Trobe University, in Melbourne, Australia. The stabbing happened some 2 hours before i posted that. ViridaeTalk 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh and I found it out here, before the all students email got to me. How very efficient. ViridaeTalk 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've gotten more news from Wikipedia itself than I ever would have guessed. Very odd side benefit to the encyclopedia. :) EVula // talk // // 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:RMc update[edit]

See my archived report. He just removed my last notice from his talk page. This is not the action of someone committed to getting along with others. Daniel Case 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Misbehavior continues. This time he removed both the original discussion and the {{blankown}} warning from his talk page. Daniel Case 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You know, folks, I'm getting a little tired of snooty little Danny Case ordering me about and then crying to daddy. I let him have his way on South Blooming Grove and Michigan Corners, New York, but, no, that's not enough...apparently, his little feelings are bruised. Here's an idea: LEAVE ME ALONE AND STOP HARASSING ME. And it's called a life...get one. RMc 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the Wikipedia community and its collegiality are injured by your actions. They demand satisfaction, given that you have already been blocked for this behavior once before. If you want to engage in personal attacks on this page, you've earned whatever happens next. Daniel Case 17:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing the "Wikipedia community" isn't as thin-skinned as you are, ace. Good grief. Won't somebody please get Case off my daniel...? RMc 00:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Users with truly thick skins don't try to cover up their past misdeeds as much as you seem to. Wikipedia is not, in any event, about who can shout the loudest or out-revert the other person. There are plenty of other websites for that. If you continue to treat WP:NPA and WP:CIV as if they only apply to other people, I will continue to press this. I have, in fact, contacted some of the same admins and users you dealt with before to look at this situation. Daniel Case 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Good gravy, man...do you ever read your own posts? "Misbehaviour continues"..."collegiality injured"..."demand satisfaction"...come on. You're doing a perfect impersonation of a pompous, braying jackass. If anyone's violating NPA and CIV (not to mention "don't make threats" and "don't be a dick") it's you, not me. Chill out. Please. RMc 10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking, he's not obligated to keep your comments on his talk page if he doesn't want them there. It's not necessarily polite to remove talk messages without archiving, but it's not against the rules, and everything will remain in the page history anyway if people need to find it later. I also have to say as a third-party observer that Daniel's attitude here seems to be more confrontational than might strictly be necessary, under the circumstances. I suggest that you both let it drop, and just go about your business, though you're free to take or leave that advice as you see fit. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to let this drop if Mr. Case is. [/olive branch] RMc 14:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine, this is the first time RMc has been willing to climb down and stop being confrontational. Live and let live. Daniel Case 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • sigh* Had to get one last shot in, eh? Whatever. RMc 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AndyZ gone rogue[edit]

Admin AndyZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just went rouge, blocking Ryulong and deleting the main page. A couple people and I are in the stewards channel working to get him desysopped. Sean William 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Eagle 101's deletion of the main page was an accident and in good faith. Sean William 01:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sean, that's rogue not rouge. There's nothing wrong with Rouge admins. Rogue admins on the other hand... WjBscribe 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
He's already been desysopped I think. I do believe I saw User:Drini over at meta change group membership for User:AndyZ from sysop to (none). --24.44.158.33 01:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Correction, to be precise he was desysopped at 1:37 UTC. That's about 10 minutes ago and three minutes before you posted here. --24.44.158.33 01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
For explanation, his first edit summary was, "My password is password!". Tell me it's not true.. -- zzuuzz(talk) 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it was. It seems the account was compromised. Sean William 01:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That's odd, I thought that the devs indefinitely blocked every user account with weak passwords. (Or maybe that was just where the password=username.) --Iamunknown 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Since another admin logged in, changed the password and unregistered the mail address, I am guessing it was true. Now I wonder how long it took this vandal to guess the password. A dictionary attack maybe, although MediaWiki should have a protection against such attempts. -- ReyBrujo 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, "fortunately" he blocked an admin and deleted the home page, things could have been much, much worse. -- ReyBrujo 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe it's Robdurbar (talk · contribs), who happened to go on a wikibreak at the same time as Andy, and went on a similar rampage last month. -- tariqabjotu 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed from Wikipedia:List of administrators, added to Wikipedia:Former administrators. Picaroon (Talk) 01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
sigh - Sorry about the confusion, I intended to delete and restore the page back to the original state, problem is my broswer froze. I did the action in thinking that there was edit history missing, and that needed to be restored, frankly it went so fast that I did not think that a simple "go to history, restore revisions" would work. Again sorry for the mistake on my part. My account is not comprimsed. —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Full credit for keeping a look out and doing your best to act in our interests. Mistakes are easily made. The important thing is that (again) the damage from a sysop account used to attack the Wiki was minimal. WjBscribe 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2 questions, is a checkuser in order to check if the account was compromised, secondally, is anyone in contact with AndyZ to see what happened? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Mark Ryan has already e-mailed Andy and that Dmcdevit is currently working on the CU. Cbrown1023 talk 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for the clarification. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, that is correct. Things are moving a mile a minute at #wikipedia-en-admins. Sean William 02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Still have no idea how I'd go about getting access to that channel - I'm pretty much a luddite as far as IRC is concerned :-). WjBscribe 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I can determine from the CheckUser evidence. AndyZ (talk · contribs) had two logged actions, one on each of two IPs. The first, deletion of the main page at 01:32, May 7, 2007, was using the Tor proxy 88.198.175.78. At 01:33, BuickCenturyDriver (talk · contribs), on IP 24.185.34.152 (which appears not to be an open proxy; it's the only IP he has used for hundreds of edits over the last month) makes an edit creating the main page [9] (the diff is misleading, since the history was restored after it). One minute later, 01:34, AndyZ's second action, the block of Ryulong, was also on the same IP as BuickCenturyDriver: 24.185.34.152. The conclusion is that AndyZ's two admin actions were done by the same person as BuickCenturyDriver. What I can't determine is whether BuickCenturyDriver hijacked the AndyZ account, or whether both are AndyZ, since all of AndyZ's older accounts are too old. We should compare their editing and see if there are any clues as to whether they are the same or different. There does not seem to be any connection to Wonderfool/Robdurbar here. Dmcdevit·t 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disbelieve that BuickCenturyDriver is behind this. He is a very good editor in standing, who would probably be the last person on my mind to delete the main page and block an admin. bibliomaniac15 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is unexpected. Then again, who would have thought that Robdurbar (talk · contribs) would have done those things... WjBscribe 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess the only thing we can look for is any behavior simularities. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, maybe his account was comprimised? Is thereany way of working this out from checkuser? Was it his usual IP? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
BuickCenturyDriver's IP is not compromised. It is the only IP he has been on for months. Someone needs to look at the two accounts. Do they have similar edit histories and interests? Similar quirks? And importantly, has AndyZ ever revealed where he lives before, because we don't have any of the IP evidence from before his wikibreak, so I can't tell if his account was compromised, or if he is BuickCenturyDriver. Dmcdevit·t 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Similar behavior? How about the fact that Buick just happened to be the first person to put something on the Main Page after Andy deleted it. On the other hand, I'm not sure why Andy would not have just created the page on his own account. -- tariqabjotu 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No, either Buick's account was compromised, or it was him all along, Andy and Buick on the same IP, sorry, but that too much of a coincidence. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If Buick was using that same IP for months, then yeah, that's hard to refute. My question is, what IPs was AndyZ editing from previously? If we could find those, maybe we could figure out if the account was compromised or not. Either way though, Buick is looking pretty guilty. Grandmasterka 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If it was just the main page, I could AGF. But not with the other things that have happened. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC) and I changed the heading
Buick appears to be currently in charge of his account (per his unblock request), and checkuser says he is editing from his usual IP, which appears to have been static for months. The only credible explanations are either Buick hijacked AndyZ's account, or is AndyZ. -- zzuuzz(talk) 02:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I just declined an unblock on User talk:24.185.34.152 until this is all sorted out... — Scientizzle 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It may have simply been a mistake. People screw up, using open proxies but then connecting sock accounts by accidentally editing with the same proxy for multiple accounts, all the time. Dmcdevit·t 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What we need is, buick and andys normal IP whois reports - then it might be obvious. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, Andy's from New Jersey. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Buicks from New york, are they near each other?? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Optimum Online (which is what the IPs are from) is a large north-eastern ISP with a large range of dynamic IPs. The IPs will probably geolocate to random locations, anyway. Sean William 03:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
But Buicks appeared static didn't it? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Simple contrib checking on the IP shows that Buick was the only one to have any noticable edits from that IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when do we publish CheckUser evidence?? RxS 03:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's frequently necessary for investigations and blocking IPs. All IPs are logged and usually out the IPs of the intended vandal. The privacy policy is not a suicide pact when the safety of the project is at risk. Dmcdevit·t 03:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Frequently, when's the last time Checkuser evidence was made public?? Investigations within checkusers certainly, but at ANI? And wasn't the incident over when the info was added here, how is that a suicide pact? RxS 03:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree here with RxS. There was no need to publish the static ip. However, everyone makes mistakes. -- ReyBrujo 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm serious. All IP blocks are logged publicly, and that is unavoidable. The information is important for the investigation. Think of most banned users who have used sockpuppets: their IPs are outed, and rightly so, because this is the only way admins can deal with them. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
God how I hate the drama that comes with any use of Checkuser on any established contributor. -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that's just the drama of John254. —Centrxtalk • 03:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
He tipped his own IP address right here so what is the problem? IrishGuy talk 09:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
if it makes anyone feel better, it seems to be a dynamic IP, as the user came on IRC with a different IP address. hombre de haha 09:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The privacy policy is not a suicide pact when the safety of the project is at risk. Interesting. -- tariqabjotu 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the privacy policy does explicitly say that the information may be released "Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers". In addition, the IP is clearly that of a large ISP and is not personally identifiable "where they're one of millions of users" and is "unlikely to be personally identifiable". —Centrxtalk • 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done a separate CheckUser which confirms, without any reasonable doubt, that BuickCenturyDriver edited using AndyZ's account. I don't know if they have always been the same editor, but they certainly are now. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather belated and unnecessary, but editing times indicate that sockpuppetry was possible. -Amarkov moo! 04:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. I was asked to do a second CheckUser, and I did so. What do you mean by "sockpuppetry was possible"? Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I mean I'm inherently distrustful of anything that I can't see the raw evidence for, so I make sure that the results of the Checkuser were possible. The checkuser still definitely confirms it. -Amarkov moo! 04:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I just found out what happened, and I'm terribly sorry (definitely learned something). Normally my passwords aren't this stupid, but keeping track of various passwords does get quite annoying, and having my WP account hacked was one of the hacks I was least expectant of. Also funny, my IP address has always been 71.something; it never was 24.anything. By the way, I have never interacted with User:BuickCenturyDriver before. 71.125.65.64 (User:AndyZ) 22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As a follow-up (after going through pages of discussion on this), I also strongly disbelieve that User:BuickCenturyDriver was involved (with all evidence being coincidences); and that my account was hacked by somebody taking advantage of my terribly weak password (same for the other ~3 hacked admin accounts). Definitely not a sock/meat/etc.puppet with BCD, as Ryan noted above I'm from NJ (see WP:NJ). I concur with most of the discussion around here, esp. those regarding weak passwords. Sorry for having caused [even if indirectly] this mess. After I get a complete hold upon this situation, I'll apply (can't think of better terminology?) for an unblock, and I'll leave my adminship position up to the decision of the community. 71.125.65.64 (User:AndyZ) 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on[edit]

Wait a second... I got blocked?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel honoured. He chose you above all others... :-). WjBscribe 03:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yep. Right after the main page was deleted. Sean William 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Something to consider[edit]

Right, I've just looked at Buicks contrib list -[10], he makes an edit after nearly a day off, 20 minutes before andy deleted the main page [11], 1 minute after the main page was deleted (and after a 20 minutre break), buick creates the main page stating where is the main page, another minute ater, Ryulong is blocked under AndyZ's name but on Buicks IP. Buick has also stated on his talk [12] that he doesn't have a weak password. I'm struggling to assume good faith. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would love to assume good faith too, but unless there is a bug in the log system, or he is sharing the ip with someone else, recreating the page and blocking with the same IP passes the duck test. -- ReyBrujo 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Right Reybrujo, the fact that he made the first edit after it was deleted is just something else to consider, the fact that the block occurred with his IP address is the hard evidence. I am thinking that is difficult to occur, unless there is a known glitch that causes some kind of false logging of actions and associated IP addresses. hombre de haha 03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm…Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, maybe a year or so ago, there was a weird quirk with Wikipedia's proxy network that allowed spoofed addresses to appear in the logs, but the real address was still available in the proxy logs. And, IIRC, the devs plugged the hole back then. It might be a good idea to ask them to check for a regression, just to rule out the possibility that Buick's Pc wasn't actually involved. --71.162.93.43 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
MARMOT got banned for spoofing addresses to impersonate other editors. I'm sure it's been fixed since then. — MichaelLinnear 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if he didn't delete the main page with it, it seems possible that Buick saw the deletion summary ("my password is password"), and took advantage of it. Seems crazy unlikely that he didn't do the block, unless there's some technical glitch. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That seems unlikely; we'd have two rogue editors, one coming back only to delete the main page, and the other only to block. The evidence is overwhelming, but I'm just curious: Did Buick ever have any disputes with Ryulong? Grandmasterka 04:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I remember hte time when an admin accidentally deleted the Main Page. It was restored, but without protection, and an anonymous user managed to hit twice before protection was reinstated. It isn't unheard of, though CU evidence > likely coincidence. hbdragon88 07:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"I'm struggling to assume good faith. " Me too. Well, user got into irc a couple of minutes after the incident, playing the "I'm not technically savvy, I onlyu know how to use a browser" attitude... and eventually he ended up assuring us he had just switched IPs using the ipconfig DOS command (I wonder how much people know it exists let alone use it properly) to get out of the "bad IP". -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 04:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You can switch IPs? ViridaeTalk 04:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
DHCP Release, then Renew. That is, drop the DHCP lease, and then ask the ISP for a new one. With most ISPs, excluding the few with static IPs, this will do it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Woudln't "ipconfig /renew" be?. Ues Crustacean, but he specifically said he used ipconfig. Moreover, when someone suggested the possibility of his computer being rooted, the technically unsavvy user said

<BuickCenturyDriv>	It's not rootes
Used a proxy-checker I have no malware Please, I promise no bad will come from me

So... talking about ipconfig, proxies, etc, doesn't really makes me think of an unsavvy user, rather a cracker wannabe playing the dumb card. By the way, did we mention that he knows how to use TOR? -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 04:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Drini summarizes it very well. A pity we lose an apparent good contributor, though, for a one-time mistake (I will assume good faith and think some cracker through TOR breaks into AndyZ's account and deletes the main page (32'), BCD discovers the fact and creates a temporary main page (33'), reads the edit summary and notices the password of AndyZ account, logs into it and blocks Ryulong (34')). -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem, as far as I'm aware, is that the two users were sharing an IP address at the time. Both pieces of evidence are circumstantial on their own, but when put together... --Deskana (AFK 47) 11:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that AndyZ no longer has admin powers, isn't an indefblock a bit harsh? hbdragon88 07:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Accounts that have been compromised are always indefinitely blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Page protection once deleted[edit]

When the Main Page was deleted today it was recreated and edited by 7 IPs and 3 registered users in the two minutes before it was protected. Am I correct in assuming that adding the Main Page to the protected titles list may prevent this from happening the next time the page gets deleted? If so, are there other pages we want to protect from recreation by non-admins should they get deleted? NoSeptember 08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That could work, but you'd need to get rid of the big "DELETE" button.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that WP:PT can only protect non-existent pages. If the page exists, it'll be equivalant to full-protect, which doesn't work if the page is deleted via "the big red shiny button", as Ryulong stated. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 08:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It was tried by several admins after the last 'problem' and the main page can't be protected with cascading protection from WP:PT. -- Nick t 08:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you can still transclude the page and protect it, which is how I believe the protected titles pages works. I'll play around with the template.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Transcluding protection? Ryulong... If that works, then anyone can salt articles... --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 08:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a "bug" that came about with cascading protection. If you transclude a non-existant title onto a page that has cascading protection, that page is protected from creation. That is how the protected titles pages work, however one needs to actualy edit a page that has had cascading protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I see how it works now... So every page that is linked to a cascading-protected enabled page has full protection? --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 09:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No. Only pages that are transcluded like templates. If {{cookie}} was on the page, Template:Cookie would be protected from creation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I deliberately designed the {{protected title}} template to only protect nonexistent pages, but this is an artificial limitation. To protect the main page against re-creation/editing by a non-sysop, we need only transclude it by placing the code {{:Main Page}} on a page with cascading protection enabled. Note, however, that anyone with malicious intent and access to a sysop account could simply remove the transclusion or delete that page when deleting the main page itself. And of course, such an individual could just as easily...well, I'll refrain from finishing that sentence (for fear of invoking WP:BEANS), but let's just say that there are worse things that this would do nothing to prevent. —David Levy 12:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That is interesting. A rogue admin is likely going for the bang per buck in rogue actions given their limited time to act. I doubt finessing an extra minute of unprotection of the Main Page has sufficient "bang" value to make that extra step worthwhile to them. So this little extra protection may just be worth doing. NoSeptember 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Especially if it's transcluded on, say, five or ten cascading-protected pages instead of just one. —Cryptic 13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Without getting into specifics, my concern is that this would encourage a rogue admin (or a hijacker of an admin's account) to do something worse than simply deleting the main page. If this were to occur, the cascading protection might actually work against us. —David Levy 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I know what you're thinking, and I agree. Cascading protecting the main page wouldn't accomplish enough to remove the risk. --Deskana (AFK 47) 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins with obvious passwords[edit]

If there are any remaining admins stupid enough to have obvious passwords, perhaps we should write a script to locate them and send a list to meta for them to be summarily desysopped on security grounds. This isn't funny. --Tony Sidaway 11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An appropriate precaution, perhaps, but I'm not sure how much it'd accomplish. I'm not convinced these accounts sit around for ages with obvious passwords and then do stupid things. I think it's likely that the passwords are being changed shortly before the rogue activities. --Deskana (AFK 47) 11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how your suggestion could be done, Tony. If we can program a script to find obvious passwords, a hacker would have done it before us and compromised the security already.... If we could do it, so can they. Unless, we actually base the script in Mediawiki software, which could be potentially hazardous if something goes wrong... --Kzrulzuall 11:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It is precisely because we know that this can be done that we should ensure that we do it first. The Mediawiki software should stop people using stupid password, that goes without saying. --Tony Sidaway 11:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly a past review did reveal several admin account with blank passwords whilst they were still allowed. --pgk 12:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, see the Wikipedia Signpost story on disabling of blank passwords. Graham87 12:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Obvious or not, all passwords are still vunerable to (censored by the Cabal) attacks. AmiDaniel suggested something similar to a captcha on bugzilla (here) to prevent attacks like that. Sean William 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh... did we just get another one? – Riana 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What the hell just happened to Jiang? He's been blocked indefinitely now for deleting the Main Page and blocking Jimbo. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, another one went batshit insane. Desysopped in 4 minutes thanks to Cyde and a steward. Sean William 14:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that there's some Star Trekesque Admin psychosis going on. Aside from the obvious guess that it's a concerted effort to compromise admin accounts, is it possible that these are all sleepers? A concerted effort to infiltrate through socked RFAs? Anchoress 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
pretty doubtful - Jiang had an 5 year old account and had over 32,000 edits (placing him 62 on the list of contributors) - straight forward account hacking I think. --Fredrick day 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Jiang reports that his hacked password was "fuckyou". NoSeptember 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to see something simple like a how-to on how to make a good password when users first start an account. I don't think we have it. And I'd suggest that all admins change their password immediately. Letters AND numbers if possible. And longer the better. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 20:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed security policy[edit]

See Wikipedia:Security.

Please edit and discuss. --Tony Sidaway 15:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Provide [some] protection to Main Page[edit]

While I'm not too familiar with CSS and all that, would it be possible to hide the "Delete" link from admins on the Main page using CSS (like we hide the Main Page heading)? While this wouldn't prevent deletion of the main page, it would at least take longer to do so and may deter those unfamilar with MediaWiki. Unless we want the Main Page to be the obvious target as its easier to notice if its gone. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Seem like all you'd have to do is enable "edit on double-click" and get to the edit page where the "delete" tab would be visible again. John Reaves (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On Robdurbar[edit]

Has the checkuserable info for Robdurbar (talk · contribs)'s last edits gone stale? Is it possible to assess whether that vandalism spree was a test run for the current rampage? AecisBrievenbus 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that it would seem unlikely, since User:Robdurbar's vandalism was a lot more damaging that that of my hacked account. If we were both hacked (assuming that Robdurbar's account was also hacked), then since mine was hacked second it would make sense that the vandalism would surpass one block and one deletion of the Main Page. Of course, I'm just starting to piece together what's happening, so don't take my word for it. APR t (User:AndyZ's semi-bot account) 00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting Checkuser on Robdurbar, by the way. If there is a link between the hijacking of Robdurbar's admin-enabled account and today's desysoppings, someone might want to look into the confirmed accounts listed in that Checkuser... AecisBrievenbus 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Like other sites, should we have one's account lock for a while after 3 incorrect attempts to log in? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The maliciously-minded could use that to lock out every administrator at once, so that's not a good idea. Don't forget that our usernames are on display every time we make an edit. -- ChrisO 08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand blocking an IP for a few hours after a number of unsuccessful attempts to login might be helpful Alex Bakharev 08:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon users vandalising Featured article and other articles[edit]

These anon users whose IP are 59.95.30.220, 59.95.17.75, 203.94.192.142, 203.94.200.55 are removing cited information even after several requests have been made not to vandalize. Please put anon lock on these articles below and block their IP's. The user with IP 203.. seems to have created an account User:Deccanwala and is continuing his personal attacks on me.

Vijayanagara
Origin of Vijayanagara Empire
Talk:Vijayanagara Empire-->personal attack
Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri
Talk:Political history of medieval Karnataka-->personal attack
Rashtrakuta Dynasty(FA)
Political history of medieval Karnataka
History of Karnataka Thank you.Dineshkannambadi 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. I intend to question the doubtful and dubious information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.33.220 (talkcontribs) 12:32, May 7, 2007

That's a lot to look through all at once. The Vijayanagara edit war seems to be over the addition of an alternate name, surely not Wikipedia:Vandalism. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir, the above user 59.95. is a banned user User:Sarvabhaum. Also, Vijayanagara is a city in Karnataka state, India. The alternate script being used is from a language not official in Karnataka. The official language and script is Kannada whose text has always existed there and is being removed by anon users.Dineshkannambadi 17:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats like using Italian language/script to write the name of a place in France.Dineshkannambadi 17:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir morever yadavas of devagiri are a maratha empire and its kannadi origin is disputed. A whole lot of section is devoted on it whereas similar claims abt Rashtrakutas are disposed off. 59.95 is shared by whole city of mine.

Disputed by whom? Can you show the diffs of disputes if at all they are there and how the disputes are resolved? If you have something legitimate to say, come up with valid references and argue over in talk page. Simply adding tags to an already well written article is not the way to go for it. There are already enough references provided for all points you've been tagging. What are you trying to prove without any citations or references? Your empty rhetoric just a disruptive behavior. Gnanapiti 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are not Sarvabhaum why dont you log in? Also being Anon, perhaps protects you from 3RR which is why you dont login.Dineshkannambadi 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I request the admins to revert the anon's edits and sprotect the page. For people who know, its very clear that this is the indef banned (sarvabhaum) trying to circumvent his block. Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir, the fact that this anon user 59.85 is the same as User:Sarvabhaum or one of his sockpuppets comes from the fact he has left a message for admin User talk:Utcursch regarding one of the above articles I have mentioned. Admin Utcursch was the one who arbitered the case of Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri for us late last year-early this year. If 59.95.. is not Sarvabhaum, how did he know which admin to approach.?Dineshkannambadi 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Utcursch had himself contacted with me. 59.95 is shared by whole of my city. The earlier users have presented the citations and i can produce it too. The citations which these kannadi editors are using are disputed. If Kannadi script is justified on Yadavas page why doesnt Marathi script in Rashtrakutas and Chalukyas?

Let me explain this for the last time. Kannada was the major language of administration along with Sanskrit in the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta rule. It was also the language of popular literature. There is no shortage of citations to this fact and have been provided. However, There is no proof if Marathi even existed at that point. There is not one shread of Marathi inscription or literature from the above period attributed to the above kings. The first Marathi inscription (which is disputed) is from 983CE. So Marathi cant be included in those articles just to please your ego. In the case of Seuna Yadavas Empire, the situation is different. Most of the Seuna inscriptions are in Kannada, their coins from an early period have Kannada legends and Kannada was a popular language of literature in the Yadava court along with Sanskrit. Marathi literature started later aroud 1190 CE. Several citations from English sources have been provided for this in the respective article. We have been through this with you repeatedly. I dont intend to explain this again.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Many people both Telugu Marathi and Tamil have made it clear that they dont find suryanath kamath's works correct or dependable, who is nothing but Karnataka govt sponsered self-congratulatery historian. feel free to use in kannadi articles not in Marathi. Rashtrakutas did have kannadi as major language but as pointed out before (i can produce the evidence again) that a branch of rashtrakutas had Maharashtri Prakrit as official language. Chalukya were of Maratha origin and even had works in marathi as pointed by C.V Vaidya. His views should be included and if no Marathi script can be allowed at chalukyas and rashtrakutas than kannadi script will not be allowed in yadavas of devagiri. Yadavas of Devagiri have nothing to do with kannadi language their ancestors might be but not they. kannadi bragging and its script will not be allowed there. Its a matter of pride of our state and history. dont kannadize each and every article u come across.

User:PCE[edit]

PCE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been an issue with professional wrestling related articles since he first appeared last year, just looking at his talk page should give an idea of how mny people have attempted to stop him as well as a block for disruption. This users only edits, apart from sporadic vandalism, is to make up false information (namely names) for wrestling moves and then add them to articles. He has received countless warnings (at least six test4's), never uses an edit summary and is impossible to deal with because he never responds to any person trying to communicate with him. –– Lid(Talk) 00:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone help me out? –– Lid(Talk) 16:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from ESPN?![edit]

I just reverted a clear case of vandalism from IP 192.234.2.80. Checking on the whois, it looks like it's coming from ESPN HQ in Bristol, CT. Can someone verify this or am I going nuts?--Ispy1981 03:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not nuts. WHOIS says that the address is registered to ESPN. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably some mail room summer intern with a computer. If you're feeling ambitious, contact their abuse address. --Auto(talk / contribs) 03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll do that. Thanks--Ispy1981 14:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to change NOR policy in this manner?[edit]

This is in reference to a dispute from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Original_research_in_talk_pages and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Proposed_Addition_to_the_Policy

Please try to ignore the pettyness (and I'm sorry for the part I've played thus far.)

I am aware that WP:NOR is a "non-negotiable" policy. However, neither that policy (nor in either of the other two articles) specifically states that it must be applied to talk pages (on the contrary, the term "article" is used frequently.) This specific application of the ban on original research is directly supported only by WP:TALK.

Still, several people still insist that this "clarification" would not be possible even with overwhelming consensus (I'm not claiming to have such consensus at this point in time) due to it being a fundemental alteration, even though no one has yet claimed an actual contradiction (other than TALK.)

I believe that this issue needs the involvement of the admins (and quite possibly involvement of the very highest levels) to clarify. CAN we decide that WP:NOR doesn't apply to talk pages, or will such a decision be inevitably vetoed?

Note that most of the controversy is surrounding one specific subtype of original research: synthesis. Did the founders of Wikipedia (and creators of the "non-negotiable" policies) intend for synthesis (i.e. most logical deductions) to be banned from the talk pages, even if it's being used to support an action (such as, for instance, a page redirect) that does NOT add unsourced material to the article itself?

I am not asking whether the admins believe such a policy shift to be wise. I am asking them whether it is possible. --Lode Runner 05:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"No original research" only applies to article space, and that's always been the case. Likewise NPOV only applies to article space as well. Anyone arguing they do is missing the point and is categorically and unequivocally wrong. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (speaking for myself and not for the Arbitration Committee as a whole)
Clarification (before some smartarse comes along and asks "So what about Portal:" - substitute 'encyclopedia space' for 'article space' above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to confirm, you are saying that NOR and NPOV do not apply to article talk pages? Interesting, because many admins have said differently on WP:NOR talk. I agree partially with Lode Runner and what (I think) you're saying here, that article talk pages should allow essentially unrestricted discussion as long as the goal is to improve the article. If so, then we need to change WP:TALK. - Merzbow 05:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
If WP:TALK says that, it should be fixed. I suspect the INTENT of adding that kind of wording was to warn people that they couldn't put unverified harmful stuff on talk pages and have it stay - talk pages are not a free-for-all character assassination zone. However, it is acceptable and always has been to work on stuff on the talk page that's not ready for 'prime time' - that may include stuff we believe to be true but haven't yet foudn a reliable source for, for instance. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Note well that that does not mean that "essentially unrestricted discussion" is permitted. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the proposed changes to the NOR policy by nature allow for unrestricted discussion on talk pages. Clearly, that's unacceptable: talk pages only exist to promote the advancement of the page they represent: whether it be by workshopping future material for inclusion, or discussing changes or gaining consensus. But that's the limit of what talk pages are intended for. Case in point: the 0.999... article (I think that's the proper page title) talk page....it's devolved into a "answer your math questions here" and "Lets argue the validity of proofs unrelated to the article". Accordingly, I MFD'd it, but such a devolution is exactly what the changes proposed by Lode Runner create. As I have mentioned before, modifying NOR necessitates modifying WP:RS,WP:TALK,WP:V,and WP:ATT. That's far too sweeping of a change. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a clarification on WP:TALK that discussion is intended to produce a result that is NPOV and NOR and should be focused on that goal? IOW, not a place to put all the stuff you'd like to include in the article if it weren't for those pesky policies.
Talk pages aren't an 'anything goes' environment - I just feel that extending NOR and NPOV to them, which was never the intention of those policies, is the wrong way, and a fundamentally broken way, to do that. It's pretending a rule applies that never has in practice, and written policy on Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what's actually done. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold, and removed the offending section from WP:TALK. Feel free to restore it, if you can provide an explanation of why that section was needed in the first place. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 07:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Partial revert, because you removed the parts that encouraged editors to adhere to WP:AGF and WP:BLP, both of which are essential in talk pages (especially the former). --Masamage 07:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Further reverted: without inclusion of something similar to that, the guideline therefore contradicts itself in the beginning : "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

The included statement "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." is vital: it allows for wiggle room, while maintaining the integrity of talk pages to do what they were DESIGNED to do. Removing that statement has the effect of removing that allowance as well, which is clearly not the intention of the guideline. SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Brent Corrigan[edit]

Hey there. I'm requesting some admin help with a revert war over on the Corrigan article. One poster is stating that, because he doesn't accept information published by the subject on the subjects personal website, the information is therefore contentious and BLP and SELFPUB guidelines don't apply. Myself and another poster have explained the points behind BLP and SELFPUB.

It gets a bit more complicated than that but, unfortunately, at this point we need an admin to come in and make some decisions.Jodyw1 06:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you like porn as much as I do (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[edit]

Resolved: Resolved then?--VectorPotentialTalk 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate username –Spebi 07:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, please use WP:AIV next time. Grandmasterka 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:UAA appears to have taken over. ViridaeTalk 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. –Spebi 07:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Another unauthorised bot[edit]

PhotoUploadsBot33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked. It had the same modus operandi as the one that was blocked earlier. It'd be best to keep a look-out for these unauthorised bots. --SunStar Net talk 11:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Methinks it was just an impersonator. Like the last one, there isn't enough evidence to prove that the impersonated user made a bot. --24.136.230.38 12:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

66.215.157.32 Personal Attacks on talk pages[edit]

Resolved

I'd like to flag what 66.215.157.32 is putting up on talk pages.

  • Talk:Coca-Cola Blāk Diff "Mostly because this is a DOT ORG American website and partially because any American who uses Eurospelling should be shot in the head and their brains splattered onto the nearest sidewalk."
  • I have since undid this edit.
  • Talk:San Gabriel Valley Diff "Removed, from the bullshit paragraph "Walmartization" the following "Due to wide spread public opposition" due to POV and it being blatantly bullshit. Please resubmit with reference."
  • Talk:Sony Ericsson W810 Diff "Unless the POV is almost entirely critical of corporations, it always sounds like that to you tards."


...and to a lesser extent...


  • Talk:Del Taco Diff "Fuck those people. Let em protest the damn protest monkeys. I still ate at Del Taco today, the shredded beef burrito. Take that! Boycott monkeys!"
  • Talk:Coca-Cola Diff "Kaylene was here!"
  • Talk:Nestea Diff "Edited Euro-spelling ie Flavor/flavour."

I haven't warned the user yet, as I haven't done this before. However, I don't agree with what they are doing and would like an admin to look into it. Thanks. Breno talk 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a warning; thanks for the "heads-up"!
Atlant 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal account[edit]

User:Death_grim is only doing vandalism using his account Special:Contributions/Death_grim. I will appreciate if someone stop him and save our time from continue reverting him. --- A. L. M. 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tom Harrison Talk 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Resolved: Not a question per se, just trolling. EVula // talk // // 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Try asking at WP:VPT. By the way, I hope you don't mind me nowikiing part of your sig... --ais523 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I clicked it before you nowiki'd it and have blocked the user as a troll. Feel free to review/change as needed. - auburnpilot talk 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That little trick deserved an immediate ban.
Atlant 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
*laugh* I'm sorry, that was REALLY funny, in a juvenile sort of way... do they not know about the confirmation screen? Support the block, of course. -- nae'blis 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hah. Awesome trick. Too bad about the intermediate page... – Riana 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

editor deleting content from talk page[edit]

Resolved: Michaelas10 17:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=129183283

I do not think this is a compromised account. However, it seems a little fishy. It this appropriate to delete comments for no given reason? Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you discussed these concerns with the editor in question? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It could have just been an accidental deletion; coming here first is overreacting. The deleted talk has already been put back into the talk page, so what's the problem? Phony Saint 16:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I had the "new comment" window open for a while, so it was likely just a technical flaw with edit conflicting. Guru, please contact me next time you have an issue with anything. Michaelas10 17:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Via strass[edit]

Resolved

Via strass has had a long history of vandalism (including being blocked for it in the past). Recently, he has added attack and threatening comments on both Sam Blanning's and my talk pages (see this and this). Calling Sam a fascist with pictures of Hitler is an attack and should not be tolerated, and neither should threatening me (even though it was a quote from Pulp Fiction). He was warned originally, but continued to revert Sam Blanning's attack, and AIV said to bring it here. Rockstar (T/C) 16:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for blatent trolling.--Isotope23 17:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Tomatoes equal YUCK[edit]

Resolved

It seems inappropriate to me, but it looks like several users are using the talk page of this banned user to chat with each other. Could I get an admin to revert it and (semi) protect the page? this includes User:My name is not fred, who is also vandalizing, and probably the same user, and User:68.166.207.20, for whom the same holds true. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked My name is not fred (talk · contribs) as a vandal only account and warned 68.166. I've added these pages to my watchlist for the time being; I don't want to semi unless it is absolutely necessary.--Isotope23 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Request block for User: Baconandeggs4[edit]

Resolved

I request a block for User: Baconandeggs4


This individual has vandalized many main pages (articles), and has vandalized many user pages, including mine, by replacing my user page (and others) with, "you suck".

Therefore, I request that this user receive a lengthy block — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricksal0224 (talkcontribs)

17:27, 8 May 2007 Chrislk02 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Baconandeggs4 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (voa) --OnoremDil 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Abusing of references[edit]

User:Tankred deleted a section from the 2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs article, under this: "A source added by a later banned user proved not to be accurate. Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002."

The incriminated section:

"Dusan Čaplovič, the vice-president of the Smer party, has called for the banning of singing the Hungarian national anthem in Catholic Churches, claiming that this is disloyal to Slovakia.[1] Even Robert Fico, current prime minister and leader of the Smer party, has made controversial statements in this regard as well.[2]"

In reality, the references, as the whole section was NOT added by User:VinceB, whom the "banned user" refers to.

It was just moved from Anti-Hungarian sentiment to this article, by infed banned User:VinceB. Into Anti-hungarian sentiment article, indef banned (for two month - LOL) User:Juro moved [13] from Slovakization article.

So in fact, this section was added into Slovakization article, as well as the refences, by User:Alphysikist [14].

The fisrt parto of deleting reason (A source added by a later banned user proved not to be accurate. Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002.) is obviously wrong then. About inaccuracy: as you see, the deleted section does not claim, what Tankred states. Section says, Caplovic was "vice-president of the Smer party". No "Caplovic was deputy minister" is written in that, nor dates, so "Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002." part of the deleting reason is an obvious misleading for the recent changes patrollers.

All in all

  • It was fully added by another user, User:Alphysikist, not a banned one.
  • The section does not claim that Caplovic was prime minister (or any similar). Nor mentioning 2002 or any date, and nor in that kind of a context, so it is, as deleting reason is an obvious misleading.
  • Tankred claimed many times before, that he's not speaking Hungarian, but here, claimes the sources are inaccurate. Well, they're not. http://www.stars21.com/ - a good page or text translator. for en-hu-en.

Please, block him, this was the 7th time, he abused references. --195.56.28.249 00:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing issue that needs to be resolved[edit]

It started here: Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)#Wii Points doesn't need to be listed, a month ago. A short-lived poll by some users solved nothing (plus Wikipedia isn't a democracy, polls don't control content in articles). A few days ago I made this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Wii Points: (to list or to not list). To sum it up (if people don't want to read all of those mass discussions): two video game systems (Xbox 360 and Wii) have download services for games. The download prices are listed on several articles. Myself and others are against listing the prices, while another group of editors are for the prices staying in the articles. I really don't think Wikipedia should be used as a price guide, as there is plenty of other sites around that are used for that. RobJ1981 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles the prices are listed on: List of PlayStation Network games, Xbox Live Arcade, Wii Points, Virtual Console and List of Virtual Console games (all 4 regions listed on that page). Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a price guide, due to prices for games being different. Prices are different for lots of things! It doesn't mean an online encyclopedia should be used for this content. RobJ1981 22:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Prices change over time, this smacks of recentism. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not with online online products like this. A song released on iTunes 2 years ago is the same price it is now. TJ Spyke 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you quote a reliable source for that assertion you've just made? Carcharoth 02:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Lose the prices and add guidance to what Wikipedia is not. Carcharoth 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would just remove the prices right now, but I know people would just revert my edits. Can an admin resolve this and determine a solution? RobJ1981 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a content dispute, so the editors involved need to sort it out. Admins only need to get involved when bad-faith editing is going on and an edit war is in progress. I've removed the prices on some of those articles and added my voice to those calling for the prices to be removed, so let's see what happens next. If discussion ensues and consensus is reached, fine. If not, well, then things will be a bit clearer. I left the Microsoft Points and Wii Points stuff alone, as though those are effectively prices as well, the articles on the credit systems are interesting. Still, quoting prices in 'points' is still recentism. Ultimately, they could all be removed as unsourced material. Ask those adding the prices to find reliable, stable references for the prices. My guess is there are none, because prices change. Carcharoth 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the "short lived poll", the poll has been open for over a MONTH and Rob was the only one who objected. The Wii Points pages are sourced (look at the references section of List of Virtual Console games (North America), it has links to Nintendo/Hudson Soft/Sega's websites on VC games, all of which have prices). I especially object to remove the Japanese VC one since the prices are really varied. The prices are a vital part of the service (same with Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network), and are just as encyclopedic as the developer or ESRB rating. Does Rob want to have the ESRB rating removed just because most are rated E? TJ Spyke 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you like me to quote some comments from that poll? Try this one on for size:

"It's handy for people like me that want the know the price before I go to the Wii Shop channel to download the game. Also because when I'm at work my internet is extremely filtered. Why is this even an issue??"

I could advertise that poll widely and then we would really see how many people would !vote to remove the points listings. Anyway, talking about the poll misses the point. ESRB ratings and the name of the developers are quite different from giving the price of a game, even if the price is in Wii Points or Microsoft Points. The price of a product (be it a retail video game, a downloadable video game, a CD, a book, an item of clothing, or whatever) is a perfect example of ephemeral information that has no place on Wikipedia. In five years time, that pricing information will be useless and misleading. And before you suggest updating the price as it changes, or that the prices in 'points' will remain constant, that also misses the point. The key question you have to answer is why prices should be listed at all in the first place? There is nothing wrong with a short sentence saying that the games were sold using a 'points' system, rather than 'real' money, but listing the individual prices is close to being a form of advertising. I would ask anyone who has an opinion on this to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not a sales catalogue or price guide. Carcharoth 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
ESRB and the other things are fine, so don't assume I just want the whole table gone, that's just rude. Prices aren't a vital part of the article: as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a price guide. TJ Spyke is the perfect example, on why this situation needs an admin to resolve it. TJ (along with most people that are for listing the prices) refuse to listen to how it violates policies, and keep bringing up a poll that was done in the past. RobJ1981 17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Which policies exactly does this violate? -- MisterHand 20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
How about "Wikipedia is not an advertising service"? Where do you draw the line between giving (with sources) a manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP), and opening Wikipedia to charges of advertising the price of a product? Carcharoth 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
1)It's not advertising and 2)That's not a policy. Rob, the Wii Points price is just as vital as the developer or ESRB ratings. Also, there is no evidence the price of games wil change since that hasn't happened with Xbox Live Arcade games of iTunes songs. TJ Spyke 04:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
(1) In what way is it not advertising?; (2) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not specifically mentions advertising several times. It doesn't specifically mention prices, but that appears to be an omission. At the time that document was written, it was probably thought to be too obvious that lists of current prices are not an encyclopedic piece of information. In my opinion, prices are acceptable as either well-sourced and discussed historical information (eg. 1920s prices of Ford Model Ts), or as notable one-off prices (eg. an expensive diamond/artwork etc.), but you are defending an indiscriminate list and giving current prices for products on sale on the open market. This, if not advertising, is perilously close. One thing I am surprised at though is the lack of response from others. Does no one else reading this noticeboard agree with my views? I realise this is not the right place to debate this, which is why I have started the disscussion here. Again, I would urge the discussion to be continued over there. Carcharoth 09:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Merely listing prices (and in this case, the prices are not even in real world currency) does not constitute advertising. As I see it, there is no policy being violated here -- it's a content dispute, pure and simple. And to quote the top of this very page: "This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process." -- MisterHand 13:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you asking him to open a Wikipedia:Request for comment? Cbrown1023 talk 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Could I really? On all the editors that voted to keep the prices in that 'poll'? :-) Seriously, if I get enough consensus at WT:NOT, that should be good enough. I don't have a particular interest in video game pages, but I don't want to see them (or any other Wikipedia pages) suddenly starting to proliferate lists of prices. And to answer MisterHand directly, "the prices are not even in real world currency" - that doesn't matter at all. They are still prices! And you pay real money to buy Wii Points and Microsoft Points. Anyway, my position on all this (a bit more nuanced now than it was a few days ago, thanks to productive discussion over there, is found here. I hope to have a draft wording up soon for people to review and comment on. Carcharoth 02:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A RFC isn't needed, once that What Wikipedia is not addition is added (which I'm thinking will). Why should Wikipedia be a price guide, when there is many sites that do that already? It doesn't matter if its game prices, movie prices, car prices or anything: it's still not suitable for an encyclopedia... period. Once it does indeed pass, TJ Spyke and everyone else can't use that poll as an excuse anymore. Keep up the good work Carcharoth. RobJ1981 05:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User Wikipediatrix and user Tilman are conspiring and actively sabotaging by deleting links that are found on Scientology related pages[edit]

The pages that so far have been sabotaged: Golden Age of Tech, Patter drill, Scientology controversy, Rundown (Scientology), Fair Game (Scientology), Study Tech, Mary Sue Hubbard, Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, Altered texts in Scientology doctrine, Scientology: A History of Man, Xenu, Disconnection. The history pages of these will fold out that which is deleted and will also tell the reason they give for removing them. For the first 4 pages listed in the above the argument has been forwarded that these discuss New World Order theories, which is an erroneous and absurd claim when one consults these pages where these external links lead to. On his talkpage user Tilman writes: "I see the words "new world order" on the page, THAT is enough to put this in a fringe corner."

On user Tilman's talkpage one can read that both user Wikipediatrix and user Tilman are conspiring to remove a variety of external links and referencing from Scientology pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tilman#Reverting_valid_links A few quotations: "These Snoeck pages should be pulled from other articles' link sections as well. wikipediatrix 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)" & "I know there's a script for this somewhere. I want to run for the "Debernification Project Force" (getting rid of links to the anonymous "Bernie" page) --Tilman 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)" (please consult the supplied link for various data about their position on this)

Noted is that both these persons are antagonistic towards Scientology and intend and are removing links that directs to information that may oppose to their personal ideas and convictions, or sites that provide for objective studies. It can be clearly seen on various of these altered pages that socalled critical 'personal' sites are left intact. See for example page Fair Game (Scientology), section 'Critical sites' is left intact. Section 'Other studies' is however deleted. On page Altered texts in Scientology doctrine we see that user Wikipediatrix left various external links to personal sites intact, why were these not deleted together with the others? The same we can see on page Xenu that lists a long list to critical 'personal' sites that is left fully intact. In particular the links and the referencing that lead to Bernie's site, and Michael Snoeck's site have ALL been systematically removed from these pages. Both these sites represent independent studies attempting to be fair and objective about matters. These are about the only sites around that attempt to view matters from various angles and give an abundance of referencing. Neither of these sites make in particular a case in favour or against the Church of Scientology. They represent studies. The argumentation from user Wikipediatrix that they are blogs is erroneous as they are studies (see definition of Blog). Both these sites (esp. the Snoeck site) provide for unique material and research not found or available anywhere else. Is this a personal vendetta of Wikipediatrix against in particular these 2 sites? Wikipediatrix is highly invalidative in particular to the Snoeck site.

The Wiki rule for these is Wikipedia:External links: "When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article."

Please can any administrator have a look into this rather serious matter! I also would propose an investigation into these 2 users as to their intent and approach, and to establish if these oppose the aims of Wikipedia. --Olberon 10:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To make it easier for the administrators would you please post the external links in question here? Anynobody 11:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Both the Bernie's as well as the Snoeck's site are fairly large. The main index of these sites are respectively found here http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/sitemap.htm & http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/INTRO.html#popup. From there you can find the various pages that have been linked to from the respective Wiki pages (all listed at top of report). --Olberon 11:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for an administrator, but these look like personal opinion sites that don't cite sources for the most part (and when they do it's not a verifiable source because it's an argument between unknown users on an internet forum. Anynobody 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am astonished by the utter ignorance of this evaluation. The Snoeck site provides for a tremendous amount of source materials and documentation. This is just absurd. Nothing happened because of my report and no one gives a damn anyway about this. I fear that Wiki most certainly has no future.
The rule seriously violated is:
"When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article."
But who cares about that? No one as it appears! The serious people around have no interest to play these silly Wiki battles with illiterate individuals. No article is ever safe!! --Olberon 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I know it can be frustrating at times, but personal sites such as the ones you've linked to aren't good sources for Wikipedia. Those links seem to fail most -- if not all -- of WP:RS. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Olberon's edit history suggests something rather the opposite from his accusations: namely, Olberon is pushing links to these sites on the pages in question, and he does not like it when other Wikipedians remove those links for the reasons already stated. --Modemac 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Olberon you probably want to know why your link is not verifiable or reliable and something like Ron the "War Hero" is. The answer is in the link, it has lots of verifiable references. The site you mentioned makes assertions, which right or wrong, are not referenced. This means we as the reader have to either take the author's word for it that the site is factual, or assume they are his opinions. Neither option works with the mentioned policy and guideline. Anynobody 00:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, the fact that that particular non-notable article has lots of references to make its POV case does not make the site a reliable intermediate source. Material may be hosted on intermediate sources and could be used for creating articles if (big IF) the intermediate is non-biased and has itself a reputation for fact-checking. So a University site may be alright but some wildly POV anti-Scientology attack site cannot be an intermediate source. We, as editors, can use that biased site to save us the trouble of locating material only to the extent that we then actually find and read the source and reference that. To do less is just lazy. --Justanother 11:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is fully ignored here what user Tilman and Wikipediatrix have been doing, their claims, their arguments, their behaviour etc.. It is also fully ignored that in fact these Scientology articles REMAIN TO LINK TO A WHOLE VARIETY OF CRITICAL 'PERSONAL' SITES!!! Instead I am attacked by user Modemac whose own opinion and track of posting in regards to Scientology is documented on his contributions and talkpage. I for sure am amongst illiterates that run a propaganda of their personal likes and dislikes.--Olberon 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Olberon just lost whatever credibility he had here -- and he did it all by himself. --Modemac 14:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Olberon you honestly haven't been ignored, you're being disagreed with. I know it's not what you wanted to hear, but accusing editors who have responded of ignoring you is not the best way to attract an administrator.
Ironically enough Justanother, I addressed your concerns about WP:NPOV elsewhere on hereYou admired the box I put it in. Anynobody 01:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lilkunta, block request[edit]

Resolved

Blocked indefinitely by Darthgriz98 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has been blocked indefinitely: resolved. Darthgriz98.

Lilkunta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) I'm requesting that an admin indefinitely block this user for repeated WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAP, WP:USER violations, as well as failure to discontinuing to use HTML mark up on talk pages (and even a request to discontinue it as well. This user's idea of dealing with such warnings is to claim that the user is vandalizing their page, stalking her, and the blanking the warnings. She has been blocked twice now for such actions, and has continued her incivility and has refused to remove her comment about the Virginia Tech massacre, and continues to use inappropriate HTML font tags. Here are some examples of warnings that she has received:

She has proven that she will not follow policies, and when warned, she becomes incivil and makes wild accusations. Please consider either an indefinite or a long term block for the repeated violations. Thank you. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. There are some trouble users that nothing short of indeffing will cure. Any good contribs Lilkunta makes are overshadowed by their inability to discuss. ~Crazytales 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed the section title to be shorter. Still awaiting input from an admin. ReviewCASCADIAHowl/Trail 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think an indef block is in order here. I saw the whole color on the talk page thing awhile ago and how reluctant the user was to even speak to other editors about it other than she should be allowed to. After reviewing the case further I have decided to block the user indefinitely to prevent further disruption. Darthgriz98 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This user has been blocked indefinitely: resolved. Darthgriz98 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Duck test used at checkusers[edit]

I think, this is one of the worst things, that can be used for proving sockpuppetry. Why? If two ppl are saying the same, then they can be banned as sockpuppets. This bans opinions, not disruptive editors !!! Sockpuppet is what a checkuser proved, that it has the same IP as an other registered user. --193.224.247.34 06:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if the checkusers were all idiots, maybe it would do that. But they aren't. When they say "duck test" they mean "it's the same pattern as his last 600 sockpuppets, just block him and don't waste our time with formalities". --tjstrf talk 06:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It is easier for Wikipedia that we do not differentiate between users who are in fact the same person or have been acting like another person. This is the definition of "meatpuppet"Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If a guy has a moustache, like Stalin, same height as Stalin, and even he's Russian, then Stalin is the one, who's editing? --193.224.247.34 06:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And if a vandal is smart enough to use only public IP addresses, then the only way to decide that some other user is his sock-puppet is using the duck test. Od Mishehu 08:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Duck test has a logical fallacy in it, called ignoratio elenchi. And it is a serious problem. --193.224.247.34 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the checkusers are not idiots. And if you are acting exactly like a guy who is banned for sockpuppetry, then you deserve to be summarily blocked anyway. --tjstrf talk 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If someone's Russian, has a moustache, was born in the 1870s, and wants to give the proletariat power, then he's Stalin.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If someone's Russian, they can't be Stalin Zocky | picture popups 07:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I've blocked the IP utilizing the duck test that if he's complaining about being subject to the duck test through checkuser, he must be someone blocked as the result of a checkuser.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh the irony. Do people seriously not think we'll be suspicious when they make what is supposedly their first real edit to AN/I? They might as well just start their posts "Hello, I am a blocked user and would like to complain about you all..." Now if he were posting at Wikipedia talk:Signatures, then maybe I'd be more inclined to believe his story about his "friend". --tjstrf talk 07:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"Oh the irony" you just proved him right, the above ip address has been blocked for the crime of editing here. PS i'm complaining about the duck test therefore i MUST be a banned user? If not what EVIDENCE do you have for blocking this annon.Hypnosadist 09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Somebody was proved right! We should semi-protect or say "New users or anons complaining about processes used to prevent sock puppetry or vandalism will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for 1 week!" in big red letters on the top of page. :P Funpika 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If the duck test works, but you're not a sockpuppet, you're a meatpuppet. Block 'em all anyway. Moreschi Talk 13:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, in my understanding, checkuser are using hard evidences to prove that a user is a sockpuppet or not. Obvious socks are (normally) not handled by WP:RFCU but by WP:ANI or WP:SUSPSOCK. -- lucasbfr talk 13:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"Block 'em all anyway" Says it all really, fine you've still banned a user for the crime of posting on here, no "hard evidences" were given just asumptions. When the anon requested unblock the second admin said they did not have enough good faith in the anon to un-block but still no evidence that this anon was a sockpuppet as claimed.
Once no evidence is needed to hand out one week long blocks just "i believe its a sockpuppet" (remember they don't know which user it is ment to be) then this is open to massive abuse. Just a warning!Hypnosadist 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the IP belongs to the banned User:VinceB. They have the same location (Budapest, Hungary), the IP has edited an article about VinceB's school[26] and this thread was created after VinceB's most recent sockpuppets User:Pannonia and User:Odbhss were blocked indef.[27] Tankred 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the evidence of his sockpuppetry Tankred.Hypnosadist 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that evidence to be a lot less solid than it looks if you scratch the surface a bit. The duck test more or less works in that case, and Moreschi's observation above may also be right (i.e., that these guys are "meatpuppets"). However, I fail to see how this justifies "block'em all": the original offender was blocked for his behaviour (policy violations), so if any new guy – even if it turns out he was asked by VinceB to come here and promote the same views – does abide by the policies, blocking them is a violation of WP:BITE rather than anything else. I think the IP is actually right about this point (even if it's Vince, which is pretty plausible even though there are hundreds of thousands of IPs in Budapest – tens of thousands at the ISP owning this particular range – and several thousand students in this particular school). KissL 10:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I wasn't commenting on this specific case - about which I know nothing - I was just making a general comment about socks, meats, ducks, and checkuser. Apologies for the confusion. Moreschi Talk 16:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
So, if I understood you well, Kissl, there are thousands of students in VinceB particular school in Budapest and one of them, just by coincidence, found WP:ANI and complained about a duck test just after another innocent Hungarian newbie was blocked. By coincidence, the style of his/her complaint was extremely similar o VinceB's style (bolding, several exclamation marks, silly historical metaphors, citing logical fallacies). I am sorry, I cannot buy it. Tankred 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm... You haven't understood me well, I'm afraid. Look what I've bolded above. KissL 15:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The duck test basically means it's so self-evident that it's not necessary to run a checkuser. From what I know of checkuser, it's not a magic button that you hit and a screen comes up saying "X is a sock of Y!", and it takes a lot of work to run one. There are a lot of obvious cases we don't need to waste a checkuser's time with, and that will let them concentrate on cases where it really is needed. As to VinceB and company specifically, Odbhss contacted me by email, and after talking to him, I see no reason to change my mind. He's a sock, a meatpuppet, or is so close in behavior to someone who ended up banned to make no difference. As for any sock cases, I've never relied solely on a checkuser saying it's a duck test, you have to examine it yourself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)



I have worked with 2-3 SSP cases to try to informally mediate. In short, I tried to gain consensus between the alleged sock and the user initiating the SSP complaint. So far, the informally mediated consensus has held up for a few weeks. While I am not commenting specifically on the editors mentioned above, I consider that some alleged sock cases may be resolved by allowing discussion instead of trying to shut up the alleged sock. If the alleged sock is shut up (blocked), this can escalate problems for wikipedia. I must add that it is possible for administrators (and has happened, though I'm too busy to gather diffs unless there is a formal arbitration complaint) to game the system by "This bans opinions, not disruptive editors !!!" as the original complainer noted. Note: this comment should not be considered support for extreme POV editing or vandalism. I've personally reverted enough vandalism.VK35 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've done quite a few sock cases, and I have never once issued a block solely due to different accounts sharing the same opinion. On a project this size, it is almost inevitable that more than one editor will share a given opinion. I'm not going to spill the beans as to how socks generally do reveal themselves, but they tend to do so far more conclusively than that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats[edit]

Resolved: User was blocked until legal threat rescinded.

For legal threats like this one do we block immediately, or allow one warning? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 19:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked until they rescind the legal threats. Thanks for the notice. ··coelacan 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This user appears to be making edits anonymously as 72.205.193.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). --Debv 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Commonsusage100 / User:JoanneB upload oddness[edit]