Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive246

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

Noticeboard archives


Socks of User:Maleabroad[edit]

Resolved: indefblocked from AIV - Alison 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can some admin please block and roll-back SpatialHarddrive (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), who is a sock of Maleabroad (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and is currently on a vandalism spree ? If someone has the time, perhaps they can also block the other 20-odd active socks of the same user listed here along with evidence, prior checkuser links etc. Do you think it would be prudent to contact the sysadmin of the university lab that this prolific sockpuppeteer operates from ? Here and here are some off-wiki links to an extremist forum where the user admits to his trolling and recruits meatpuppets. Abecedare 20:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Maleabroad (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) sock Shiftgear (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is now active and is busy removing sock notices from previously detected socks. Can some admin please block the known sock accounts of the user (evidence is available here), namely:
  • Blocked - Alison 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked - Alison 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked - Alison 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked - Alison 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked - Alison 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Abecedare 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the best approach is to take this problem directly to the university computing center where this malicious user is known to operate and contact the administrative personnel there, using existing Wikipedia procedures for such contacts. Since other preventive measures have failed, use of these external contact procedures is justified by the very extensive sock and meat puppet recruitment tied to this person. Buddhipriya 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef block of User talk:[edit]

Resolved ResolvedAnthony has reduced the block to 6 months. Will (aka Wimt) 11:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Anthony.bradbury blocked the IP address indefinitely for being a vandalism-only account. Before the IP made edits to List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy, it seemed to have made some constructive edits. Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Block_lengths recommends that IP addresses should almost never be blocked indefinitely. Also, the IP did not belong to an open proxy. Pants(T) 05:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered asking Anthony? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done so. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume it was an oversight that this was an IP. As Heimstern noted, it is good etiquette and good practice to discuss an issue with the involved administrator before 'reporting' it here. Daniel 06:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nudity vandal indef blocked[edit]

Alembic922 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been acting on his way for a couple of days now! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Urghh... He/She takes no censorship too far... --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 11:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I've put up Image:Female pubic hair.jpg (one of the images used in the edits) up for deletion on Commons. I'd also like to take this time to mention how much I hate not having a mop there, too; I'm completely spoiled here. :) EVula // talk // // 15:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I hate having to look for Commons admins to help out :) By the way, {{speedydelete}} probably gets the message across quicker (I just changed your nomination to speedy, hope you don't mind). – Riana 15:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind though that image isn't eligible for deletion according to Commons' image guidelines. As Commons is intended as an image repository, the fact that it's unused doesn't make it eligible for deletion (and there's plenty of exhibitionist self-portraits over there). Krimpet (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I've seen images like that get deleted for not coming under the scope, but maybe I didn't understand it properly. – Riana 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Riana, you've got more Commons experience than me; I'd be a damn fool to be upset. ;)
I understand that "it's unused" isn't the grandest rationale for deletion, but considering its use only in vandalism, I think that makes for a perfectly fine reason for its deletion (which is what I mentioned). EVula // talk // // 16:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
His/her edits weren't blatant vandalism though; looking at his/her contributions, they simply tried to insert it into Pubic hair, apparently unaware of the consensus on the talk page that the page shouldn't turn into an image gallery. It was reverted, they added it again two days later, and they were then blocked for vandalism, without any warning. Since they're a new editor, we should probably AGF and assume they probably don't know how consensus and talk page discussion works yet. Krimpet (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what Commons does, we can block it by adding it to MediaWiki:Bad image list, which I have now done. --BigDT 16:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do unblock if you feel it was an unwarranted block. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin review[edit]

[from discussion between Anthony.bradbury and FayssalF]

Hi there; you have given this user an indefblock as vandalism only. You have been both an editor and an admin for longer than I have, so I would not attempt to argue with you; but given that Wikipedia is not censored, I am am not certain that I can see the vandalism. The user is asking for unblock which, of course, I have not done. But I would be most grateful for an elaboration of your reasons.--Anthony.bradbury 09:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. It has nothing to do w/ censorship or otherwise i'd be blocking everyone editing nudity-related subjects. We've been having a lot of disruption cases (see Woman's talk page history where pubic hair is not the subject of the article) and image-related problems lately (please have a look at the actual and related AN/I threads). We can't tolerate that. There has to be a limit by applying WP:IAR especially in smelly sockpuppetry and WP:POINT cases. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
He sent me an email early today and it was me who told them to request a formal unblock. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked them with a caveat as they appear to be acting in good faith, if a little misguided; if so, we don't want to WP:BITE. If he/she shows any signs in the future of being a sock puppet rather than just a misguided newbie, though, break out the ban stick. Krimpet (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Month-old revert war needs to be stopped[edit]

I have been having a revert war with for around 1 and a half months and previous calls for admin assistance have been falling on deaf ears. I have made some compromises and some edits but the IP simply blanket reverts. This is our diff on Malhotra, this is our diff on Luthra. I came to Wikipedia and worked on expanding and improving articles on surnames, including Luthra. When I came to Malhotra I decided to NPOV the article, upon which the anon started reverting my edits on Malhotra and Luthra (as revenge I guess). But from the diffs you can tell who is right. I tried to initiate discussion on Talk:Malhotra, but no reply. The only time he replies is when I report it to admins, and then he picks up some diffs from March which no longer represent the state of things.

The origins of my actions on this dispute can be seen from my oldest contributions which reveal that I was editing Luthra happily and also adding tags to numerous other Punjabi surnames when I reached Malhotra with this edit. Then I began removing unsourced edits. While the anon has said in the past that my edits are revenge edits for his reverts on Luthra, it makes no sense if you look at history. Please act. dishant 07:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you wish to be done? I suggest asking the anonymous user to start commenting on the talk pages. I see you've been at it for a while, and I commiserate - I would certainly say that if the user refuses to come to the talk page, then the user could be blocked for edit warring. But until you make this appeal - it just looks like you're both edit warring, as you've both just used each other's talk pages, and there's no way for anyone to verify the material, as it's not on the talk page. The Evil Spartan 16:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The blocking of the pro-spoiler IP[edit]

after legal threats, unblock-maybe review[edit]

Can some other admins look at User talk:Nraden#Legal Threats? I'm not sure whether they're complying with WP:NLT now or not (I'm inclined to say no but I could be misinterpreting what the policy requires). Anyone who's satisfied that they are should feel free to unblock; I just wasn't comfortable doing so. ··coelacan 12:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not remotely. He explicitly threatens a named user ("I never (meant to) threaten Wikipedia or its administrators, only Deborah Vanderstadt"), he likens himself to "a peacekeeping force", and he refuses retract his earlier threat, saying "I reserve the right to take legal action against Debv". The block is good. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It was the latest "I will reluctantly agree to refrain from taking legal action against her for actions on Wikipedia as there appears to be adequate means to redress greivances" that made me think, "maybe". ··coelacan 12:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
He's saying that in the same edit where he's threatening to sue someone - there's still a clear threat of legal action, and even the (IMO limp) wording of WP:LEGAL does say "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding" (not "...while legal threats relating to wikipedia are outstanding"). So I think there continues to be a clear threat there. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. ··coelacan 13:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This was resolved quite a long time ago. Isn't there some process to note that? Neil Raden (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of murder[edit]

This whole rant is a tissue of lies, but I believe that the accusation of murder, reference to a police cell and the call for a lifelong ban are all breaches of WP policy, requiring admin intervention, please. Note also the same users previous defamatory edits made using sock puppets. Andy Mabbett 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Lewisskinner needs some education and possible support dealing with a Wikistalker, not banning. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You appear confused; I'm Andy Mabbett, not "Lewisskinner". Andy Mabbett 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes please, I would like some support in dealing with this wikistalker. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 22:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone appears confused. You linked to Lewisskinner's post and objected to it. --Masamage 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the accusation of murder here. --Haemo 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I took it, and I may be wrong, as 'killing' the participation of a wikieditor, not of outright removing the pulse of a living human. ThuranX 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
that's how it seemed tome also. DGG 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
From the cited diff. "He has already murdered another wikiuser". Andy Mabbett 11:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that as literally accusing anyone of murder, given that he specifically couched in the context of an analogy. --Haemo 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, let me identify myself as lewisskinner, using an IP here, and only here to defend myself (having been blocked, see beow). Of course, feel free to block this IP too after posting.
Secondly, why Pigsonthewing, did you not think to notify me of yet another AN/I complaint made against myself by yourself? (from the top of this page - "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting"). But congrats in finally getting what you wanted!
Thirdly, the accusations of sockpuppetry are a) false, as explained, and b) Irrelevant in this particular incident. But hey, I expect to get that thrown in my face everytime Pigsonthewing has a dispute with me!
Fourthly, to defend the comment, it was a direct quote, as cited on my talk page. Twice
Finally, why does Pigsonthewing seem so averse to coming on to my talk page and requesting retraction of my comments? I can think of only one occasion in which he's ever posted on my talk page, and that was in response to user:Adambro gallant but ultimately (and always destined to be) futile attempt at mediation at User_talk:Lewisskinner/Archive_May_2007#Regarding_User:Pigsonthewing. Why will you not sort these problems out in private Pigsonthewing? Why must you always go to admins? It only wastes their time, our time which we could be spending editing articles rather than screaming each other down and trading insults, and other user's time who have to come here having been dragged in by the insults. I'd have retracted/reworded the comment if you'd asked! 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it acceptable for a user to evade a block in this manner? Andy Mabbett 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/ That was the only edit, so I don't really think it was evasion, do you? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(info) I blocked Lewis for 48 hrs yesterday for this; the murder comment, in or out of context, was uncivil and inappropriate. If this is felt to be inappropriately harsh feel free to unblock (he's got an unblock request up now). I did not see it as an analogy; if Lewis meant it that way, he should communicate in a manner less prone to interpretation as accusations of physical violence. Neither threats nor acusations of that should ever be taken lightly. Georgewilliamherbert 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett is currently involved in another dispute on this page [1]. Is he involved in any other ones? -- Kleinzach 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply anything positive or negative about this editor, but maybe some history would be helpful.
I've seen him on this board a few times in the past, and gave my opinion once or twice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#False accusation of stalking. While looking for this post I found another archive where a search revealed a couple of other threads: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive227. Anynobody 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There are more cases here, many of which are instances of Pigsonthewing misusing the AN/I board:
Note that the above, unsigned lie was posted from the same IP-block as the above, block-evading edit. The only other edit by the user in this case was to vandalise an article I have previously edited. Andy Mabbett 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this intended to be another false accusation of sockpuppetry against me Pigsonthewing? If so, please stop, it's getting tiresome. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It can't be, since there have been no preceding false accusations; you were sock-puppeting. Andy Mabbett 09:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should check the explanation Pigsonthewing? I have since close my Wi-Fi. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I read both your "explanation" and the comments on it by the user who carried out the checkuser: "If that's the case, then, looking at the edit pattern, I find the confluence of interests and writing style remarkable and likely to break new ground in the study of coincidence. Or perhaps not" ([2]) and "On balance, my considered opinion as an experienced checkuser remains to suggest to Lewis "come off it" and to point out that Wikipedia is incredibly tolerant, but we're not actually stupid" ([3]). Andy Mabbett 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
One user's word against another is not credible evidence Pigsonthewing. It is an opinion, which I refuted, and offered an explanation against. Please this vendetta has gone too far now. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Where is the lie? How is the second part relevant? Where was the vandalism?

Lewis, it is not credible for you to expect that an IP address in a block from which you have sockpuppeted extensively in the past to come here and edit like that and for us not to conclude that it's you. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User possibly tried to put Wikipedia in trouble with MPAA[edit]

User Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log) has put a secret HD-DVD encryption key that the MPAA has been trying to erase from the web (see news article) and has also pursued legal action in order to prevent publication of the key. This is a bad faith edit, meant to put Wikipedia in legal problems. For example from the news site:

DMCA take down notices have been issued to sites like Spooky Action at a Distance and Digg.
The Digg users who published them have even had their accounts closed by mods.

This user's edit and the diff (including my news link, if possible) should be deleted and made inaccessible to protect Wikipedia from any possible legal trouble. By the way this is the same user who last week wrote the words "fuck you" in a hidden comment and edit-warred with admins who rightfully tried to remove it. Last week he got blocked for 3RR, abuse, disruptive editing and his block expired today. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that is needed, since the key is in the AACS encryption key controversy article. That is certainly worse then a hidden comment. Prodego talk 02:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok. I see, we are safe then. thanks. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted it as "silly keyspam nonsense", which indeed it is. It's pretty close to WP:POINT - Alison 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

kirbytime indef blocked[edit]

I'm done with him. I don't care whether the key is on Wikipedia or not, but he is just trolling by inserting it in his userspace as a comment. It may be acceptable fair use in the article, it's not fair use in his userspace. I've blocked Kirbytime indefinitely; I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia anymore, if he ever was. If another admin wants to undo the block, I won't scream about it, but unless there is a clear sign of an intent to turn this behavior around, I think it would be ill-advised. ··coelacan 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, good call. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
He's posted an extremely pleasant unblock request. [4]. I don't really understand this whole situation with the key itself; however, it's quite clear to me that Kirbytime posted this as an act of trolling. I will not object to this block given Kirbytime's history of disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. We have got to learn the difference between people who are here to help, and people who are not. The former, when they misbehave, get all manner of opportunities to reform, and rightly so. It is too bad we fritter away so much goodwill and energy by extending the same to the second group. Hesperian 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the block log, I endorse the block. He should have been gone a long time ago. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
And note the subsequent (not very) veiled threat to sockpuppet. I should say that Kirbytime has just given his block the strongest possible endorsement. Hesperian 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep.[5] As long as it's agreed this is a community ban, any puppets can be blocked and reverted on sight. ··coelacan 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I disgree with indef block. The code is certainly not supposed to add anything to encyclopedia but it is not vandalism either. First of all, it is his own userpage. Our contributions to our own userpages are not supposed to be of encyclopedic value in the first place. Having said that, addition of the code on that page was quite unnecessary. BUT it doesn't deserve an indef block. For just adding a hidden message to personal website. It is true that Kibri have had some blocks over "request" for some sex related pics which I don't approve but I think he has stoped that (or please prove me wrong).

I suggest for an indef block, his case should be submitted to Arbcom. --Aminz 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody WP:OWNs any pages on Wikipedia, including the userpages connected with their accounts. Userpages are not required to be encyclopedic content they way articles are, but they are to facilitate work on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Myspace, as the saying goes. And trolling on one's userpage is definitely blockable. 05:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of encyclopedic content or not; but a question of copyright infringement. It may be fair use in the article, and there are reasonable arguments that it is allowable in the article under WP:NFCC. But that explicitly does not extend to userspace. ··coelacan 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
What does fair use have to do with this? --ElKevbo 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, but Ctrl-F for "I consider it blatant trolling" below, as I believe the block stands on Kirby's intent, regardless of the exact legality. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Coelacan, I still don't see how a copyright infringment can justify indef-block. It is too harsh. Indef-blocking of a user means that the user doesn't satisfy even the lower standards expected from a user. --Aminz 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the result of an extended pattern of behavior, not just this single issue. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
agree Kirbytime obviously wansn't indef blocked for the MPAA copyright issue. He was blocked because of a whole series of problems. Neither Wikipedia, nor any decent human being, should ever tolerate pedophiles. The FBI keeps files on people who try to search pictures of child pornography... --ProtectWomen 08:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with an indefinite block as well. — MichaelLinnear 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is that we didn't block the user just for pasting the code; there were plenty of other blocks issued in the past feew weeks for causing disruption, including asking for NSFW images at articles, including Child pornography. I feel like we gave this user way too many chances. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Zscout370(edit conflict), Kirbitime was asking for addition of pictures but as far as I am aware he has stoped it for awhile (please correct me otherwise). I think it is best to be addressed through RfCs and ArbCom. On the surface, issuing an indef block for some hidden addition to a personal userpage really seems unjustified.--Aminz 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you prefer if I unblocked and reblocked indefinitely for threatening to sockpuppet? Because he's done that already now. ··coelacan 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This kind of case is a waste of time at RFC and a waste of ArbCom's time. Once a troll, always a troll. Editors that take actions like this are not welcome to continue editing here. --Spike Wilbury 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Coelacan, it is his objection to "indef-block" for adding something to personal userpage. I think we are moving too fast. --Aminz 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
MichaelLinnear, this is not a vote. Please explain your objection. ··coelacan 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It is overly harsh. — MichaelLinnear 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of discussion, as you may be able to convince another admin: if the block were reduced, when would we be free from his trolling? When would the games stop? Do you have reason to believe that he's going to improve his behavior? I don't mean to pick a fight or anything; if there's answers to these questions that I and others are overlooking, someone should put them on the table. ··coelacan 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

May I conclude that a more appropriate reason for blocking is "exhausting the community's patience"? —Kyриx 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please list User's faults. Please note that I agree that Kirbitime's instance on porn image was disruptive but did he continue this? I think he stopped it (please correct me otherwise) --Aminz 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking to me or Coelacan? —Kyриx 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
To you actually :) --Aminz 04:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I never expressed an opinion supporting or opposing the block. The above was just a conclusion drawn from observation. So I don't quite get your request. —Kyриx 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that :P I misunderstood your comment. --Aminz 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, do you really want me to make a list of his diffs? I'll have to probably split it into 3 columns to prevent the page from getting lengthy. Here's one group diff though: edit-warring with admins. You should support better users of Wikipedia. Realize that you will be helped more if you have good users working with you; at the least not anyone who edit wars with admins, requests child porn, writes the words "Fuck you" in a hidden comment, gives a link to Piss Christ and so on. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't say that kirbi satisfies the highest standards but that he doesn't fail the lowest ones. Some of these edits may not be justified but may be explained. Aside from these you don't have a good editting record either Matt. --Aminz 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with high or low standards of editing, and everything to do with incessant trolling behavior. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We all realize that indefinite doesn't mean infinite right? John Reaves (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I hoped to make that clear at the beginning of this section; if another admin honestly thinks he's going to shape up, they can reverse the block. For what it's worth, he's now saying he copied the number there through a sort of misunderstanding.[6] You'll have to read his talk page. But I think the threats of sockpuppetry speak well enough for his intent here. ··coelacan 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would consider unblocking if I could take Kirbytime's protestations of innocence seriously. But his history makes me unable to believe him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
John Reaves, i think indefinite means infinite. It means that the user fails the minimal standards. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't mean infinite. It mean an undefined period of time, i.e. it could eventually be reversed. John Reaves (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think in practice it means the same thing. --Aminz 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really. I've seen indefinite blocks overturned. —Kyриx 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Heimstern, indef block seems too harsh. Some of the previous blocks were related to asking on the talk pages for porn pictures which was bad but as far as I am aware the user has stoped that to best of my knowledge. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with indef. Too much trolling. - Merzbow 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this long due indef block. This is one of the strongest trolls I've ever seen. The longer you keep this user in, the more trouble he will create for users and admins (edit-wars with admins) and the more you'll keep wondering why he wasnt blocked before.--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You are far from an impartial party in this. — MichaelLinnear 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
For whoever says this is copyright infringement, this is not; it might be a violation of the DMCA, but you cannot copyright a 128-bit number. At best, it qualifies as a trade secret, which means that once released to the public like it is now, it is no longer controllable legally. The DMCA is the only law that applies here, most likely. "Fair use" is irrelevant, from what I know. —Dark•Shikari[T] 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The (bad) idea is that it's a circumvention tool and thus subject to the DMCA. I agree that it's daft and that fair use has nothing to do with it. --ElKevbo 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, while I will not express an opinion on the block, I would suggest that any block made should be specifically made for the user's incivility and attacks, not for posting a number which has been run in many major news sources such as Wired, Yahoo News, and so forth. —Dark•Shikari[T] 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The block should be applied because he deliberately makes edits like this to cause maximum chaos; his history is full of such behavior. - Merzbow 04:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I consider it blatant trolling, the same as if he had written expletives in his html comments (as he did last time). The intended purpose is disruption, even if the action was not a violation of US law. It's WP:POINT either way, and he's given us enough of that. I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia so much as for a "game" inside an encyclopedia; I stand by my block. Again, other admins have the prerogative of reversing the block. I will not. ··coelacan 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow, writing hidden stuff on his personal userpage doesn't harm wikipedia nor produce chaos; I assume he is blocked and he is free at home so he started playing with his userpage. The main problem is with the article not userpages (and even then hidden writings). User pages are not supposed to add anything to the wikipedia.
coelacan, I am not saying he satisfies the highest standards but that indef-block(i.e. failing the lowest standards) seems harsh to me. But that's only me. --Aminz 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this "failing the lowest standards" stuff is. An indef block represents my appraisal that the net effect of Kirbytime is more trolling than benefit, and that he's exhausted the patience of too many other editors. How many times has he been on ANI in the last month? How much time have we wasted running around this guy? I'm hoping that when this thread is archived, the answer will be "no more". ··coelacan 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the edits he made adding the key, for what it's worth. Might also be worth noting Kirbytime's reasoning for inserting it (I have my doubts - the key was inserted with ":" after each two numbers. This was done presumably to circumvent the blacklist, because I can't think of any time I've seen the key formatted like that...) Ral315 » 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's formatted like that on a couple of websites. — MichaelLinnear 04:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I have a problem with the block. My only interaction with Kirbytime was the ANI thread where he claimed to be confused about what kind of images constituted child pornography. If someone can demonstrate that he's made recent positive contributions to the encyclopedia, I'd reconsider, but this user seems like a determined, long-term troll to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am personally aware, the user had stopped that. --Aminz 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Because he was blocked for it. So he moved on to other things, like revert warring and html comment games. ··coelacan 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of "html comment games". Would you please explain it. Thanks --Aminz 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"HTML games" refer to the user putting thing in <!--hidden comments-->. John Reaves (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
One example is this edit. You can't see them just looking at the page, but they show up when you edit. Phony Saint 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This editor appears to be an unrepentant troll. I was around for his requests for child porn. While he finally gave up that effort he didn't do so quickly. I see some editors here saying he wasn't that bad but I don't see anyone pointing to positive contributions to offset his disruption. On the whole, I think Wikipedia is better off without this user's involvement. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who want to review Kirbytime's recent ANI history can see archives 240, 239, 230, 227, 221, 221. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good block. We don't have to put up with this nonsense from obvious trolls.--Jersey Devil 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
an indefinite ban is excessive for vandalizing your own talk pages imho, if he is to be blocked indefinitely it should be done by the arbcom Bleh999 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose This block doesn't make sense as the key is out in the open in the Wikipedia article on the subject and Jimbo Wales has said there is no problem with posting the key to Wikipedia. The indef block for this non-"offense" is totally improper. That said, I am unaware of his past history, just that this latest offense doesn't appear to be an actual "offense." --Abnn 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Shall I unblock and reblock for threatening sockpuppetry, instead? Would that make things clearer? ··coelacan 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
He didn't actually threaten sockpuppetry from what I read, rather he suggested being unfairly banned drives some to do so, I doubt he would admit he was going to sockpuppet and thus expose his intentions Bleh999 05:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how you can read "It's almost like you guys are asking me to sockpuppet" any other way than "I will sockpuppet". ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't comment as I don't know. In all honesty, I can't knowledgeable oppose or support a indefban based on an analysis of his overall behavior as I am not familiar enough with him and this territory. --Abnn 05:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he has been helpful in the past: I first met him and encouraged him to help us out on WP:PNT, where we needed people who could read arabic script at the time. He did handle a few cases. But I understand the sentiment behind his indef-block due to his behavior since then and I don't oppose it. Grandmasterka 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block, the editor has been warned several times. (If one considers previous blocks warnings, which I do). block log Anynobody 05:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime now threatens "revenge".[7] I don't have enough AGF kool-aid in my cupboard to continue entertaining the possibility of unblocking. Later, ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hos is that athreat of revenge? ViridaeTalk 06:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Threat or not, it crossed the line into trolling... again. I have now protected his talk page. Hesperian 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
For those that don't know, it is a quote from the Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare: [8]. --Abnn 06:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I knew it was a quote, but it doesn't appear to be a threat - the context of it says that even more. ViridaeTalk 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Kirbytime had contributed for a year without major problems - I recall him being at some times reasonable and at others contentious and not really standing out in this respect - but recently has for whatever reason gone totally rogue. I was amazed to see him resume edit warring to push a completely ridiculous image (since deleted) immediately after coming off a 24hr block for…well, edit-warring, and having only minutes earlier assured others (sort of) that he wasn't going to immediately resume edit-warring after his block expired.
Re his latest behavior, this explanation strains credulity, and who knows what we should make of this Shakespearean reference? ("And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?") Besides the vague hints of a threat, this continues his very odd line of am-I-Muslim-Jewish-or-atheist identity trolling which like too many of his recent contributions seems designed to draw others into pointless discussions.
Were this block infinite and irrevocable, I suppose I might oppose it, but indefinite is a different matter: he is and should be free to petition for an unblock at some point in the future (say, a couple months from now) if and when he's regained his senses and is prepared to admit to his missteps instead of pretending he doesn't understand why the community is pushing back. In the meantime, I counsel Kirbytime to step away from Wikipedia for a bit and not make the situation any worse by sockpuppeting; see User:DavidYork71 for a user who dealt with this situation exactly the wrong way, and a result has probably blown his chances to come back.Proabivouac 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I endorse the above statement... He's been okay in the past and we should leave the door open a crack barring further problems. Maybe one problem of his led to another and he let himself snowball out of control... Just a thought. Grandmasterka 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • My patience with Kirbytime is certainly exhausted, though my patience is pretty exhaustible these days. I would think that if he asks nicely after a month or so away form the project, to regain his perspective, we would be quite likely to let him back in, but right now he's looking like a time-sink with no obvious payback for the project. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I didn't know that too many editors are following Kirbi's edits... :D --Aminz 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
His name pops up rather too often. I have left a note on his Talk. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with the key is that the consensus over at the controversy article talk page seems to indicate that it should only be presented in the article and nowhere else (that's the primary reason it was added to the spam blacklist-- it was being spammed). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirby deserves a long break (i'd say something like 6 months) to review their behaviour and understand that wikipedia is not a game. Instead of editing the encyclopedia we end up having long discussions that we could have avoided. But indef is surely a harsh block. At least they've contributed plenty of stuff. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. We have had trolling, desruptive and pointy cases much more worse than that but people are still present in the project, probably because they changed their behaviour. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. In brief, if there is someone i totally agree w/ in this thread is Proabivouac. Excellent analysis and synthesis. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be considerable support for unblocking at some point in the future if Kirbytime doesn't sockpuppet. So, do we leave the indef on and let him ask after X months, or do we reduce the block now to X months? ··coelacan 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I prefer reducing it to 6 months. As i said above, it is too harsh compared w/ many other cases. I don't want to bring names but that is the middle ground i believe. In case of sockpuppetry it will become an indef if not a ban. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable.Proabivouac 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"too harsh" ? This user was requesting samples of child pornography for Christs sake. Kirbytime not only doesn't belong on Wikipedia- he probably belongs in jail. At the very least, he ought to be under some kind of internet equivalent to Megan's law. Too bad we don't have a way to enforce something like that.
FayssalF, you are implying that other users have done worse things than Kirby- if you can name one action worse than trolling for pictures of child porn, please tell me. I'd really like to know.--ProtectWomen 08:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I personally like following structured process when dealing w/ such issues. This is my method as an admin. It could satisfy many people as it could bother many others.
Let us be fair and avoid being emotional. We are not a real-life law enforcement body to put people on jail. We do block and ban users from Wikipedia. That is all we can do.
Let's avoid being subjective. As far as the child porno case in concerned, my memory tells me that this issue was considered closed and he got punished and blocked for 48h though it should have been at least a month or that he could have been indef blocked at that time. Since then, he hasn't brought that child porno subject again. So why are we bringing it again and again?
Now, we are talking about his general and overall behaviour. Is is a troll? Yes in many occasions he showed signs of being one. Has he made points? Yes in many occasions. Many have done the same and worse in overall. So i believe now when i say it is too harsh it certainly makes sense and therefore there's no need to bring names because i consider their cases as closed as well until further notice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, no, many have not "done the same and worse overall". Anyone who has is permanently blocked. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support for indefinite block. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose indefinite block. Kirbytime is an intelligent, productive, and generous member of the Wikipedia community. He's been badly wikistalked by an editor who repeats specious allegations of Holocaust denial, and who appears to be obsessed with Kirby's ethnicity/nationality/religion; much of what has been described as Kirby's incivility has been an understandable reaction to this stalker. Kirbytime does have a rather provocative style of talkpage interaction. I don't mean this as a euphemism for incivility; he rarely engages in personal attacks. I mean that he'll take some admirably principled position on something (that denial of history can take forms other than Holocaust denial, say, or that Wikipedia should not engage in self-censorship even when the topic is taboo), and then make his case through tireless talk-page dialectics, often peppered with reductios ad absurdum. These latter are a great gift to his enemies, who can then run to other pages and "accurately" quote Kirbytime in such a way as to willfully misrepresent him. There's something schoolboyish about Kirbytime, no doubt about it, but he's the smart-aleck and the class clown, not the bully – and he's no troll. If he's blocked indefinitely, I will miss his puckish intelligence, and the community will miss his contributions.--G-Dett 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - This user should have been gone after the child porn pictures debacle. Instead, Kirbytime was allowed to troll repeatedly with several more blocks until the final (long overdue) indef block. Kudos to coelacan for stepping up todo the right thing --ProtectWomen 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Second that. Finally, someone gets out the troll spray. I support coelacan's block - as she said earlier, the net effect of Kirbytime was more harm than good. That's justification for a block if I ever saw one. PMC 23:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly support coelacan's bold action. Guy said it best; Kirby is a timesink and his contributions here are not valuable enough to outweigh the community's time that he wastes. Indef is the way to go here. Perhaps it could be lifted in the future if Kirby demonstrates that he understands the apropriate way to behave, but I don't see any reason to just slap an arbitrary time limit on this block and hope he gets a clue in that time period.--Isotope23 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would endorse either an indefinite block (that's subject to review down the road) or a lengthy set block. Kirbytime's disruptions more than offset his positive contributions. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point I am not going to reduce the block. If Kirbytime gets it together in two months, six would be too long. At the moment he is quite adamant that he's done nothing wrong. I agree with Proabivouac, "if and when he's regained his senses and is prepared to admit to his missteps instead of pretending he doesn't understand why the community is pushing back", he can be unblocked. He currently shows no sign that this will happen within six months. I say, let him petition when he's ready. This is my opinion, though, and not intended as "I've reviewed my block and found it correct". ··coelacan 10:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If you look at some of his edits as far back as January, the indef ban is actually long overdue, and I'm disappointed this hasn't been done sooner. Support indefblock/ban.--Wizardman 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • His today's edits at his talk page (i.e. Shakespeare quote) shows no signs of improvement and therefore i support an indef block. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

But what about...[edit]

User:Matt57? This post and similar ones derive from stalking Kirbytime, and in some cases it seems Kirby trolled to see if someone (always Matt) would notice it. While I myself can 'monitor' troublesome users at times, Matt's cross the 'stalking' line because he is obviously "hunting" Kirby. Besides, Matt57 is an obvious tendentious editor (anti-Islam direction), which is detrimental to the community. I don't know all of the details as well as others may as I have relatively few dealings with this editor (and they have been unsatisfactory), but I definitely think that doing something about Matt57 is a good idea at this point. Any ideas? The Behnam 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Matt57's actions are relevant in this incident, unless Matt57 is directly inciting Kirbytime to troll. It seems to be the other way around, from what you say. Phony Saint 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I definitely think Kirbytime needed a big block awhile back during the porn images thing. I'm just suggesting where things should move next. You know, when you have two problems it is good to get rid of both of them instead of just one. The Behnam 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If Matt57 is really a problem editor, his name would be appearing here in relation to other editors and incidents, and not just with Kirbytime. — MichaelLinnear 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, Behnam, what did I do wrong? If someone asks for Child Porn, does it mean I stalked a person if I reported this to admins, or reverted their disruptive edits (for which Kirby was blocked 1 week ago)? Perhaps you think that Chris Hansen is also a potential stalker of Kirbytime. No sorry, and I do have my eye on yours edits ([9]) like we all do on everyone else's. Please keep your accusations of stalking or disruptive edits to yourself. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Matt57 had been inciting Kirby to do what he's done but that is irrelevant. We cannot prevent/punish people basing on assumptions. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Faysal, no I didnt "incite" anyone here. I'm not responsible for Kirbytime's actions of asking for Child porn, wiki linking of Piss Christ, edit warring with admins and all that stuff. Good god. No thanks, I havent done anything wrong except go after him, revert his disruptive edits, report him for trolling and all that. The admins made a mistake to let this vicious troll wreck havoc here. The big question I wonder is: How much damage do you let a troll do before he gets blocked? As for the block time, this user should be blocked for atleast 6-9 months regardless of their request to unblock. I doubt he will change though so he's likely to get blocked again, but then again, all you need is good judgement to see that this user is not here on this website for anything good. He does his work on the Reference desks to cleanse himself of the guilt or to use it as an excuse or 'proof' of his good intentions. Then he goes and interwikis to Piss Christ or edit wars with admins. This is trolling par excellence, as a user said above - pretty obvious. Its simply amazing how much time of the admins this person has wasted.--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
We just said the same thing Matt. I said it briefier than you. I haven't said you did it. "Maybe" means "suppose" in that sentence. I think you thought i was talking about assumption related to Kirby. No i was talking about the assumptions re you "inciting" him. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I find it shocking that KirbyTime is blocked. He was such a resonable editor. In anycase, was there ever an RfC filed? Is there any compilation of evidence (edits) the KirbyTime has been trolling? Has KirbyTime been allowed to respond to these arguments?

It seems to me the block has come out of nowehere. Can someone clarify this. Thanks.Bless sins 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if you read the above thread, and Kirbytime's talk page, you will find the answers to all your questions. ··coelacan 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As of now User_talk:Kirbytime is blank. Can you be more specific as to what messages on the talk you are talking about. Also, is there anything offensive KirbyTime did outside his/her talkpage? If yes, has list of those offensive acts been compiled?Bless sins 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless_SIns, read Kirby's talk page history. -- Avi 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page?[edit]

If Kirbytime is indefinitely blocked, how is it that he is still able to edit his talk page? Just curious. ---Cathal 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All blocked users can edit their talk pages. Otherwise {{unblock}} wouldn't have a point. -Wafulz 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Even to the point of creating large blocks of hidden text [[10]] which seems to contain vulgar messages intended for other editors and administrators? ---Cathal 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In cases of disruption the talk page can be locked, SqueakBox 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And he's not quite at that point yet. He's storing an old version of his user page in that hidden comment (probably because he's afraid we're going to delete his user page outright, which would be unnecessary). The old version of the user page had an expletive in it, which Kirbytime promptly removed with the next edit. Quite possibly a mistake, and in any case not a big deal. ··coelacan 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:RobertsonRooby[edit]

Resolved ResolvedUser:Kafziel blocked the user indefinitely. Pants(T) 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RobertsonRooby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a probable sockpuppet of the banned user Danny Daniel (links to long term abuse styled page). The user recreated the hoax Little Professor Oak, a hoax created by a previous suspected sockpuppet of the banned user.

The sockpuppet is still active and is continuing to create hoaxes. Pants(T) 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Request block for this user for homophobic personal attack on another user. JBAK88 (talk · contribs) has also disrupted in various ways including trolling and racism: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Was previously blocked indefinitely as JBAK (talk · contribs) and Williamdevino (talk · contribs) for death threats, and given a one-month block as User:BOV1993. "88" in username is a far-right abbreviation for "Heil Hitler" - the user (who is openly a fan of far-right causes) has been asked to deny that this is what it means, but has refused to do so. Zaian 08:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to report this user, when I saw this post. I would like to add the following diff where the user added racist term ("kaffir") to article: [17] --Deon Steyn 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

removed edit by banned user VK35 · jersyko talk 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough - it could also refer to a date of birth (but doesn't in this case). However, in JBAK's case, it quacks like a duck, and what's more, he's been offered the opportunity to dissociate himself from the far-right interpretation, and has declined to do so. This isn't only about the username though. The user's behaviour has been exceptionally bad over a long period. Zaian 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User Griot - continued disruptive edits[edit]

Reporting continued disruptive edits by User Griot. User Griot accused various editors of sockpuppetry. Griot then used sockpuppetry and vandalized these editors. User Griot declared his exit from Wikipedia after editing conflicts with Ralph Nader article. User Griot then returned to Wikipedia and began more disruptive edits. Recommend WP admins block User Griot from articles that aggravate his COI issues.

Not agreeing or denying what the IP editor said, but I also had a dispute with Griot. SWATJester Denny Crane. 13:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks SWATjester. Yep, you, me and many others. His SPP, vandalism, disruptive edting is so apparent, it burns the corneas. 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: my dispute with Griot ended amicably, and I'm not endorsing a thing the IP says. SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This editor needs to understand not to run to the administrator's noticeboard whenever somebody makes a contrary edit. Note the User: Calton discussion on this page, where also complains about Calton. Note as well Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Telogen and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen. Telegon (user is fond of complaining about other editors but rarely makes any edits. In other words, this person is a very poor member of our community. I suggest not taking his complaints seriously or wasting your time considering this complaint. Griot 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Spoiler}} tag removal, sans edit summaries[edit]

It looks as though there is a a point being made with regards {{spoiler}} tags - Anthony DiPierro is removing them in bulk, with no edit summaries to support the action (see here). I'm going to plump for a hacked account being the cause (no actual edits for a few days, then a rampage of removal - Tiswas(t) 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • And you'd almost certainly be wrong. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Which part? Or have I hit the double? - Tiswas(t) 11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit summaries would be helpful. There's been a good deal of discussion on this, some on this page and/or in the recent archives of this page. To sum it up: it's a somewhat controversial action that has some degree of consensus, and it's not vandalism or a compromised account. It would probably have been a good idea to contact the user first on their talk page and ask what's up. ··coelacan 12:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • My bad on that front - I misread the user page, thinking that the user was a sysop (and, by association, an admin). Leaping, before looking, and all that. - Tiswas(t) 14:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Several people trying to delete Wikipedia's spoiler warnings in the RfC have taken to removing spoiler warnings in bulk. Some of them according to the spoiler warning guideline, others not. It disrupts the debate and the editing. The RfC is two days old, and there's been no announcement and very little informing about the attempt to make a sweeping Wikipedia-wide change. That is not "consensus," and that is definitely not grounds to act like their side has already won. A few of them are valid removals of superflous tags, and for that I thank the removers, but the matter should be kept in the RfC - it should not be taken to the streets, as it were, where there can be very little in the way of productive outcomes but a whole lot of edit wars and bad feeling. --Kizor 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:David Gerard is now using WP:AWB to delete spoiler warnings. From the fact that he has done so over 500 times in the last few hours and the list is growing every few seconds, I infer that he's doing so indiscriminately. Apparently, he's trying to remove the spoiler tag from every single plot summary on Wikipedia. This is either an unilateral action resulting from the recently started RfC in progress, or a way to bolster his attempt to destroy spoiler tags altogether. He has not discussed his decision to do this, and there is no consensus that would allow him to do so, and his involvement in the RfC means that he has a conflict of interest with making such a sweeping change. It'd do wonders for my blood pressure if someone was to explain why he is allowed to do that. --Kizor 23:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
When a number of editors start making masses of edits of a certain kind, and the net effect is no ruffled feathers or very few, that's a pretty good empirical definition of consensus. There has been surprisingly little opposition to the edits, and those opposing them have been overwhelmed by those supporting them. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
"Overwhelmed" being the keyword here. --

User:David Gerard is currently using AWB to mass-introduce controversial changes to hundreds of articles [18] which breaks several of AWB's rules. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning for details of the controversy. --

I've restored the comments of pro-spoiler IP which I believe were unfairly deleted. As for the 'consensus', there's the TfD which gained a consensus in favour of keeping spoilers but was closed after less than a day by Tony Sidaway. Whilst the MfD (which was broadly in favour of deletion) was transcluded onto the RfC, the TfD was buried on a sub-page. This disparity doesn't seem right.--Nydas(Talk) 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed hundreds of redundant spoiler warnings and guess what, almost all of my removals have stuck. In fact, I've noticed that those who revert me are tending to score 3RR blocks (including 87.189 up there) - that is, they're hotheads. It looks like the actual Wikipedia consensus on spoilers is somewhere between "no" and "don't care". Also, I've yet to hear an actual complaint from one of the outside readers spoilers are supposedly for the benefit of - David Gerard 21:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, AutoWikiBrowser (it's a browser, not a bot, and I look at every edit before proceeding to click the "save button" by hand) is my new favouritest toy ever. I really wish it worked under Wine - David Gerard 21:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There are several complaints on the RfC page. I must also point out that it's been less than a day, and that the great majority is in low-profile articles. --Kizor 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I know the objectors on the RFC object, to the point where they get blocked for it. My point is that just about no-one else does - David Gerard 21:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Gerard has also taken the liberty of removing the part that expressly makes an exception for spoilers from Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates with no more explanation than "removing exception." I know he's quite self-confident, but to do this without discussion when the RfC is ongoing... that's simply arbitrary. --Kizor 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If it is a "Plot summary" section, then the spoiler is redundant. (H) 21:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well uh yeah. I've probably made a mistake or two, and I'm sure those will be reverted in due course - David Gerard 21:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not. Spoilers often start with the plot section because that comes very early in our common article structure, but they may or may not end there. Without spoiler tags, the reader must assume that the entire article can contain spoilers. Last Tuesday, I found a book on a library sale and checked our coverage. I found a two-line plot synopsis, the spoiler tag, a plot summary, the endspoiler tag, a nifty spoiler-free "themes" section, and external links. I was pleased with what I read and bought it, which I would not have been able to do without the tags. The LOOM article describes how the game's soundtrack is classical music from the Swan Lake ballet, after the plot section, below the endspoiler tag. Music is an important part of adventure games and without spoiler tags, a reader who's not familiar with the game (and there are plenty of reasons for such a person to be reading the article - let's say that he's interested in LucasArts adventure games, has heard that this is a fundamentally different one, and wishes to know how) may not gain the information at all. In any case, please keep further discussion of this on the RfC. --Kizor 21:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We're not an advertisement service; although it's good to get people interested in products and stories, it's not our priority. — Deckiller 22:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tags should be used for relatively new things, not stuff like LOOM. (H) 21:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
This is very much not indisputed, and this is being discussed in the RfC. Please do not assume that your side is right and that what you think is policy. --Kizor 21:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that objection on the RFC is not objection from the wiki in general - David Gerard 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That sentence made no sense to me. --Kizor 21:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. (H) 21:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Objection from the wiki community in general, I mean - David Gerard 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way - have we ever had an actual documented complaint about a lack of spoilers? - David Gerard 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Humph. I only wish that every plot summary section included the discalimer "Warning: this plot summary may not be accurate, and is not intended as a substitute for actually experiencing the original movie, book, or play. Important details may be omitted or unimportant ones given undue emphasis." That way it solves a number of problems: (1) when a plot summary of a murder mystery states that the butler did it, the reader can fairly assume that there might be a mistake there -- & still be surprised if indeed the butler was the murderer; (2) it reinforces our warning that there are mistakes in Wikipedia, & (3) Wikipedia is not a substitute for doing your own homework. -- llywrch 22:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Every page includes that disclaimer - David Gerard 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review close of RFC[edit]

I have already discussed this with the closing admin on his talk page. He proposed I take my concerns here. I am not sure closing the RFC I filed on MONGO at this time is a good idea. I agree with Guy's motives for bringing the discussion to a close, and some headway was being made at a summary. But he has let the last word (on the discussion page) be MONGO's accusation that the whole RFC was "petty, vindictive and incivil". The summary says that "the complaint has no legs to stand on" "as complaints go this one has no legs", which seems to give MONGO's characterization tacit assent. It should be noted that neither MONGO nor I (who filed the RFC) have endorsed the motion to close. I am not comfortable closing an RFC with two editors (MONGO and I) this far apart and without moving the process further. If someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion could review the decision to close, I'd be grateful.--Thomas Basboll 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My contract requires it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The close of the debate as I saw it was that MONGO, while continuing to resist the POV-pushers and conspiracy theorists, should be a little less abrupt while doing so. MONGO seemed to accept that, or at least undertake to give it serious thought. In as much as that was pretty much the stated aim of the RfC, I fail to see what Thomas is complaining about. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If the stated aim of the RFC was attained, why did your summary characterize my complaint as having "no legs"?--Thomas Basboll 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody needs to tell Thomas "enough already." Aside from the RfC, see his arbcom filing agains MONGO -- declined, with one arbitrator going so far as to call it "frivolous."[19] Mr. Basboll's dogged pursuit of MONGO no longer serves any purpose and is becoming (has already become) disruptive to the project. Raymond Arritt 14:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I can see why Thomas is concerned. Whatever the merits of the close (it probably did need to be closed), closing with the comment "MONGO should please refrain from being overtly rude to vandals, POV-pushers and trolls, however richly they may deserve it", and it being closed by an admin who endorsed a view on the RfC which said (in part) "we should give [MONGO] a medal, a cigar, and our undying thanks", may be less than ideal from the point of view of neutrality.--Guinnog 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep it closed. Frivolous and pointless pursuit and harassment of other editors should not be encouraged or rewarded. --Tbeatty 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they will keep at this as long as anyone will reply to them. Let them have the last word and move on. Tom Harrison Talk 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hum...well...I've opened the MONGO complaint board which can be linked from my user page or simply by following this link.--MONGO 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Give MONGO cigar! Bishzilla | ROARR!! 19:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC).


User: has posted extremely libelous statements at Shane Ruttle Martinez. Can somebody take action against the IP and also oversight the offending edits?Frank Pais 02:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't see a need for oversight. It was a BLP concern, to be sure (claim that subject was arrested for assault), with no real source, other than and the name of a TV episode, neither of which specifically refer to what part of the sourcing contains the actual reference. It's reverted, it needs to stay out, etc. SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is more than this than first meets the eye. The IP failed to source edits. However, Frank Pais has previously reverted a valid reference to the Toronto Sun, specifically about the arrest. I'm going to reinsert THAT edit, and leave the IP's edit out. SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This was the source: " ^ Jonathan Jenkins. "Eatery 'stormed;' Diners terrorized as Zundel fans and anti-racists clash", The Toronto Sun, September 15, 2004, p. 36"...surely that meets BLP. SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the Toronto Sun is a tabloid and should not be considered a reliable source. Secondly, simply having been arrested isn't enough to be included in the article of a living person. There should also be a conviction, and there is no proof of that whatsoever. My understanding is that the charges were dropped. Thirdly, the video isn't published by a reliable source, but is made by a neo-Nazi outfit and therefore shouldn't be included. It also looks to be libelous from the way it is described by the neo-Nazis. Therefore, Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting / linking / referring to it. Lastly, I've seen various videos online of the day in question, and they identify the person in the picture on the DVD box as being "Jose", not Shane Ruttle Martinez. So, I don't think your action was justifiable.

Frank Pais 14:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when is being arrested "not enough" to be included in the article? If someone is arrested, and it can be sourced, then it goes in. It doesn't matter whether there was a conviction or not. As I said on my talk page, if you have a problem with the video, sue them, we're not responsible for their content. Wikpedia is not censored. And all that Jose stuff is original research. It appears you have some very strong POV regarding Shane Ruttle Martinez. Let's not push it with allegations of "libel". It appears to me that you are removing everything that you dislike about him, even sourced stuff. Your removal of the IP address edits was correct: they were unsourced and negative. Your removal of the registered editor's edits were not, they were sourced. SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP. "Private figures"

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Primary source material from the subject himself may be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. – Jimbo Wales"

First of all, the video is a third party, primary source. Therefore reference to it should not be included, unless it has "first been published by a reliable secondary source." That means the DVD reference is out.

Secondly, you are violating Wikipedia's privacy policy with your speculation about my identity, which was implied by your suggestion that I sue over the DVD. As for the arrest, including a reference to it without a reference to the outcome of the case is prejudicial and possibly defamatory since it suggests the subject broke the law. Since there is no source I can find regarding the outcome of the charge against Ruttle Martinez, no reference should be made to it at all.

Lastly, the only source for the arrest is a tabloid newspaper, and the above quote from Jimbo Wales does not partake of tabloid journalism. If you can find a credible newspaper or other news source that references Ruttle Martinez's arrest, then (and only then) could you even consider including it. But, since that doesn't exist, and since there is no reference anywhere to the outcome of the case against him, then it is clearly a dead letter. Remember, "do no harm", that's what Jimbo says.

Frank Pais 20:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry when did I comment on your identity? SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Swatjester here. "if you have a problem with the video, sue them" is a bit of a far stretch to "speculation about my identity" in my view. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Starcraft 2[edit]

Just announced by blizzard. Article was immediately hit by an organized vandalism attack. It bears ALL the hallmarks of being a 4chan or 7chan /b/tard raid: apparently organized, rapid fire, timed, edits of things like "kekekekek" and "~desu" etc. Many of these accounts are vandalism-only, so don't forget to do a history check on them. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am fed up w/ Pokémon circus. This is only one of the 493 fictional species and i've got no idea what's going on in there. So don't count on me. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Throwing up the possible sources here won't help anything. Anti-trolling rule #1: do not feed. Watchlisted, in any case. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Starcraft II is the sequel to Starcraft one of the best selling games of all time. Unfortunately, it's one of the most fanboy obsessed games of all time too. This page is being edited at the rate of multiple edits per minute, sustained at this point. This bears watching even if you have no idea, solely to stop blankers, and simple vandalizers. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Any possible explanation why Starcraft is relatively more stable than the other? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It's been out for well over 10 years? SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Something strange for you to consider[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cocoabot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/cocoabot. Hmm, I'm not really sure what's going on here. MER-C 10:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Cocoaguy was planning to create a bot named Cocoabot and someone beat him to it. Question is why didn't he say "I tried to register this account name but it's used now"? ··coelacan 10:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well the account was created on May 18 according to the checkuser, and Cocoaguy hasn't edited since the day before that, so that may explain why he didn't say that. I think the more important issue here is that Salad Days (talk · contribs) said "I don't think this person has a clue" on the request for bot approval and then, according to the checkuser, proceeded to create the account and use it to vandalise. Will (aka Wimt) 11:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There should be a requirement in the bot approval that the bot account must be created before it receives approval. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 11:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I've asked Salad Days for an explanation. Daniel 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Per this response to Daniel, blocking the account would seem the best course of action. I have blocked the account; a review would be appreciated. Sean William 14:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The block is appropriate, the user has explicitly stated that they purposefully disrupted the project to make some sort of point. - CHAIRBOY () 14:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the indef-block of Salad Days a bit over the top? It was stupid of him to use the other account to vandalize, but he's a regular contributor who's done a lot of useful work (e.g. on the WP:DEAD project) and to immediately indefinitely block for a first offense seems a bit unfair. Any thoughts? Cheers, Jayden54 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It was a pre-meditated usurpation of identity combined with deliberate vandalism to get an account blocked to spite a user he disagreed with. This shows the worst qualities in a wikipedia editor and identifies the user as a threat to the integrity of the project. The block is appropriate. - CHAIRBOY () 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, keep the block indefinite. We should not let anyone, not even a normally good editor, disrupt Wikipedia like Salad Days did. Funpika 18:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional consideration for the folks who have doubts about the motives of this editor, see this edit. - CHAIRBOY () 18:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel as though it would be appropriate to summarize everything from my POV here. I first heard about this bot from the BRFA tracker, before it was approved. I didn't review the request at the time. The next time I heard about it was from Nichalp, who was unable to flag the account. From there, the approval was revoked pending registration and identity confirmation. In hindsight, I should have registered the account and emailed the password, but I didn't feel it necessary. Anyway, the operator hasn't edited since then, and I can't email him - it is deactivated. Note that the BRFA page states as the first thing to do: Creating a user account and user page for the bot describing its functions. Once the user returns, we can either change the bot name or request usurpation. In the interim, any community members are welcome to leave comments as to the bot's operation and approval on the request page. --ST47Talk 00:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indef block, as I noted on Salad's talk page. Daniel 01:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3 wheel war[edit]

Thanks to the ridiculous wheel war that's been going on over the last hour or two, I've instituted full protection on this page. I am not going to take any more admin actions in the matter, but I want to say here and now that any more reversions of this page by admins: any more wheel warring at ALL should be met with blocking. Enough. I know I voted in the debate, and I may have protected the "wrong version" - personally, I'm quite well on the record as saying I would like to see a full debate and for process not to be ignored, but I ended up protecting the debate in a closed state because that's where it was when I got there. (And yes, I did have a plan in mind if it was in a non-closed state, but it's kind of irrelevant now.) Mangojuicetalk 16:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Realizing it is not a vote, the tally is 13 editors arguing to keep the article and 8 wanting it deleted, so why is the result Delete? Edison 16:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
A DRV just closed as restore article, what's going on here? Nardman1 16:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether for right or wrong, I've sent it back to DRV. I propose that any discussion at ANI be limited to the propriety of wheel warring. Discussions of the article itself should go to DRV. Nardman1 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if the very first AfD ran its full course we won't have to go through all this. This is where process is important because we don't want nor need to create a hellhole. —Kyриx 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The first AfD ran it's full close and was closed as a delete - this was reverted against consensus. Nick 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The first AfD did run its full course. It ran 8 days I believe. The problem has been the constant running to DRV by people unhappy with the result. WjBscribe 16:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If DRV sends something back to AfD, you let the new nomination run course. Not close 45 minutes into it, not 12 hours later, not wheelwar with multiple other admins undoing each other's closures. Consensus is just that, you let people comment THEN you decide. Nardman1 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I just closed the DRV as "wait", while being edit-conflicted with the nominator's withdrawal. Sean William 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor point: if it's a true wheel war, how can full protection stop it? -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It gets worse when somebody unprotects it. That's how it works. Woohoo! Sean William 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It is symbolic, I guess, functioning much like a stop sign. You can run through a stop sign, but only at your own risk. —Kyриx 16:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What's a wheel war? Adam Cuerden talk 16:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WHEEL. It's a repeated reversion of administrative actions. It's a Very Bad Thing. Sean William 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. The first AfD was valid, and everyone agrees with its validity (not the decision, just the validity). Then is it safe to say that the thing that caused all of this is the closure of the first DRV? —Kyриx 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To some. I think the problem started with the speedy closing of the second AfD - if the AfD that was the result of the consensus decision to overturn ran its course, the second DRV would have never been opened, etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
True. —Kyриx 17:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no concept of consensus on Deletion Review. It's a straight vote. This may be part of the problem. Reviews are sometimes robotically closed without any attempt to examine arguments. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
That's an issue i've been trying to change. Not surprisingly, many don't see a problem with the vote counting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to agree, this has become a problem, with the behavior and attitudes of several people being questionable. It doesn't seem there's any interest in developing consensus, or persuading others to their position. Instead, it seems to me that the way things are being handled is more a case of folks throwing their weight around. Now while rules for the sake of rules are against the spirit of Wikipedia, so is unilateral action that is simply imposing on others in an arbitrary fashion. This situation has become quite escalated for what seems to me to be a minor situation. FrozenPurpleCube 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been watching this for a while but am otherwise basically uninvolved. What I see are a few things:
  1. There is no way this stupid argument will end unless the third AFD is run full course. It doesn't matter what people say in it, what matters is that process occurs. Then people will be able to stop edit warring over this.
  2. A few people who believe it should be deleted are worried that the third AFD might close as a keep. I can understand this, from their perspective: maybe if the first arguments from the other AFDs/DRVs are not restated, or if the AFD goes on too long, it might be kept. What's bad is that some of these people, as a response, are trying to stop process to avoid the possibility of it being kept.
  3. People are fighting not over the article, but over principles, at this point. Those who want it kept see rampant abuse of admin powers in constant closing of debates with relatively iffy reasoning. Those who want it deleted see an article that is not encyclopedic and an embarrassment, and think the debate has gone long enough and that in order to make sure it is rightfully deleted, the debate should end sooner rather than later.
What needs to happen, I think, is that the process has to be seen through so that people can stop this stupid wheel/edit warring. —Dark•Shikari[T] 22:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
THats what I was trying to do by opening the third afd, it struck me that the only way to resolve that situation at that point was to have an afd that ran full term (and the DRV definitely led to that). It was all going rather well untill that one was speedy closed and deleted too. ViridaeTalk 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Waleed Shaalan[edit]

Our article on Waleed Shaalan, one of those killed in the Virginia Tech massacre, was deleted last month per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Shaalan, and is now (quite reasonably) a redir to a summary article that briefly discusses all the victims. Today new contributor Headsdraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)