Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive313

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

RFC on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits‎[edit]

There has been substantial disruptive editing at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits‎/latest. Although the page says in bold that editors may remove themselves from the list and should not be reverted, certain editors are in fact reverting on the grounds that editors don't own their contributions and have no right to ask to left off the ranked list, and that a ranked list is useless unless everyone is listed. I have filed an RFC requesting community input on whether on editors should be allowed to remove their names from the list. Thatcher131 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "just protect it" on whatever the consensus ends up being, but most of the people with sand up their cracks about this are admins who will ignore any RFC that ends in a result they disagree with. Neil  16:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a rather unfortunate view of your colleagues. There are a lot of things I might do if consensus is against my own view, but I filed the RFC precisely to determine what that was so I would know what my options were consistent with policy and consensus. Thatcher131 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"Sand up their cracks" was rude, but the point stands - I don't forsee the RFC coming to any kind of equitable conclusion. I think the only way would be to host the page externally, perhaps on the toolserver or elsewhere. Neil  17:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This self-referential cruft sends all the wrong messages, and should be deleted, anyhow.Proabivouac 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I trust you have expressed your opinion at the MFD on the page? Neil  17:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism In Ezhava article[edit]

Resolved

It has been noted that there is constant vandalism of Ezhava article By User:Vivin and User:B Nambiar.The User:B Nambiar has been blocked for the violation of 3RR. User:Vivin have been removing sourced content from the article. [User:Nishkid64] have put protected tag to the version which has removed many content by the User:Vivin. please find the same here [1] and [2]. You can find the User has removed many content and [User:Nishkid64] have put protected tag to that version. i have laced editprotected tag. please revert back to the version [3] of User:Merope.Vvmundakkal 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss these edits on the article's talk page. The article is locked until people discuss changes and reach consensus. You might also want to read m:The Wrong Version. -- Merope 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks[edit]

This page has been a problem for a long time. There was some edit warring in which I was a participant (sorry D:), and the page was protected a bit more than a week ago.

During this time there was some pretty "good" discussion on the talk page as far as good discussion goes on policy development. Basically what happened next was that User:MONGO and some others showed at at Will Beback's well-intentioned RFC on the page and basically drive-by "voted", after which the above edit warring ensued and the page was protected. Not any of our proudest moments but also nothing to get upset over.

So while the page is protected there is some discussion on the talk page again, except that now MONGO was particpating briefly, and it really seemed to me like the talk about the policy was interrupted by venomous remarks by MONGO followed by outrage by myself and some others. MONGO's wild accusations and refusal to discuss the policy rather than the personal affiliations of his dissenters got to be pretty problematic but MONGO eventually left the talk page so I didn't pursue any action. But now the page was (briefly) unprotected and MONGO immediately shows up, edit wars (which was again not one-sided, but I forget who was reverting him) and the talk page has once again turned into MONGO and now User:Crockspot slinging mud at anyone who disagrees with them and making completely uncalled for insults pockmarked by all this crap about those disagreeing with them having an "anti-MONGO agenda"

I think the basic problem is the refusal of some parties to even entertain the possibility of those they disagree with acting in good faith, which is not only a barrier but an outright detractment (imagine someone shouting in your face "I'M IGNORING YOU AND YOUR OPINIONS DON'T COUNT BECAUSE YOU ARE A SCUMBAG" while you're working on something collaborative). Something really needs to be done about this disruptive behavior. There have been multiple attempts by myself and others on that page to get the conversation on track and away from personal remarks that have fallen through. If editors are only willing to use talk pages to take potshots at other editors while revert warring then they don't need to be editing those pages. There needs to be some sort of intervention here, be it a topic ban or community-enforced mediation or whatever, or this is going to end up in front of arbcom and that will be ugly for everyone, arbitrators included. Milto LOL pia 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

a bit Off Topic - Without any comment on individuals can I just say that discussion of personal attacks and lack of good faith on the "no personal attacks" policy/guideline page is quite ironic, and makes me sad for en.wikipedia's long term health. --Rocksanddirt 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There was actually some enjoyable disagreement on there for a while. Will Beback for example has certainly been ideal about his disagreement, in fact most of the people on there are, but the current state is largely the result of just a couple of editors. Milto LOL pia 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see an improved level of civility on the page. I certainly agree that personal attacks on no personal attacks is a bit sadly ironic. I don't find the comments blockable or anything like that, but we can aspire to a higher standard than that. Newyorkbrad 23:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I think the failure to see good faith is evident on both "sides" of the dispute. As long as the big-endians are calling the little-endians trolls and harassers, and as long as the little-endians are calling the big-endians fascist censors who wish to knuckle others under their personal "taboos"... we're a long way from understanding. It's pretty clear to me that reasonable people can, in good faith, disagree about the content in question, and a failure to see that seems to be the cause of most of the drama we're experiencing.

If one supports a policy, that does not mean that one supports carrying it to a pernicious extreme, and if one opposes a policy, that does not necessarily mean that one opposes it for the most malicious of possible reasons. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

However, while no one has actually called anyone "fascist" (according to Ctrl+F anyway) on that page, "troll" and "harasser" are by no means exaggerations of what some of us are being called on there. I'm thinking community enforced mediation is the way to go, but I'll have to read up on what it actually is. Milto LOL pia 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to allow that either side has any kind of moral high ground. There are people saying things about MONGO just as ridiculous as the things he said about others. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Per my post yesterday at WP:AN#Anyone_got_15_minutes_spare_for_WP:NPA.3F I believe we need neutral eyes and ears here as soon as possible. Specifically to determine whether 'that' section has consensus / which version etc. I'd strongly urge all involved editors not to edit the page, but to discuss. If you're reading this, why not spend 5 minutes taking a look, and make a comment? A quick testing of consensus will go a long way. Privatemusings 23:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's not really the point. That discussion should be able to be worked out on the page but it cannot do to extensive personally-oriented hostility. I doubt the page will get anywhere until that stops. Milto LOL pia 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I fully support your point, and also GTB's below; Privatemusings 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I add my voice to Privatemusings' plea. Fresh perspectives would probably be very helpful. We're feeling a bit embattled over there, and would be grateful for outside views. Replying to Miltopia's point, bringing more people to the discussion could dilute the vitriol, and provide outside views on precisely the personality-oriented hostility you mention. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just some advice that, in my experience, it's best to completely ignore editors who consistently use tactics such as casting aspersions on or misrepresenting other editors' motives and actions (i.e. mild personal attacks and poisoning the well), dissembly, and outrageous claims. Those editors who are having a civil discourse on that policy talk page should completely ignore comments by those editors who are trying to disrupt the debate for their own purposes. Act like the comments left by those editors aren't even there, even if the comments are directed squarely at you. Some of you may be aware that this is a behavioral correction technique that is sometimes used with small children. It may be the appropriate response for this situation. Cla68 06:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, it's worked before in the past, but what's a person to do when the insulter is also edit warring over the project page? I can't in good conscience just ignore them then, I'd be no better. Milto LOL pia 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As long as the text under discussion has the "in dispute" tag on it, let them edit it to their heart's content, because once you and the other reasonable editors on both sides of the issue reach agreement you'll be able to change it to what you agree to anyway. Cla68 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

DRAMA!--MONGO 09:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Where Do I Begin?[edit]

If printed out, WT:NPA would run to about 65 single-spaced pages of 12-point type (34,000 words, 198 kB). That's a bit much for someone to casually wade into from the beginning. Can one of the participants suggest an appropriate point of entry? Raymond Arritt 00:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Section 16, perhaps? That was close to the last time protection was (briefly) lifted, I believe. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If you've only got a couple of minutes, just have a look at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links, and then the last couple of sections (perhaps one screen page's worth) of the talk page before commenting. Thanks Privatemusings 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:COI/N[edit]

The problem is, and has been for a while, certain editors with a WP:Conflict of interest in the outcome of this policy's wording attempting to force their own version of the policy. But, quite possibly, the way they've reworded this makes pointing that out a personal attack, so I guess I can't name any names and will just shut up now. Anyone braver than me can feel free to extend my remarks. -- 146.115.58.152 01:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find many takers on your invitation. Unless editors have some good outside sources to back up their allegations (such as happened in the Essjay controversy), most aren't willing to take the proven risk of their allegations being used against them later in Wikipedia administrative forums. For example, look what happened with Cyde in the recent attack sites arbitration case. Some arbitrators tried to sanction Cyde for discovering and revealing that one of our administrators had engaged in unethical behavior a couple of years ago. Cla68 06:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The IP has a good point, but I agree with Cla68. --Rocksanddirt 16:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you understand my point Cla68. Editors who believe they are being personally attacked in external links have a natural conflict of interest in our "no personal attack" policy regarding external links, regardless of the veracity of the information in such links. Anyway, the editor war continues. -- 146.115.58.152 01:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer[edit]

Almost every good faith edit I attempt to make on any radio station article or template in the Mid-Atlantic region is reverted as "vandalism." His refusal to follow the naming conventions of WP:WPRS in templates (radio stations should be referred to by their proper call signs at all times, not any bastardizations of them) was the final straw that lead me to formally leave said Wikiproject.

I recently reported him ([4]) for violations of WP:CIVIL. For the better part of the last 24 hours, he has been accusing me of making improper moves to radio station articles in his region, despite the fact that I did not do so, nor can he present any log or difs proving as such (see edits to my talk page over the last 24 hours).

But, most of all, I'm fed up with his constant personal attacks on me ([5]), his accusations of vandalism ([6]), his accusations of sockpuppetry ([7]), his attempts to run me off from any radio station-related articles ([8]), his pronounced joy when I formally quit WP:WPRS ([9]), etc.

Short of completely avoiding EVERY radio station article and/or completely leaving Wikipedia, is there anything that can be done? I don't necessarily even wish a ban on User:Neutralhomer, as when he is editing content, he is a valuable asset to the WP:WPRS project. But, as he's spent the better part of the last day debating me over minutiae or falsely accusing me/attacking me, I don't know what to do. I thank you for whatever assistance you may provide. JPG-GR 06:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Attacking, no...falsely accusing, no. I would show proof of the above users improper moves, but when I requested it moved back, the history that went with that page was wiped. Not an admin, so I can't show someone something I can't see myself. As for the "accusations of vandalism" is just as guilty there putting about 5 warnings on my talk page in the past 48 hours. Also, I never attempted to "run someone off" anything. I don't have that power. The above user made a big show, quit WP:WPRS but comes back when I edit a page and reverts. I have no ill-will toward the above user, it just seems when I make an edit or talk about something on the WPRS board, the above user is there in a heartbeat and a half....I won't even say what that sounds like.
BTW, User:Alexbrewer and I did apologize to each other about these edits.
Again, though, I have no ill-will toward JPG, I have no "profound hatred" toward him (though he claims I do). I just wish talking to him was like talking to a wall sometimes and he wouldn't pop up every three seconds everytime I made an edit. Little strange. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As I invited you earlier in the day to ask an admin to, I invite an admin to go looking for these "phantom" moves you claim exist -- they'll quickly find that they don't. Every warning message on your talk page (which you immediately delete, any time any user inserts one) was completely reasonable based on your edits of the time. Finally, as I have stated numerous times today, just because a member is not a member of WP:WPRS doesn't mean they can't edit radio articles. I also love how you deny attacking me, yet proceed (in the same comment) to refer to me as a brick wall. This is truly mind-boggling. JPG-GR 06:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Dude, you are like talking to a brick wall. Just look at the conversation about the NavBoxes on the WP:WPRS talk page. I have to repeat something 3(!) times and I am still not sure if you got it. That's like talking to a brick wall.
Also, as anyone will tell you, "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history." So, I should archive them, but I don't have to. Also, it is my talk page, I can delete things if I wish, same as anyone else. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you are defending your talk page use rather than your false accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry, as well as repeated personal attacks (as again noted in your comment). JPG-GR 07:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(so many effing edit conflicts today)Actually you can show page moves after they have been reverted - go to the history, click the little link at the top saying "view the logs for this page". ViridaeTalk 06:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Which I pointed out to him earlier ([10]) - JPG-GR 07:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't help it when the history has been wiped for a merge/move. It's there, now it's gone. Let me get out the time machine. - NeutralHomer T:C 07:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, any one notice the the 7 edits that JPG-RG has made since 2:28a EST were about this topic? He waited some 20mins until I replied so he could? I think that is pretty close to WikiStalking. - NeutralHomer T:C 07:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
For the love of Christ, he's not wikistalking you by participating in a conversation you're also participating in, no matter how quickly the edits happen. For all you know, he's doing something else on the internet (it's a big internet, after all), while he waits for responses in this conversation. And, as you have already been informed, page moves do not disappear from the history - they are available in the page log, which is visible to everyone. Please stop saying the history has been wiped, as you now know that's not true. Natalie 12:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Natalie, when I look at the logs not, it shows just one edit by the admin that merged by the pages (after a request on WP:RM). I can tell you what was there, but can't see it now, but that one (and only one) edit. I can't tell you something is there now, that isn't. - NeutralHomer T:C 13:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The page logs weren't wiped. There was no move. That's what I've been saying, that's what User:Natalie Erin has just confirmed. Why must you continue to assume bad faith? JPG-GR 17:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have warned User:Neutralhomer on his talk page with {{uw-npa2}} due to his repeated name-calling as well as his continued allegations of vandalism/bad-faith page moves. JPG-GR 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to be warned about your continued abuse of the warning templates. Also, go back and read my statement above and my statement on Natalie's talk page....you will see your answer about the page moves. - NeutralHomer T:C 18:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You continue to accuse me of actions that I did not take, and provide absolutely no evidence. I continue to point out your violations of policy, and provide evidence. Yet, you still paint me as the bad guy because your view of the facts disagrees with mine. Unbelievable. Moreover, despite the fact that I have given you permission to have an admin look at the logs to prove my innocence, you refuse to do so. Personally, I'm convinced that you will refused to look at any evidence presented on my behalf, because it won't mesh with your view of the world. JPG-GR 18:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, the "warning of User:Neutralhomer" != "abuse of warning templates," even if you opt to claim so in this edit summary. JPG-GR 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent.) Calm down. My observation here is that neither of you is interested in escalating this issue. However, it appears that you are talking past each other.
Neutralhomer, could you please tell me what you need here, without casting any aspersions?
JPG-GR, could you please tell me what you need here, without casting any aspersions?
Hopefully, we can resolve this before any more heat is generated. --Aarktica 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like User:Neutralhomer to cease his personal attacks and name-calling (in general, and directed at me in particular). I would like User:Neutralhomer to apologize for his false accusations of any bad faith edits on my part, especially if no evidence can be produced by any user. Most of all, I would like User:Neutralhomer to apologize for his unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry against me for which he has provided no evidence. Any other issues are predominantly WP:WPRS-related, and can be discussed on the relevant pages, as they always have been. JPG-GR 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You:
  1. feel harried because your correspondence with Neutralhomer has been negative?
  2. would like recognition that your contributions to radio-related articles are made with the best of intentions? --Aarktica 22:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Not what I said. Heck, barely even close to what I said. I want (a) an apology for the unfounded and false accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry, which have YET to be substatiated and (b) for the personal attacks on me by this user in various places across Wikipedia to cease. Succinctly, I'd like him to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. - JPG-GR 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Would it be best if I just file a WP:RfM as I did [back in July]? - JPG-GR 23:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that we are in agreement, despite the semantics. In other words, correspondence should be CIVIL; additionally, one has to assume good faith and assume the presence of a belly-button about the intentions of others.
If you want to pursue mediation to resolve the issue, great. However, I think communicating your need to Neutralhomer as succinctly as you have done here is likely to be just as effective. Either way, I hope you find a satisfactory resolution to the issue. Cheers, --Aarktica 00:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Already stated as such multiple times, and it's gotten me nowhere. Probably will have to take it to mediation. JPG-GR 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, been sleeping....what I would like out of this whole thing...
  1. I would like JPG-GR to chill a little bit. I can understand taking your work seriously, but sometimes that seriousness gets a little much. Example: I added -AM to a template and there is an all right riot. That doesn't help anyone.
  2. I would like the little snide comments about me, "creating a page for every station no matter it's notability". That isn't helping anyone at all.
  3. I would like to be able to ask a question and not have an all out war ensue because of it.
  4. Finally, I would like JPG-GR to get this thought of "profound hatred" he thinks I have for him out of his head. I don't profoundly hate anyone, ever.
If that can be done, I think it might be a step in the right direction. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You both edit the same articles, so you will have to learn to work together, or they'll be consequences. And that definitely means no more name calling, Neutralhomer. Thanks. El_C 07:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt the possibility of it happening, as we have co-existed and even assisted each other over the past few months. I've no intention of leaving (or being "run off", as I've sometimes felt User:Neutralhomer wanted). JPG-GR 18:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside eyes: abuse of userspace?[edit]

I'd like to ask for some feedback about User_talk:MEagenda#Approaching_the_Gibson_Office_for_certain_clarifications. This user is involved in a dispute on the Simon Wessely article and has apparently approached a UK government source which s/he considers unreliable for further clarification. Fine as far as it goes, though such editorial inquiries are generally unsuitable for use here on grounds of original research and unverifiability.

However, the formulation that MEagenda (talk · contribs) has placed on his/her usertalk page violates a number of policies. It clearly utilizes userspace as a soapbox, and it violates WP:USER's prohibition on polemical statements. There are also borderline WP:BLP issues in that it's fairly accusatory toward a number of specifically named living people. Most importantly, it does nothing to advance the goal of community- or encyclopedia-building, which is the usual rationale for allowing users greater latitude in userspace. This is exactly the sort of content that belongs on a personal webhost rather than Wikipedia.

I've crossed paths somewhat with the group of single-purpose editors at Simon Wessely (including this user) as part of my participation in WP:CLINMED, so I'm not going to do anything; instead I wanted to bring this up here for feedback. MastCell Talk 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ack! Wall of text... making eyes bleed... Mast, I'd agree with your points about original research and unverifiability, and about the userspace being used as a soapbox. The WP:OR and WP:V bits are certainly easier to show, but I think it's pretty obvious that he's trying to use his talk page to POV-push too. There's my $.02. Regards -- Folic_Acid | talk  17:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing new is added to the known facts: a small group of ME/CFS activists think that Simon Wessely is the Antichrist and want the article to say so. Nothing approaching a reliable source to adequately explain this animus has been cited, as far as I'm aware, but we do know (as in: he told me in an email) that he has been personally harassed by some of these people, so we need to exercise extreme caution and ensure that we do not risk enabling an offsite harassment campaign through Wikipedia. I would encourage MastCell not to be too reluctant to get involved, the more people we can find who have knowledge of the subject and are not involved in the substantive off-wiki dispute, the better. Read what MEAgenda says. She uses a reliable source saying that harassment by activists is a challenge faced by those wishing to advance the field, as a way of asserting that those activists are therefore right. Medics are not afraid to make waves, as a rule, if they genuinely feel that patients will benefit. Papers have been published which contradict reams of patient work, and in fact blow that work completely out of the water (e.g. combined HRT and coronary heart disease). Doesn't stop it being investigated and published. But real-world harassment, that's a different matter. Ask anyone involved with Huntingdon Life Sciences. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't a hosting provider. He's using his talk page to host notes about personal research that, cast in the best light, has no use to the project. I think we should politely ask the user to delete this section of his talk page, and if he refuses or attempts clever workarounds, we can discuss what to do next. - Jehochman Talk 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, if he/she refuses, there is always WP:MfD. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Or any admin can delete the material. Though I'm not conversant with this field, the material on that Talk page looks like it has serious BLP implications. It would be best if the user deleted this material herself as a mark of good faith but either way it needs to go. Raymond Arritt 18:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I mopped up his user talk page, deleting everything that looked like a WP:BLP violation. The username also matches an advocacy website, so this is probably a role account. Nonetheless, since the user has not done any COI editing I elected not to block the account. There's no need to bite. - Jehochman Talk 19:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Regarding the COI issue, User:MEagenda and several of the other SPA's with real-life ties to the issue have been pretty scrupulous about not directly editing the Simon Wessely article - which is commendable. Unfortunately, the article talk page (and, as seen here, userspace) have degenerated significantly. I haven't invoked COI since there has been no direct editing of the article that I've seen, though. MastCell Talk 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Also, as Guy mentioned, the more eyes on Simon Wessely the better, as it appears that there is a significant outside feud (and allegations of harassment) being imported onto Wikipedia. Be warned, though, that it's ugly over there. The last unsuspecting admin who was good enough to respond to my request for more eyes ended up asking me: "WTF have I got into here?" MastCell Talk 19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
            • A concept we need to think about is brand ambassador. Wikipedia has real influence in the outside world. We have to expect that the outside world may want to talk to us sometimes. Indeed, they are allowed to create appropriate, non-promotional user accounts to do so. However, they are not allowed to violate our policies, and they should be especially careful that their talk page participation doesn't become disruptive to the encyclopedia. This user account seems to be a bit heavy handed, probably because they don't understand the correct way to interact. Let's be patient and explain to them what they can and cannot do. Wikipedia:Business' FAQ would be a good place for them to start. Also, when discussing somebody at ANI, please leave them an invitation. - Jehochman Talk 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I weighed the option of notifying the user of this thread (which I usually do), and decided not to do so. I know this makes me a terrible person. However, this particular dispute has been forum-shopped to death (Wikipedia:Neutrality Project, WP:BLP/N, WP:COIN, etc) and each instance has degenerated into 200-kb densely-worded posts restating the bones of contention - with the effect of entirely discouraging any real outside input. In this case I specifically was interested in a sanity check as to whether this use of userspace was appropriate, and I thank everyone who's responded. I really do hope that patience and resources such as the Business FAQ will be helpful here, and I think that the more outside editors and admins are involved, the better. I apologize for any cynicism, but my experience with individuals who come to Wikipedia to pursue a real-life grudge by editing their adversary's article has been quite negative, and in a somewhat different category than editors who are here to promote their real-life endeavors. MastCell Talk 20:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have been dragged all over the place with this one. Has the user been trying to wear people down by arguing endlessly? The real issue may be disruptive editing. Such users try to frustrate our processes and need special handling. - Jehochman Talk 20:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As someone else who tried to step in on Simon Wessely before turning away in disgust, I don't think anything is going to end this edit-war and its assorted spinoff mini-wars; there are two organised groups of editors with such diametrically opposed views I can't see any way they'll agree, and Wessely works in such a specialised field that it doesn't even seem possible for someone not involved to make an informed decision on the validity of each side's claims. As Mastcell says, this debate has been ongoing for a l-o-n-g time, and is no further along then when it started.iridescent 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Two? Who's the other group? 62.73.137.190 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen an organized group of single-purpose accounts who have come to Wikipedia specifically to hate on Wessely. The "other side" is really just User:Jfdwolff and User:JzG, who I believe got involved when the abuses by the Wessely-haters got so bad that Jimbo Wales had to blank and protect the page. Neither JzG nor Jfdwolff carries any water for Simon Wessely per se. I don't think there are two opposing groups here, so much as one determined group which hates Wessely and, on the other hand, a couple of admins trying to maintain a semblance of WP:BLP and decorum. But again, perhaps I'm biased as I was initially pointed to the article by a post at WP:CLINMED by User:Jfdwolff. MastCell Talk 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Why aren't the Wessley haters being blocked if they continuously break site standards? - Jehochman Talk 00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
They have confined their activities to the talk page. Only a small number of admins are aware of the page, and those admins are generally involved enough to feel uncomfortable using the tools, I would assume. For my part, I've been following the lead of User:Jfdwolff, who has been making extensive efforts to reach some sort of understanding. I did block at least one Wessely-hater strongly anti-Wessely editor, Alpinist (talk · contribs), who promptly used a few dozen dynamic IP's to harass Jfdwolff. Ultimately he was unblocked and given one last chance. Beyond that, I don't know. Again, more outside eyes are probably the best solution. MastCell Talk 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This board isn't suitable for monitoring long term abuse. Each incident washes into the archives before we have a chance to connect the dots. Where shall we go that we can open a conversation and leave it open for a month or two where at least several uninvolved admins will see it? - Jehochman Talk 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
AN/I's a good as a place as there is now, a few of the topics at the top of the page have been under scrutiny for more than three weeks now. east.718 at 07:27, 10/19/2007

Firstly, as stated to JFW, in spring 2006, on the Wessely Talk page, I do not hate Prof Wessely. I have never met Prof Wessely nor have I had telephone contact with him. I have never sent him paper letters. The only contact I have had with Prof Wessely is a single email in which I politely requested a public statement from him regarding the debacle over the alleged cancellation of the Gresham College lecture, in early 2006. Prof Wessely kindly provided me with a statement. I have retained copies of both these emails which are available for inspection. That is the sum total of my contact with Prof Wessely. It might be construed, from what he has written above, that Mr Guy Chapman (no relation) is implying that I am guilty of "harassment" of Prof Wessely. If this is his intention, then this is inflammatory and there is no basis whatsoever for any such implication, and any such implication would be false, since it cannot be said that I have ever "harassed" Prof Wessely, in any way, either via written material on the internet, or by any other means. There is a definition of "harassment" in UK law and I suggest that Mr Guy Chapman familiarises himself with this. If Mr Guy Chapman holds any documentary evidence from any source (including from Prof Wessely, himself) that supports any claim or implication that I might have "harassed" Prof Wessely, in any way, then I suggest that he set them before me in a paper letter or in electronic form in order that I might forward them on to my solicitor to deal with. MEagenda 08:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I became involved latterly with the page because of an attempt by an Admin to push a POV, highly unreliable document in order to make defamatory claims against a whole patient community. I have acted reasonably and in good faith throughout (including undertaking not to edit the page), and I have even followed Wikipedia procedure for dispute resolution. To then have a legitimate position characterised, incorrectly, as ‘Wessely-hater’ or ‘thinking the man is an antichrist’ sadly demonstrates how bad faith runs throughout the Wikipedia Admin set-up. My guess is not one of the Admins here has bothered to read the talk pages carefully, because if someone does take that trouble, a whole different story to the one being constructed here actually emerges.

Guys comments here ‘but we do know (as in: he told me in an email) that he has been personally harassed by some of these people‘ are libellous and defamatory, and this is not the first time he has made libellous and defamatory comments against myself. I am currently engaged in corresponding with Jim Wales about Guy’s previous libel (the libel can be seen on archive 104 of this Admin Noticeboard). This previous post from Guy also made various false claims about the issue and my work which only goes to show how dangerous ignorance of a subject can truly be.

I have never harassed Simon Wessely in any way. I make public legitimate criticism of his position on ME/CFS and various claims he has made and his methodology, as well as that of his colleagues, in their promotion of the psychiatric paradigm of ME/CFS. I have never contacted Simon Wessely, although he once sent me an unsolicited email some years ago when something I had written about the psychiatric paradigm had been published.

IF ‘Guy’ really has had emails from Simon Wessely to him claiming that I personally have harassed him, such c laims would be false and therefore libellous and defamatory. I therefore call on ‘Guy’ to supply those emails, specifically claiming that I have harassed Professor Wessely, to me directly so that I can forward them to my solicitor. I should remind ‘Guy’ that even if Professor Wessely HAS made such comments, ‘Guy’ is still guilty of libel and defamation by repeating false claims in this way. I am currently corresponding with Professor Peter McGuffin, Dean of Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, and the Human Resources Director (Professor Wessely’s line managers) to establish the veracity of Guy’s claims with regard to Professor Wessely emailing him in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela Kennedy (talkcontribs) 08:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note I have blocked MEagenda (talk · contribs) and Angela Kennedy (talk · contribs) for the above legal threats (see thread below). Neil  10:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Good work. - Jehochman Talk 14:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • For purposes of clarification, MEAgenda has been one of the less problematic of the advocates here. Angela Kennedy is much more of a problem, and it is the writings of the group she formerly led that I have characterised as demonstrating a visceral hatred for Wessely. I will point out again my essay on this: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Wesselygate. The One Click group, which Angela Kennedy previously led, I believe, was the source of most of the historical problem with this article. MEAgenda appears to have been inflamed or provoked by Kennedy into an uncharacteristically immoderate response; in the past, MEAgenda has showed ever sign of trying to work with policy, even while demonstrating a POV which is clearly at one end of the spectrum. One thing is very clear: anybody who dares to venture an opinion is going to be personally involved and, if their opinion is anything other than outright hostile, they should be prepared to eb personally attacked and targeted. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe article probation for the Wessely article makes the most sense? I think keeping WP:SPA's on a very short leash there is strongly indicated, given the article's history, prior WP:OFFICE issues, etc. MastCell Talk 21:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

I've just blocked Gurch for 24 hours for edit warring on User:Luna Santin, he kept removing a link to Luna's blog calling it an attack site - which in my opinion was disruptive in itself. Please review at you own convenience, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look attacking at all. Will (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Unblock request has been rejected, and I would have rejected it too. This was being deliberately disruptive to make a point. Neil  13:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm talking to myself, when I keep saying that, when it comes to userpages revert wars, protection is nearly always preferable to blocks. El_C 14:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in protection if only one person is acting disruptively, if it had been a simple edit war, then yeah maybe - but this was making a point. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course there's a point, or I wouldn't suggest it. It isn't an article, no one else needs to edit it. It allows said user to edit other pages. El_C 14:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Still, if one single editor is being disruptive, blocking seems preferable to protection. Why should we lock off a user page that only one person is tampering with, and why should the disruptive editor be allowed to edit other pages? -- Satori Son 14:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Why? Because, otherwise, nobody is editing that page, that's why. El_C 14:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
And if there's no disruption in other pages, why lock the user from them? Discuss that one userpage away while it is locked. El_C 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you El C - In my mind it's always preferable to inconvenience one disruptive user then most of the community. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Nobody else is editing that userpage, so how is the community inconvenienced? El_C 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
But what if the page in question does not belong to an admin? Should we prevent an editor from accessing their own user page just because one person is improperly editing it? -- Satori Son 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Gurch shouldn't be editing Luna's page to remove links to his blog anyway - the point comes down to principal, if an editor is acting disruptively they get blocked, regardless of what page they are doing it on. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't. I'm talking about this userpage (at other instances, said editor was the prospective disruptive agent). El_C 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I simply believe we need to be consistent in our block vs. full-protect measures, and should not have different strategies bases on whether it's an admin's user page being disrupted. -- Satori Son 15:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
We need to be consistently undogmatic, I challenge. El_C 15:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually quite surprised to hear that from you. I always admired you as being a vocal proponent of parity and consistency. Applying our guidelines in an unbiased and objective manner is the key to preventing dogmatic authoritarianism, it seems to me. -- Satori Son 15:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen too many needless userpage-related blocks lately to stay silent on this point. El_C 15:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where someone is edit warring, WP:3RR is clear on that. If they are reverting somone elses userpage then they are causing disruption, protection does not get to the route of the problem. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I plead for independent thinking, nonetheless, along aforementioned rationale. El_C 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, why this "regardless"? Less polemical-sounding exclamations, more practical answers, please. El_C 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, there's not much else to say El C, he acted disruptively and got blocked. Most other people seem to agree that the block was correct, you obviously have a difference of opinion to everyone else. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
None of you respond to what I say, so I'll keep saying it. El_C 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec, deindent) El C, 3RR is a pretty basic guideline; Gurch has been around for a long time and can't plead ignorance of it. Given the edit summaries Gurch used, this was being deliberately done to make a point (probably about WP:BADSITES being rejected by the community), which would not encourage many admins to reduce the mandatory 24 hours. Blocking is done to prevent disruption; this was disruption, and Gurch showed no signs of stopping. Neil  14:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't really followed the particulars of this (see above). El_C 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I do take your point, but, again, 3RR is a bsic guideline, and it doesn't have special exemptions for user pages (nor should it). Neil  15:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless that userpage is yours (and even then, you can be blocked for 3RR) Will (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This 3RR point, that's news (and is new, period) for me as per this threaded debate. El_C 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think El C is right. Protecting the page prevents the disruption, doesn't antagonize the contributor as much, and lets work on the encyclopedia continue. Tom Harrison Talk 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
At least shorten the block length, a few hours was all that was needed at most (although I do think protection would have been preferable int his case). -- John Reaves 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to shorten it because he's disrupted here plenty of times before, so he knows what he was doing. He's also not accepting what he did was wrong on his talk page. Protection would have also worked, but this was pure disruption from gurch. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
That seems awfully punitive. -- John Reaves 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it's preventative. If he gets away with a 5 hour block for deliberate disruption to make a point and breaching 3RR, then he'll know he can do it again because he thinks he'll just get his block reduced again. If the policy is applied evenly (as it would be to a user nobody had heard of before) and the 24 hours stands, then Gurch would, one hopes, be less inclined to edit war and disrupt in future. Neil  18:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, leniency is often a disservice to the user because it allows them to continue being disruptive until they eventually end up in much worse trouble. Firm, early intervention is the best way to prevent a small problem from becoming a big problem. This is common sense. We shouldn't lower our standards for the regulars. - Jehochman Talk 18:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that makes sense. I also hadn't realized how extensive his block log is. -- John Reaves 19:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Some advice please - one user, two usernames and a user page redirect[edit]

Could I have some advice please? There are two new users: Taye's Beat and Taye's Day. User Taye's Beat redirected Taye's Day's userpage to Taye's Beat's userpage. I reverted this as one editor shouldn't redirect another editor's user page, even though the likelihood is that they are both the same. I left a message on Taye's Beat's userpage to explain my reversion and suggest a name change if that was helpful.

My reversion has been undone by Taye's Beat who says: "I appreciate your input, however, I was told quite some time ago by an ADMIN, that when changing User pages and/or User names, to use a re-direct from the "old" page, to the "new" one. Teaching new tricks to "old" dogs is hard, but I'll get there eventually. Thanks. :-)"

However, I am confused by this for two reasons: Firstly, this isn't how you change a user name, and secondly why would he be given this advice anyway? Both accounts were created today (Taye's Day at 04.49 and Taye's Beat at 14.22) and, so far, the only contribution of either account has been on the respective user and user talk pages.

Should he be left to get on with it or is there something here which needs administrator attention? B1atv 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably just a doppleganger account or something. I'd say just leave it — at worst, it's a non-disruptive sockpuppet, or alternative account. --Haemo 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Socks aren't disallowed unconditionally, just discouraged in most cases. Only abusive sockpuppetry is disallowed and redirecting is actually one of the ways to provide full disclosure per WP:SOCK. He may very well just be trying to follow the rules. EconomicsGuy 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another hotspot of ethnic warfare...[edit]

Need a few more eyes on Great Fire of Smyrna, another hotspot of long-term nationalist edit-warring. Users Laertes d (talk · contribs), Tedblack (talk · contribs) and AlexiusComnenus (talk · contribs) are at it again, reverting (just below 3RR). All three are typically tendentious single-purpose accounts (1 Turk, 2 Greeks), with virtually no other activities during the last few months than messing up articles about either the one or the other side's historic atrocities during various Greek-Turkish wars. Another of their favorite hangouts, Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), was recently placed under special revert ban by Moreschi, so they shifted to this article instead. - I'm too much involved to take admin action myself, unfortunately, or I'll hand out pretty long blocks. Fut.Perf. 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's connected, but the IP 125.31.7.207 has just been blocked for reclaiming Turkish islands for Greece! B1atv 16:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's just our good old friend Sstakis (talk · contribs). Don't mind him, just revert-block-ignore. Fut.Perf. 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You know... it's too bad we don't have some sort of forum or noticeboard where we could discuss some sort of community supported restrictions (sanctions if you will) that could be imposed on tendentious editors who appear to only be here to push a POV. Something like 1 revert a week restriction which an uninvolved party such as I might suggest for those 3 editors.--Isotope23 talk 18:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh, why not discuss it here? :-) Fut.Perf. 18:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Déjà vu. Kidding aside though, I was absolutely serious about revert restriction on those editors. I think 1 revert a week is more than fair.--Isotope23 talk 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I knew about the Deja vu, obviously :-) -- Revert restriction sounds fine to me. Fut.Perf. 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bede cengia[edit]

Would somebody please delete Bede cengia? It's been tagged for deletion since yesterday, it's a copy of the Michael Jackson article with the name changed, it's obviously an attack on a friend of the now-blocked creating editor's. Corvus cornix 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, sorry it took so long. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan. Corvus cornix 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by 216.229.163.106[edit]

Resolved: IP stopped

Engaged in active and persistent vandalism c.f. User_talk:216.229.163.106 and recent user contributions Rklahn 19:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Usual school address. Last blocked for six months - but haven't learnt their lesson. I say block for two years. Davnel03 20:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
They appear to have stopped. Next time, post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. -- John Reaves 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

George bennett‎ (talk · contribs) and Andylane24 (talk · contribs) in weird dispute[edit]

I bumped across this a few minutes ago, and don't know whether its a simple dispute or really stupid, troll like behaviour. The two have not had communication with any other users, so I'm guessing this could be a dispute on and off Wiki. Andylane24 started the dispute off, see here, stating Bennett lived "in a cardboard box". Instead of just leaving it, bennett posted this on lane24's userpage. lane24 reverted the edit, but bennett retaillated see this and this. I'm guessing these two users know each other, and seem like they are simply here to bicker and post threats to each other. Suggest block. Davnel03 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Block bot please![edit]

Could an admin please block User:SatyrBot for about an hour? I'm debugging and it's constantly adding to it's log for some reason I can't understand. Thanks!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done.--chaser - t 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Whew! Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Garcic[edit]

As evidenced on the user's talk page User:Garcic, this individual only comes around every so often to make useless edits and to vandalize Wikipedia. I think he ought to be banned, as the individual does not make constructive edits, only occasional disruptions. Bradjamesbrown 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - banned. violet/riga (t) 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Darius20 edits[edit]

Darius20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Could other eyes please take a look at the edits of this user? While there are some positive edits, numerous others slightly change parts of articles in ways that we can't easily tell are correct or not. This edit itself deserves a block and is what started me looking into his contribs. violet/riga (t) 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I've warned him. DS 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bălţi[edit]

There's an edit war going on at Bălţi between User:Moldopodo and User:Dc76. I am not involved at all in the article, I just stumbled across this war. Corvus cornix 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected for 6 hours. It's a slow war that was escalating. EdokterTalk 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Excalibur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Does anyone else think his account may have been compromised? He left a message on my Talk page today regarding some content he objected to on the Down syndrome article, politely contacted the editor who had added the content, and went on a vandalism spree an hour later?? Persian Poet Gal blocked him for 24 hours, but something's off here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It does seem very odd, but he supported AFDing the vandalized article a ways back [11], so maybe he just fell off his rocker. Someguy1221 23:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
For some reason that particular article really seems to chap some hides. --Rocksanddirt 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination)[edit]

This Afd (in poor faith in my opinion) seems to have a fair bit of obvious sock drawer activity. At least one user (Jelly the Supermodel) has only contributed to Afd's on days when contributing to afd's of the subject article. The Afd has not been disruptive (only a few modest personal attacks from the nominator), but has the appearance of some really poor behavior brewing. --Rocksanddirt 23:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed, but Dr Tobias Funke (talk · contribs) also started the previous AfD one month ago as well, which also featured other uncivil remarks towards another BLP, Chris Crocker, and has made some rude remarks about BLPs when initiating other AfDs. • Lawrence Cohen 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is plain that User:Dr Tobias Funke doesn't like her for some reason, but I was trying not to directly accuse him of the sock activity as I have no evidence. There might be technical evidence (from CU), but I don't know if this is disruptive enough to go there. If others have an opinion, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksanddirt (talkcontribs) 23:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't go to CU unless the behavior trips a few bells, or else the CUs may just decline the request as fishing. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I suspect one day I'm going to checkuser an entire week of AFD just to see how corrupted it is and how deep the habit of sockpuppetry runs. Thankfully it's unlikely I'll be that bored - David Gerard 01:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just mark all the accounts that have few or no other contributions than the AFD with {{spa|username or IP address}}. Unless it gets really bad, it will be sorted out when it is closed. Mr.Z-man 01:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Return of sock puppet of MascotGuy, CodyFinke6 now CodyFinke2007[edit]

Resolved: User blocked.

Hello,

The User:Codyfinke6 was indefinitely blocked as a suspected sock puppet of MascotGuy, his unproductive edits and a myriad of other reasons. He appears to have returned as Codyfinke2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

Could some one please take a look see and block this user if it is the same user trying to work his way around the block.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 01:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Please? It took almost two weeks to get him blocked last time. Corvus cornix 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I got him because his username's too close to CF6. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:PatrickJ83[edit]

After User:PatrickJ83 vandalized the Beyoncé Knowles page rather severely, I left a warning (uw-vandal3 to be specific) on his (I assume it's a he) talk page. PatrickJ83 then deleted the message. I then restored the warning and told PatrickJ83 to please not delete vandal warnings in my edit summary; PatrickJ83 deleted the warning with no comment. I then restored the comment and left a more detailed edit summary again telling PatrickJ83 not to delete the warning; PatrickJ83 again deleted the warning with no comment. I replaced the warning and posted a notice on the actual talk page; this was also deleted with no comment. I also noticed in the talk page's edit history that PatrickJ83 has deleted a bot-created notice about a page blanking incident as well as a user-created notice about a page deleted as a non-notable biography; view the edit history for the talk page here. --TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no prohibition against removing warnings from user talk pages. If he's removed it, then he's probably read it. User talk pages are not "permanent records" of everything everyone's ever done. But if he's vandalizing repeatedly, he should probably be blocked. FCYTravis 01:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The warnings are in the history anyway. "They can run, but" you know the rest . . . -- But|seriously|folks  04:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:TomJBlane[edit]

This user is a new user, and is already starting to annoy and harass me. He was adding personal opinions into the WWE No Way Out article, and then started claiming he was going to make his own article about the incident between The Rock, Hulk Hogan and Vince McMahon. He then stated on my talk page "On the other hand, my article has just been edited on another pc in another place with one phone call. Tell you again, who you think you are dealing with sir. Im a phd carrier! Anyway you apologize for what u said, it ends right now". He claims me to be harassing him. All I am doing is my job, trying to prevent vandalism. If anyone can help me out, I need to find out if any users or IP's made a page about WWE No Way Out and the screwjob that happened at the PPV, because that person is in league with this guy. Please help me out here. Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay he just threatened me on my page with "You make me laugh sometimes. You do your best. I promise, you are gonna get banned AGAIN soon." I'm going to issue a warning now. Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 04:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note for the editor asking him to respect a variety of guidelines. We'll see how that works. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking blocked[edit]

I've given Everyking (talk · contribs) a week-long block for his persistent restoration of comments made by Amorrow sockpuppets. He's asked me to bring the matter here for discussion.

I am open to anyone reducing the length of the block if/when Everyking agrees to cooperate in this matter. I'd ask that anyone thinking of unblocking him to be quite sure he's going to do so, however. Kirill 05:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at his contributions ... is this about the edits to Everyking's talk page? If so, it's user space - who cares? The policy says that it's up to the page owner whether he/she wants to revert. --B 05:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a somewhat unusual situation; you really need to know a bit of the background of why this particular user was banned. To put it simply, Amorrow is absolutely not welcome to participate in the project in any manner, even on the level of innocuous talk page comments. (And these were not innocuous, in any case.) Kirill 05:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Why does Everyking want to restore the comments? I can't imagine a good reason, but I have a poor imagination. --B 05:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Lar#Amorrow has some useful background on this particular incident, I think. Kirill 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha ... Lar won't give Everyking access to deleted Amorrow articles, so Everyking responds by leaving an Amorrow edit on his talk page. That sounds rather pointy. --B 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If a banned editor fixes a minor content error and the edit is later rolled back, then editors who agree with the correction are free to make the correction again. But talk page comments by banned editors should not be restored. Doing so is the equivalent of editing on behalf of the banned editor, which is a violation of the banning policy. WP:BAN The situation is more egregious because the banned editor in question is much worse than most. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... I've googled around to find out who the guy is - forget my previous comments - I concur with Kirill's block. --B 05:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely feel that anyone aiding and abetting Amorrow knowingly and repeatedly should be blocked for a lengthy time period. Under no circumstances is Amorrow welcome back here and anyone knowingly assisting him needs to be kept on a very tight leash as well. The potential real life harm this guy has posed to various persons on this project are not to be taken lightly.--MONGO 05:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For further reference, Everyking wishes to make the following points:

  • He pledges to respect consensus, both regarding his block and regarding the comments.
  • He further pledges not to restore the comments until a consensus develops.
  • He maintains that he was appropriately following the policy regarding the edits of banned users.

Please see User talk:Everyking#Blocked for more details. Kirill 06:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy needs clarification[edit]

The current policy needs to be clarified: reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner is being taken as either a) editors have discretion about whether to keep comments from banned users [12] or b) user talk page owners are responsible for reverting them, but should not restore them [13]. There is some value in having whatever his comment is out in the open, but the disruptive effect probably outweighs transparency, especially in this case.--chaser - t 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For right now, I just suggest that Everyking just not revert the comments until we perform Chaser's suggestion. Kirill, I am good for an unblock now, but he should agree to your terms before you do anything. I would have done it myself, but several personal factors will prevent me from being effective in this manner. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the situation, it appears to me that Everyking was in fact disruptively making a silly POINT, apparently due to his skepticism in the opaqueness of the checkuser process; though it doesn't seem that he was actually collaborating with Amorrow. Given the horrible things Amorrow has been responsible for in the past (and present =/), this was still an extremely poor move on his part, and I think the block was justified. Now that Everyking has pledged to respect the community's consensus, though, it would probably be best to reduce his block to the time he has served, and we can all work on better clarifying the relevant policies and make sure this doesn't happen again. --krimpet 06:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The page definitely could stand more input, right now it's just a small handful of people participating. I'd encourage more folks to give their views.++Lar: t/c 11:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The "user talk page" exception that Everyking relied upon is a recent addition. It has subsequently been reverted and the policy now no longer makes any distinction. I think most admins can be forgiven for not being aware of a policy change which appears to not have had consensus in the first place... ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking appears to have been blocked for a WP:POINTy re-addition of comments which had an unclear policy background. The policy backing him re-adding it is not clear, but nor is the bit of the policy which Kirill used to block him. Given this policy ambiguity (regardless of any statements by Kirill about his interpretation being right), and given that Everyking apparently received no warning beyond these mysterious "subtle hints" Kirill talks about in the block message, this block is not appropriate. - Mark 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've argued this issue from Everyking's viewpoint before (also involving a comment by an Amorrow sock, as it happens), but in this case I feel I must side with Kirill: the comment in question was clearly inapproriate, both per WP:BAN and WP:NPA, and it should not be restored. I might not have blocked Everyking for it myself, although, in retrospect, the block seems to have been the right decision, insofar as it stopped the revert war and led to this discussion. I agree that the wording of WP:BAN needs to be clarified; I'll post my suggestions for that on its talk page. In any case, as Everyking has agreed not to restore the comment until and unless consensus for it develops here, I've unblocked him subject to that condition. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
(EC) While Kirill only mentioned the restoration of the talk page comments by Everyking, that hasn't been Everyking's only effort on behalf of Amorrow's edits. He has been pressing Lar for a week to undelete an article that Amorrow wrote as well.[14] I don't think that Everyking takes seriously the concept that banned editors are not allowed to participate in Wikipedia in any manner, or that Amorrow is an especially unwelcome person here. I'm not sure why he is so fond of Amorrow's editing, but it is not appropriate for him to be restoring that person's edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the unblocking...completely disagree. AMorrow is a special case in a lot of ways, and none of his edits should stand under any circumstances and this should apply to all pages, even userpages. Any efforts to aide AMorrow should result in an extended block.--MONGO 07:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking's concerns[edit]

I'm concerned that I'm being portrayed as being somehow soft on Amorrow. I find his actions, which, as I understand them, extend to off-wiki harassment of Wikipedians, to be absolutely reprehensible. I don't know if this is actually Amorrow or not (people seem to be taking that for granted), but for the sake of this discussion I'll assume that it is. The comment on my talk page was just pointing out some policy issues and offering advice. I found nothing objectionable about it, I want people to feel free to leave me comments, and I don't believe in removing a comment from someone simply because they are banned, although I may support the ban itself (as in this case) or removal of the comments if there is something specifically objectionable about them. I recognize that other people are going to pursue the absolute removal of anything any alleged Amorrow sock has written, but I like to think my talk page is like my own little garden, a peaceful little place where comments and thoughts are valued regardless of their source, as long as they are not particularly offensive to me. Policy supports me on this; it specifically provides for users to exercise discretion over posts of banned users to their talk pages. If Amorrow is a special case, fine, let's have a decision on that—perhaps there is one developing here. Or we could even change the policy, if there's consensus for that. I am, however, upset that I was blocked for doing something that policy, as it stands now, specifically allows me to do. If I had felt anyone was so extreme on this issue that they would block me for a week over it, I would never have tried to stand my ground about it, although I may personally believe I am right. A simple warning that a block was imminent would have been sufficient to get me to surrender: I value my principles, but I also value my ability to work here and make this encyclopedia better, and I am pragmatic about things. Now my block log, which has been clean since July 2006, is stained by another block, and I had taken pride in avoiding any trouble with anyone over that time. I think Kirill, no matter how strongly he believes he is right, should show a little more deliberation, caution and tact in matters such as this. Everyking 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking says "I don't know if this is actually Amorrow or not" ... I'm frankly flabbergasted and dismayed at that comment. How many checkusers saying so does it take before Everyking accepts it? (for me, the number is ***1***, and if I didn't think I trusted a particular checkuser implicitly, I'd take it up with the ombudsman instead of making vague insinuations) But regardless, I am not the only checkuser who ran the check here, and we all concur. By policy, the details of checks are not revealed, but I am 100% convinced that Edgesusual (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is Amorrow. I am also 100% convinced that the other socks recently encountered and tagged as Amorrow or SallyForth123 socks are Amorrow as well. I'll have more to say later but that sort of questioning of multiple checkusers is very deleterious to the encyclopedia. I'd have required a cessation of that sort of disruptive and corrosive behaviour before I lifted the block. ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Note... In addition to the very long thread on my talk page, This archived WP:ANI discussion has relevance. Everyking cannot say he was not warned, multiple times, about this. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Should I just list my views on a range of subjects and you can tell me which ones are and are not acceptable for me to have? Everyking 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what that comment means, Everyking. You can have whatever personal views you like. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Lar - no amount of checkusers can confirm that someone is a sockpuppet. To be 100% convinced after a checkuser, you have to be 100% convinced before the checkuser. It's not reasonable to expect everyking (or anyone else) to really respect the outcome of a checkuser - they're really not very useful. WilyD 14:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have as much experience as other CUs but I'm not the only one seeing a strong correlation here. I tend to say  Possible when others would say  Likely and  Likely when others would say  Confirmed but this is solid. Amorrow makes no attempt to hide the connection and his socks speak with one voice. This is solid as they come. Everyking can doubt it if he wants but in order to be perceived as constructive, has to say "confirmed by multiple CUs but I don't beleive it" instead of just "I don't know if it is or not" which is disingenious. It's confirmed, I stake my reputation on it. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
But I really don't know if it is. That's just a simple, honest statement. I am largely agnostic about the reliability of CU, if the actual evidence is not available for me to evaluate. I am sorry that you find it so awful that someone does not have pure faith that this person is Amorrow, but I would appreciate it if you would avoid calling my absence of a firm belief on the identity of this editor "disruptive and corrosive behaviour" and suggesting that I should remain blocked because I do not profess a certain belief. Everyking 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing in this life is certain... however I suspect that when a sock is tagged as an Amorrow sock, the rest of us are going to act as if it is Amorrow, regardless of whether you personally decide to trust the checkusers or not. I further suspect that you saying "I don't know one way or another" is not going to be an effective defense if you again revert material that was posted by someone tagged and blocked as an Amorrow sock. You can have whatever belief you want, but to try to use "I don't know for sure" as a defense for your behaviour in violation of policy is itself disruptive and corrosive behaviour, in my personal opinion. I'd advise against it. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting me. I never used my skepticism about the accuracy of the CU as a defense; in fact, I made a point of assuming its accuracy when making my argument above. You're also suggesting that I might restore his comment again, despite my repeated and firm pledges not to, and I find that to be a "disruptive and corrosive" assumption of bad faith. Everyking 21:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as a battleground. If a banned editor talks to someone on a user talk page, usually the best thing for others to do is ignore it. If in some specific case, it is removed (but still in history) with a clue to why it was deleted (eg "banned user comment deleted"); then it is usually best to ignore the deletion. Minimize the wiki-drama guys. WAS 4.250 07:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Excessive?[edit]

The block was excessive and inappropriate; a week-long block for restoring a talk page comment in his own userspace doesn't result in the protection of the encyclopedia in any way. What was the block supposed to prevent? Certainly not a major disturbance to the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my comments above...anyone aiding Amorrow in any way needs to be kept on a tight leash. The level of harassment a number of our female editors have endured at the hands of this guy is truly awful. He has created a plethara of sock accounts and engaged in BLP violations on some of our articles about prominent women. Please do not aide this person in any manner.--MONGO 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - WP:BAN says it clear. Amorrow was banned for a reason, you know (in addition to the AFD, he's quite literally a creep). Will (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse what? This is not a vote. The banning policy is not clear on this. It also says reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner and Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing. All of which were according to the letter of the policy completely in line with James' edits to his own userpage. Apparently there is the Morrow exception to that, a decision that was not made clear to everybody. And yes Amorrow has issues that make him an inimical element to everything we stand for here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.79.147 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Users that reinstated banned user's edits are treat like the banned user himself. As Everyking was reinstating a known stalker's edits, in that case he should be treat like a stalker. Will (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unblock - I would suggest that given above discussion, the consensus was fairly firmly (and correctly) in favour of removing Amorrow's "contributions". Given Everyking has pledged not to go against this consensus, I don't think unblocking at this time should have caused any problems. Whether or not the block was over-harsh is an unnecessary tangent we don't need to go down; the important issue was unblocking once we have assurances the restoration will not be repeated. We had those, Everyking was unblocked, he won't do it again, let's move on. Neil  08:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Analogy[edit]

I don't wish to defend Amorrow in any way (he's one of the few who have managed to be banned from both Wikipedia and anti-Wikipedia "attack sites", so there's clearly an extraordinarily broad consensus that he's a serious problem), but this seems to be yet another clash between two of the "parties" of Wikipedia -- the "Live and Let Live Party" and the "Scorch the Earth Party", which get into fights over whether evildoers, heretics, blasphemers, traitors, and other Enemies of Wikipedia need to be treated like Orwellian Unpersons or Scientologist Suppressive Persons, or if, especially in user talk space, somebody can allow something originating from them to remain in a discussion. The ambiguity of the current policy reflects the fact that people strongly holding these contradictory positions have had a part in shaping it. Personally, I think that if somebody wants to let comments from Osama bin Laden himself in his own talk page, we should let him. *Dan T.* 12:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Before law enforcement wants to get involved with a case against a stalker, they want to make sure that the complaining party has made it clear that contact is not welcome. This means that we need to make it clear that all contact from Amorrow is not welcome on Wikipedia in any form. All known edits are to be reverted. No exceptions in his case. --FloNight♥♥♥ 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Dan T - Osama bin Laden is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia and his comments would only be removed if he were to get banned. Assuming he edited under an acceptable username, my money would go on a block for "persistent tendentious editing". Neil  13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Nah, Osama'd get hit with 'making death threats' way before tendentious editing could kick in. As to the 'substantive' issues here; FloNight describes a situation beyond WP:BAN where, in Amorrow's case, all edits post banning not only can be removed, but must be removed. So far as I know, there is no 'ruling' to such effect anywhere. Indeed, the reason for his original banning seems to have been largely unrelated to (and thus not list) the issues which have caused him to remain persona non grata since then. Thus, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Everyking to have assumed it was like any other WP:BAN situation. In any case, I don't think it is a good idea to block people for 'violating' unstated 'special restrictions'. Also, I don't know that the 'legal explanation', that we have to make clear that his edits are not welcome, is really something covered at this level. Any sort of 'restraining order' to legally keep Amorrow off Wikipedia as a whole would certainly have to be filed by representatives of the foundation... and along the same 'making it clear' lines, a precursor for doing so would presumably be that the foundation would need to have said that he isn't welcome here. Which... they haven't. Lots of us users have, but there is no foundation level edict to this effect. I don't think even ArbCom has weighed in (officially). Technically, he is banned by a single admin... and the fact that nobody is going to undo it. Realistically, any sort of foundation level legal action seems unlikely. Individual users might complain to the police if his actions have been/are illegal, but then they'd presumably need only show that THEY have made clear they do not want him around... not that Wikipedia has done so. --CBD 15:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you have any knowledge of what this guy has done and continues to do in real life...furthermore, as I mentioned, his edits under various sock accounts are oftentimes BLP violations and are connected to his stalking activities. Banned editors do not get to edit...plain and simple...so reverting his contributions is not really controversial.--MONGO 18:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

CBD: "Remarkably" unwelcome is remarkably apt Please see Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#A and this mailing list post which has been cited multiple times. Amorrow is a special case, and in no way was this unstated. It has been mentioned over and over. Block on sight, revert on sight, per Jimbo. This has been explained at some length to Everyking, who has persisted in asserting he does not agree with policy. Disagreement is not an acceptable reason to go against policy. His revert warring over a deletion supported by policy and by fiat was disingenious, at best. I agree that the policy as written gives some tiny wiggle room for those who like to ruleslawyer. That apparently needs fixing, since some people can't avoid ruleslawyering. But this is open and shut. Everyking was warned, he knew better. (remember, he read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive308#The_return_of_Amorrow which was what brought him to my talk page to start badgering me about deleted content) I'd suggest that no one else restore any edits of Amorrow socks either. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, CBD speaks of the unlikelyhood of legal action. There was in fact talk of legal action at the time. I don't know what transpired there. However, I have reason to speculate that the reason we are facing this new onslaught is that Amorrow has recently been released from incarceration for a previous harassment case, and I would not at all be surprised to learn that what he is doing now is a parole violation. Consistent reversion of his edits will be an important component of any evidentiary submissions, I would expect. ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please remember that Everyking 1) Has a long history of disruption to this very page and was, for quite some time, banned from the Adminstrators' noticeboards pages (I don't know when that ban ended, but apparently it has), and 2) Offered to restore pages which were validly deleted and their deletion endorsed by a number of admins, so that people on anti-Wikipedia websites could salivate over the vicious stuff that Wikipedia admins do. It would take tons of salt before I, at least, would assume good faith where Everyking is concerned, and those commenting here should make themselves well aware of not only Everyking's history, but Amorrow's, as well. Corvus cornix 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
1) Some people claim a history of disruption here based on arguments I made here more than two years ago, which were essentially that admins should seek consensus in controversial cases and that proper reasoning for blocks, based in policy, should be given. I was banned from this page for two years by the ArbCom for making those arguments; the ban has not yet expired (it will on Nov. 11), but there is an exemption for matters concerning myself. 2) This is a complex matter, and I consider your version of it to be a serious misrepresentation. There was one page in question, there was (as far as I know) only one admin who endorsed that deletion, and I refrained from making any deleted content available due to my concerns about what it might contain and potential controversy that could result. If people want to hold such past events against me and consider me somehow suspect on those grounds, they should at least understand what that history actually is. I would suggest that we instead just look at reasoning and policy to evaluate this matter. Everyking 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No matter how much of a "serious misrepresentation" of the situation you may feel my comments are, The arbcom felt your actions sufficient to desysop you. Corvus cornix 20:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is true, but I am uninterested in an appeal to authority argument. Anyway, as I said before, I think we can look at this case best by focusing on the facts of what transpired and on what the policy on WP:BAN means (or should mean) and how it is applicable. Everyking 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lar, no offence mate, as much as a clear and frightening weirdo Amorrow can be, your remarks could be thought libellous (in the UK anyway, easy pickings I know) if wrong, so perhaps you might want to rephrase them? [although I agree 100% in reverting him instantly everywhere] Corvus cornix, I understand how heated this matter is, but Everyking has always claimed to be acting in good faith. We've never proven he isn't, we've just said that some wikibehaviour wasn't what the community was seeking in an admin. Extrapolation beyond that is probably unhelpful. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so there was foundation/legal action after all. Obviously that contradicts what I said... but it wasn't mentioned at all (let alone "over and over") in the first 30+ messages of this thread. Nor do I see any mention of it in the discussion leading up to the block. Indeed, the block itself and all discussion before and since (until now) consistently cited WP:BAN instead... and as noted there is a marked difference between what WP:BAN says and the stricter restrictions in the case of Amorrow. You state that Everyking must have known about this issue because of the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive308#The_return_of_Amorrow discussion... but there is no reference to the mailing list/Jimbo/the banned users list for special foundation/legal restrictions there either. I read alot of the back commentary before responding on this and it just wasn't cited. That really ought to have been the first thing brought up. You seem to be acting on the view that Everyking was ignoring this special prohibition... but you never actually linked to or explained the unique nature of it. Instead you cited WP:BAN... which just doesn't make the same case at all. Maybe he did know about it from some previous discussion... I dunno. But citing it would have made a world of difference in any case. --CBD 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Another ugly, pointless admin debate. Everyking's userspace should not be a big concern to anyone no matter who is editing it. If he wants to let the comments stand, so what? I really dislike this scorched earth/unperson business (to borrow Dan T's terminology). The overzealous misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies grows more ludicrous by the day. — Brian (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Two evils[edit]

This block has brought far, far more attention to Amorrow (whoever that is) than Everyking's edits did. If this guy is psychotic enough to have been bant from WP and that other anti-WP site whose name I forget than of course his influence should be gone forever, but I think the worse of two evils was chosen here :-\ It looks like acting on principle was detrimental to the principle itself in this case. Everyone should consider that in the future. Milto LOL pia 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What's a frown-star? ... If more editors are aware that he's back and are watching for signs of the sorts of trouble he causes, tis not all bad. If policy about reversion is clarified (in whatever way) tis not all bad. So I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks pretty much all bad from my perspective. You're not the one who now has this ridiculous block tarnishing his block log. Everyking 05:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If the block actually WERE "ridiculous", and if nothing at all else good came of this, I'd agree. But I think your perspective is a bit narrow. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
How is it ridiculous? Are you saying that you were not warned by an admin? Eiler7 12:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really. There was certainly no clear threat to block if I restored the comment. All I got was this from Lar: "It is POLICY that edits of banned editors may be removed by any editor. Restoring them, rather than rewording their thoughts in your own words and then standing behind them as your own words, is editing on their behalf, and is against policy. I suggest you not do that." Although I found the tone of that to be a little ominous, I was more incredulous than alarmed, since it seemed impossible to believe he would actually block me for such a thing. Furthermore, I felt that what Lar wrote was a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of what the policy says. So I restored the comment again and went to his talk page to propose that we seek a wider consensus on the meaning of the policy, but when I clicked save page on my comment I found that Kirill had already blocked me. In retrospect, I would have left the alleged sock's comment out when I proposed seeking wider consensus, but at the time I had no idea that they were going to escalate. If someone had acknowledged that I was correct in policy terms but said that Amorrow was privately considered a special exception, then the whole thing would have been quickly defused and could have been resolved quietly. Everyking 01:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Assuming your account of events is correct, I think that this was a failure by the admin. Prior to blocking, there should have been a warning on your talk page saying "I am an admin. Do not do action X. If you do, you may be blocked". Eiler7 11:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler trolling[edit]

User:Karnoff is trolling my talk page and his user space.Proabivouac 05:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake! All I did was ask him why I can't edit Adolf Hitler! Why is he calling me a troll?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karnoff (talkcontribs) 05:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old." That's why you can't edit it. Go edit something about puppies or flowers or something; you look like a troll because most people don't show up on Wikipedia, stick a swastika in their user profile and try and edit Adolf Hitler first thing. Oddly, that gives people the idea you might have a POV. --Thespian 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
He just left this comment on my user talk. Can someone just ban him for life? Really, I barely tolerate spending time trying to rehabilitate an editor that's been around a couple of months, this guy should go. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is blockable about that? ViridaeTalk 06:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, but someone blocked him already, apparently. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
His grammar, and the fact he used the term 'widout'? That's my vote. --Thespian 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hitler can't be trolling. Hitler is dead. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
He is? I thought he was hanging with Elvis someplace? :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
<rimshot/> Seriously though... blocked? Isn't that a bit much? --Bfigura (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
And declined too... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec*2) I have asked the blocking admin to explain. There was no trolling at all in my view, so I have no idea why they were blocked. ViridaeTalk 06:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins can look at the deleted userpage to see why the editor was blocked for trolling. You'll need to preview it.--chaser - t 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that. That is not instantly blockable. ViridaeTalk 06:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Viridae, if you want to try rehabilitating a lost cause, then unblock him. I think it's a waste of time.--chaser - t 06:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I want to see people actually given a chance to fuck things up before we jump down their throat because they might do so. Ass I said to Krimpet - he might be here to cause trouble, or he might be a kid with a nazi obsession that would liek to add something to their favourite subject. Accounts are blocked with ease when you have solid proof, why not wait for it? ViridaeTalk 06:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I have given him the benefit of the doubt and unblocked. ViridaeTalk 06:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He is trolling already on this page. It's very odd that you found the swastika on his user page unconvincing. --Mathsci 07:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
How exactly is that trolling... People are far too quick to use that word on wikipedia, and it rapidly poisons the atmosphere. ViridaeTalk 08:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm not an admin and can't see the swastika that was on his page, isn't it kind of ignoring WP:AGF to ban him/assume he's just trolling/write him off as a lost cause? I mean, so the guy has a swastika on his page - that doesn't mean that he's necessarily a Nazi - it just means he has a swastika on his page. Until he actually starts DOING stuff that proves he's editing in bad faith or POV-pushing, I'd have thought we would need to assume good faith about the guy. Just my $.02 anyway. -- Folic_Acid | talk  13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. It wasn't a little picture of a swastika with some historical context around it. It was a huge ASCII-art swastika that was the entirety of his user page. We don't need people who display things like that. Raymond Arritt 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Wait - he puts a picture of a swastika on his userpage, but the thing that's poisoning the atmosphere around here is when people use the word "trolling"? I probably wouldn't have blocked him, but let's think logically about what we say, shall we? - Philippe | Talk 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
To toss in 2 cents here, anyone who puts a swastika anywhere is perhaps the epitome of a disruptive person, much less a wiki user. It serves no purpose other than to inflame/incite. Tarc 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm still missing something. So he has a large ASCII swastika on his userpage. Does that automatically qualify one for blocking under some rule? I've certainly seen other users with pictures of less-than-desirable people and symbols on their talk pages, but they haven't been blocked. As far as I can tell, the guy has an interest in Adolf Hitler. Ok, fine - so do a lot of people, including a lot of very respectable people. IMHO, the guy was never even given a chance to prove himself a good editor or a troll. All he apparently did was commit some faux pas and immediately got squashed for it. I'd think that if we're going to block for trolling, one actually has to troll first, prior to being blocked. -- Folic_Acid | talk  16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It is quite distressing that another Wikipedian could brush aside the flamboyant display of a swastika as a mere "faux pas." Raymond Arritt 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing for nothing, but the Hitler comments aside, a Swastika on a user page could be for someone's religion, or something harmless. Just pointing that out. • Lawrence Cohen 18:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Second edit ("Oy!",)[15] fourth edit,[16] then immediately to ANI. How does he know me? How did he know about ANI? We are once again played for the collective fools we so obviously are.
AGF!Proabivouac 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed I am serious. I'm not "brushing aside" his behavior, but rather, am trying to assume good faith and not judge him too quickly. Frankly, it's a little worrisome to me that we're so quick to pass judgment on a new editor, merely because that editor isn't following what we more experienced editors consider to be good behavior. I'm not making a value judgment on Karnoff or on his interests. However, I continue to believe that the mere display of a swastika does not, by itself, constitute grounds for blocking, especially when little or no attempt was made to correct inappropriate behavior. If, after he starts editing, he displays himself to be a troll, then block him; but not before then. In fact, it looks like he was trying to apologize. -- Folic_Acid | talk  16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, no use continuing to argue over the past. I'll be closely watching his edits, and at the first evidence of disruptive behavior he'll be on the fast train to indef-land. Raymond Arritt 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the display of a swastika, in itself, is no grounds for a ban. More to the point, it's obviously not a "new editor," but a sock created to troll.Proabivouac 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
On what evidence can we base the conclusion that this user is a sockpuppet? -- Folic_Acid | talk  17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree w/ both Viridae and Raymond Arritt. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't see the problem, there is a half a dozen people watching him including myself - should it turn out to be a troll he will be very rapidly blocked indef. However nothing he did warranted indef blocking without warning. ViridaeTalk 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses have gone completely black on this user, but, reluctantly, I agree he must be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to display actual hate before we can assume it. Ronnotel 23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The standard should not be hateful views but like everyone else, incivility and trolling-like activities. It should be actually possible to have an editor here who is virulently a racist but is somehow civil (admittedly quite an accomplishment). We shouldn't block on the hatred but should block more strongly (I think certain attitudes justify a lower threshold of acceptable behavior) if there's any incivility or otherwise. I see enough of the "looks like this is a sock of user XX, or this guy doesn't do anything but vandalize or whatever and should be immediately blocked" before any substantive amount of edits have been done and I'm a little concerned about that. We already have enough issues with claims about the clique-like nature around here and sending users off because users (even if it's the majority) disagree with them on political grounds doesn't help that claim. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yup, as well as User:Kaktibhar. He's been doing a lot of disruption lately; if Jp were to include every sock he's made over the past little while, there'd be quite a few "fascist Bimbo Wales sockzi". ;) Shenerana 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks[edit]

As a result of this ANI thread, a few accounts have been blocked indefinitely between Oct. 14th and 15th. Haomo, chaser and me blocked indefinitely a total of 4 accounts belonging to User:Lahiru k. The blocks were based on the evidence gathered at the RFCU case against Lahiru k.

User:Iwazaki tried to explain to me and now discussing it at the CheckUser page that the IPs were "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" (allocated dynamically). I've have been receiving emails for these last days from emails apparently belonging to User:Netmonger and User:Lahiru k arguing about the same. What i could know is that allocated address space is address space that is distributed to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them. That's "subsequently" tricky. I just don't know if that is acceptable as a justification/defense. Indeed, supposing the IPs are in fact AP doesn't mean that they can be allocated to the same wikipedia editors who happen to edit the same articles w/in the whole Sri Lanka. One chance in a million? Lahiru is a known sock master (back on 2006) and this makes me feel that the blocks are still being justified and preventive.

I'd just like if some people know further details about "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" IPs could please try to tell us about their opinion and see if blocks could be undone. In any case, those set of articles need a bit of more attention. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I initiated a thread here and AmiDaniel supplied some info about it.--chaser - t 22:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Updates I have received some new evidence suggesting that User:Netmonger (who is both User:Mystìc and User:Arsath), User:Lahiru k (w/ a few sock accounts) and User:Kaushini are three different users. This means that they are not sock puppets but we can call them meatpuppets (Kaushini). If any admin would like to verify they'd just contact Lahiru k and Netmonger via email because i can't reveal any personal detail w/o authorization. The evidence is composed of ID cards, Passports details and a gmail screen showing that they are 2 different accounts in contact w/ each other. I've also received some old exchanged emails between these accounts and others showing that they are not the same person. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So is it conclusive that both Lahiru_k and Netmonger both used socks ? Also is it conclusive that these three are indeed meatpuppets ?---User:watchdogb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.81.182 (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It has already been conclusive that Lahiru k used socks on 2006 (see CheckUser list). Arsath/Mystic/Netmonger has a different story. These are the three accounts' edit periods (start/end)...
This means that the Mystic account was abandoned. Netmonger was then opened while preserving Arsath for exactly a week back on 2006. That is sockpuppetry (though was not longer than a week in a year span) but we can just keep Arsath and Mystic indef blocked since they are not allowed to edit anyway.
The only clear meatpuppet account is that of User:Kaushini and is related to User:Lahiru k. Since the account Kaushini (talk · contribs) has only edited a few edits and have not edited since 04:16, 17 November 2006 then we can keep it indef blocked. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So can I ask why wiki pedia process lets sock masters edit wikipedia ? Since Lahiru account used socks wouldn't it then mean that that account must be blocked ? I think so and I believe that wikiprocess also says the same. However, Netmonger account I am not sure about. Watchdogb 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree w/ you. If i were the blocking admin back on 2006 i'd have blocked User:Lahiru k indefinitely for being a sock master. {{sockpuppeteer|proven}}. Simple as that. This is what i did in fact in this case. I don't leave sock masters rooming around in cases of abusive sockpuppeting. Nevertheless, there are two points that should be asked. a) what to do w/ Lahiru k's case? He has been using abusive socks but no one so far in 2007. b) is CheckUser a reliable tool? c) What to do w/ ALLOCATED PORTABLE (AP) issues?
I personally believe that Lahiru k has to be unblocked since it appears that he's done nothing wrong in 2007 and i doubt there is an admin who would undo a decision taken by another admin after a year. But if there is i'd really support it. Netmonger has to be blocked for the same reasons. Both accounts were blocked for belonging to the same person when actually they are not. The rest will remain blocked.
The CheckUser system is honestly not effective. You get the evidence but here you are w/ another issue of AP (read AmiDaniel's opinion). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Also passport, ID and Gmail account screen shots can be borrowed and/or faked. There should not really be any unblock because of this. Another note is this Allocated IP. No one has clearly said that this is two distinct users who edit wikipeida. So in essence why are we giving special preference to a user ?
Honestly, AP issues have very little to do with it; they may, or may not, be dynamic and we can't see which specifically. I'd really like some clarification from all the parties, accounting for when, and where, they used the colliding IPs and more input from CheckUser about the Mystic/Laihru connection. --Haemo 21:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Have we all of a sudden forgotten a ton of behavioral evidence ? Is anyone really bothering to read that ? Sinhala freedom 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm still looking into that (sharing a POV isn't unusual for those from the same small geographic area, but there are a few other indicators).--chaser - t 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Honostly, can you explain to me why User:Elalan was blocked and Lahiru was not ? When Elalan used only one sock. All I can say is that I am sure there are others who are watching this debate right now Watchdogb 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very enthused about using this as a basis to unblock in part because such things can be faked, but more so because requiring that of suspected sockpuppets strikes me as an uncomfortable invasion of their privacy under the duress of an effective ban. Now that we have it, I think we should consider it, but this shouldn't become a precedent.--chaser - t 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But by doing this indeed you are setting a precedent. Its like we are rewriting and applying laws as we like with selective attention span. Sinhala freedom 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If this is basis for unblock, then it should. Otherwise this is hypocracyWatchdogb 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Is wikipedia against Tamil Editors ? Is that why Lahiru can have socks and Elalan can't ? Let me know Admins. Why are you considering Lahiru's appeal not Elalan who was claimed to be sock by a fake wikipedian (ESSAJAY). I am sure Tamils are watching this injustace by wikipedia. Watchdogb 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As I've said on Watchdogb's talk page, we're looking into this and haven't come to any decision yet. He shouldn't assume anything until that's done. I will consider future invitations to evade process as disruption and will block accordingly.--chaser - t 22:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand but how about users who are blocked who come and edit in their SSP case? Is that not in direct violations ? Or am I missing something here ? Watchdogb 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, technically. I think in this case blocked SSPs were told to only edit their talk page and have mostly stuck to that.--chaser - t 22:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There's no special treatment at all. I simply have had no idea who is/are Elalan and User:Trincodab. If you want equal treatment i'd ask you to bring some evidence they are not the same. i'm not a detective and i'd assume good faith and we are dealing w/ normal people though disruptive and not w/ criminals falsifying documents. i can easily verify that if i were a detective. If you could i'd definitely do the same and treat the Elalan/Trincodab w/ the same fairness.
And the CheckUser system is functioning well but when it deals w/ AP it turns into unverifiable (as in our case).
Lahiru k should have been indef last year and as i said above, it wasn't me who dealt w/ his 2006 case. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem that everyone should consider is that not all passports or other id are created equal. Sri Lanka's yellow id, anyone can recreate in their basement with a disposable inkjet and a laminator. Sri Lankan passports, unfortunately are not taken seriously by most Western countries since it too can be easily faked. I doubt there are holographic indicators even now. As a results to get a visa, lots of other forms of id and verification from third party individuals are sought. Sinhala freedom 23:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry guys. I admit I jumped on the horse and started to act without WP:AGF. I will let the admins do their job as they have no axe to grind in this matter. Hopefully everything will work out for the best of wikipedia. Watchdogb 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
With due respect I would like thank User:FayssalF User:Chaser User:Haemo for being impartial and looking at the issue from both viewpoints.You have shown what a firm and impartial Admin is.Thank you.Wikipedia runs because of Admins like You.
Earlier in Netmonger case .Netmonger misled that the account from which an email was sent to Wikiraja Even refusing to accept or refusing accept or deny is okay but going to extent of saying this My email address is my actual name, which I cannot reveal here. I mail only to users whom I know personally[17][18][19]

Assuming Good Faith an admin unblocked with an apology. Netmonger could have privately emailed the Admin and told him so.Further if your email and chatname is the same and your email is from a Popular service like Gmail or Yahoo.It only offers semi privacy as it is easy to guess and has happened in many chatrooms.[20][21]username and email same from Yahoo or Google offers little privacy.But replying from an email which I do not know but unarguably offers greater privacy is intriguing.But refuse to accept an email account which the same as his Wikipedia name only makes it more suspicious.Further he has used account 1 day after being blocked and posted the personal information of a user with whom he has had content dispute with another account Arsath.[22] . In contrast Lahiru has been great contributor to Wikipedia and oppose blocking people for there views,.Through I differ with him strongly ,I had accept his POV at times when they were backed by his arguments.I was really sorry to see him blocked unlike Netmonger who has used account to attack WikiRaja and post personal material against another user which Lahiru has not.Netmonger was blocked and then unblocked with apology later it was found he lied and blocked again to avoid this .[23][24]

Please note Arsath created Netmonger account and started editing even when the issue was in arbitration regarding his earlier block.[25]and it was declined.
But now it would better if the decision is refered to [26] to an Arbitration Committee for any unblock it should not be the Netmonger situation [27] where one is blocked and then unblocked and again blocked after it is found out he lied it is far to complex otherwise if an unblock is warrented I feel it should be done only by the Arbitration now as it has reviewed by another Admin and the block upheld .Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
No action has been taken yet and we are still looking at the matter in depth. It is really a mess but i am confident we will arrive to a fair decision very soon. Until now the accounts remain blocked indef. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins I also want you guys look into whether accounts have been shared, that is two accounts one in Sri Lanka and the other operated from USA, although operated by two individuals at times is also operated by single individual whenn needed such as violating 3RR, voting in XFD's when the other party is asleep. The evidence is langauge skills. The account holder from Sri Lanka has poor English command where the US account uses Queen's English but sometimes the Sri Lankan account starts using the impecable command of Queen's English. Infact we have evidence of the US account holder forgeting to sign on when trying to do some clean up of the Sri Lankan account. This can be caught only by checkuser of specific time frames. This issue is tantamount to taking the entire Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia organization for a ride by a bunch of people. So I think this really needs to go to Arbcomm. Thanks Taprobanus 03:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah no. This case won't clutter the ArbCom page. It will be resolved here. We are still dealing w/ it. It is just about time gathering all elements and solve the puzzle. This is what i think. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with FayssalF. A lot of this is happening via email and isn't readily apparent on-wiki. Please give us time. ArbCom is the last step of dispute resolution.--chaser - t 05:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The case already went to Arbcom in the Mystìc (talk · contribs) case.and was declined.[28]Hence was the suggestion to take it to Arbcom.Now the Same user has created another account just a day after he was blocked even when Arbcom was going on.I feel it should go the Arbcom particurly in the netmonger (talk · contribs) case.Further Netmonger has misled Admins in the past.Anyway have full faith in your judgement.Pharaoh of the Wizards 10:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Can what User:Taprobanus said be looked into please ? Watchdogb 12:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Could Taprobanus provide us w/ some diffs? That would be helpful. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Angelocasio continues to accuse editors of serious criminal acts[edit]

I had earlier (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive312#User:Angelocasio_accuses_another_editor_of_committing_criminal_acts) drawn attention to these postings by Angelocasio [[29]]. Unfortunately, and even after being given a warning, Angelocasio has continued to throw abuse about and make slanderous and offensive accusations, both on the entry's [[30]] talk page and in Angelocasio's own talk page. His most recent accusations like "none of you see anything wrong with harming children" and are "defending child predators" and (on his talk page) "Meowy likes the violation of innocents" are seriously over the top. I request that something stronger than a warning be given, and that his offensive and legally slanderous comments be erased. Meowy 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be careful with the "l" word. That said, I would support a strong {{uw-npa4}} warning on this user or perhaps a block for disruption (non-admin). x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin with preconceptions wiped out my proposal and wrote over it with his own[edit]

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_closing I requested my proposal that had been open for 7 days with 25 supports and 18 opposes be closed. I was hoping it be approved. However, an admin who previously started a The proposal, as it stands, is a massive waste of time section on the talk page of this proposal decided to wipe out my proposal and open his own. It is conceivable that some might agree to reconsider an alternate proposal, but I believe many would have closed debate as proposal approved because after the debate started at 10 oppose and 7 supports some tweaks were made to the proposal and it started meeting with great approval as revised. Is it appropriate for an admin with preconceptions to wipe out a proposal and write over it with his own?--TonyTheTiger (